Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Yes, I get it. But I have to wonder if you know the reasons why it is protected by the first amendment, and if you agree with those reasons.

Because governments suck. The end.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Answer my question first. Why should I acquiesce to your requests if you can't be bothered to fulfill mine?

The answer is no.

Which is also what happens when you apply a restriction to something as opposed to a ban. Restrictions are the same as removing a percentage of a whole, but at no point will a restriction become a ban. Now armed with this information a realistic person would see this creates room for nuance to adjust even rights so that society runs smoother. An example of this is allowing corporations or private individuals to dictate speech policy in their own properties.

Personally I prefer freedom to safety and order. The most repressive societies seem run pretty smoothly if you ask me.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Because governments suck. The end.

So does censorship.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Answer my question first. Why should I acquiesce to your requests if you can't be bothered to fulfill mine?

The answer is no.

Which is also what happens when you apply a restriction to something as opposed to a ban. Restrictions are the same as removing a percentage of a whole, but at no point will a restriction become a ban. Now armed with this information a realistic person would see this creates room for nuance to adjust even rights so that society runs smoother. An example of this is allowing corporations or private individuals to dictate speech policy in their own properties.

Personally I prefer freedom to safety and order. The most repressive societies seem run pretty smoothly if you ask me.

Meanwhile, the freest states don't run at all. See: Somalia. There has to be balance between freedom and restrictions. Society, in order to function, requires you to cede at least part of your rights for the greater good.

This is what's so great about the US. Our rights aren't defined by our government, they are protected from the government infringing on them. It's a great balance.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
So you think that alcohol companies should be free to sell to children.

16 year old me would have given you a very loud 'hellz to the yes'.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
Krazy said that Google isn't a search engine monopoly like any rational person would choose something else.

I like to use Bing and give the other non-monopoly some love.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Meanwhile, the freest states don't run at all. See: Somalia. There has to be balance between freedom and restrictions. Society, in order to function, requires you to cede at least part of your rights for the greater good.

Somalia is not free.

Our behaviour is best dictated by personal morality and free will, not authority and coercion.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
So does censorship.

When the Congress tries to censor us on YouTube give me a shout from over there in Non-Americaland.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Somalia is not free.

Our behaviour is best dictated by personal morality and free will, not authority and coercion.

The problem with that is morality is subjective to the individual. If someone happens to think murder is morally ok then who are you to say he is wrong if there is no authority to stop him?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The problem with that is morality is subjective to the individual. If someone happens to think murder is morally ok then who are you to say he is wrong if there is no authority to stop him?

Not really. A large part of morality is inherited. The wisdom of generations attest to their merits. They have gone through a long period of trial and error.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You brought up child marriage, the constitution, none of which has anything to do with what I said nor the topic. And your logic is not logic, despite your pretence.

It has everything to do with the context of what you were talking about.

You seem to be taking a "finger in the ears" approach and have yet to even address the aspect of age restriction.

Excuse me if I suspect your assessment regarding honesty and integrity is entirely fake.

It appears you like to repeat yourself over and over, without actually providing a logical counter point. Not to mention you seem to fail to understand the meaning of "fake".

It’s fake because it is done in bad faith and full of fallacy.

See. That is not fake. And I would also like to know what fallacies you are talking about.

Unsurprisingly, you have yet to actually offer any intelligent response.

All you have offered is a verbose rendition of "nuh uh. You're a doody head". So far, your argument flies in the face of constitutional standards and simple logic.

a reply to: introvert


Well, to be fair, you are a doody head. You're correct, but still a doody head.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

You brought up child marriage, the constitution, none of which has anything to do with what I said nor the topic. And your logic is not logic, despite your pretence.

It has everything to do with the context of what you were talking about.

You seem to be taking a "finger in the ears" approach and have yet to even address the aspect of age restriction.

Excuse me if I suspect your assessment regarding honesty and integrity is entirely fake.

It appears you like to repeat yourself over and over, without actually providing a logical counter point. Not to mention you seem to fail to understand the meaning of "fake".

It’s fake because it is done in bad faith and full of fallacy.

See. That is not fake. And I would also like to know what fallacies you are talking about.

Unsurprisingly, you have yet to actually offer any intelligent response.

All you have offered is a verbose rendition of "nuh uh. You're a doody head". So far, your argument flies in the face of constitutional standards and simple logic.

Well look at you go. If I knew I'd be stuck in your mouth this whole time I would have given your nonsense more thought.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The problem with that is morality is subjective to the individual. If someone happens to think murder is morally ok then who are you to say he is wrong if there is no authority to stop him?

Not really. A large part of morality is inherited. The wisdom of generations attest to their merits. They have gone through a long period of trial and error.

Maybe, but that doesn't make it NOT subjective though. Look at this way (I really don't want to do this, but I'm going to bring up another hot button political topic), morality of illegal immigration. There is a significant portion of the US that things it is morally wrong to kick people living happily albeit illegally in the country out of the country, meanwhile there is another significant portion of the country that thinks it is morally wrong that they are in the country illegally and it is morally correct to kick them out. Your argument about the "wisdom of generations" doesn't hold up here since Americans have been arguing over immigration morality since 1791. Neither side wants to budge and the morality of the day goes to whichever side is more politically active at the time.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why would I stop using YouTube? Why would I stop critizing YouTube and Google? It's a huge platform that dominates everyone and everything I use revolves around my Google account. I wish I had a more neutral program that didn't hush wrong think

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JDmOKI
You have liberal you tube armies flag videos and YouTube demontizes them so they can't make money off certain videos. You tube also hired tons of moderators and algorithms that make it so you don't see certain creators to save us from their fake news. 1984 where everyone gets one narrative from thealmighty Google.

You say that like that aren't also armies of conservative groups that go around manipulating, trolling, or harassing liberals/liberal sites for their own agendas.

Though if you don't like Youtube, you are free to stop using it. No one is forcing you to use it. Though I imagine it'll be tough to be a conspiracy theorist going forward since that seems to be the chief repository used to "prove" wacko fringe theories (kind of like the one you just made in this post).

If you support this crap go cash your soro's check

I'm still waiting for these Soros checks I'm supposed to get for being a liberal. Do me a favor and tell Soros to hop to it since you seem to know his behaviors and spending habits so well.

Basement trolls? Your rebuttal is basement trolls everyone should ignore. Maybe you wouldn't be so uptight if you didn't read comment sections on websites.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wish I had a more neutral program that didn't hush wrong think

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wish I had a more neutral program that didn't hush wrong think

You can if you're Google.

originally posted by: JDmOKI

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JDmOKI
You have liberal you tube armies flag videos and YouTube demontizes them so they can't make money off certain videos. You tube also hired tons of moderators and algorithms that make it so you don't see certain creators to save us from their fake news. 1984 where everyone gets one narrative from thealmighty Google.

You say that like that aren't also armies of conservative groups that go around manipulating, trolling, or harassing liberals/liberal sites for their own agendas.

Though if you don't like Youtube, you are free to stop using it. No one is forcing you to use it. Though I imagine it'll be tough to be a conspiracy theorist going forward since that seems to be the chief repository used to "prove" wacko fringe theories (kind of like the one you just made in this post).

If you support this crap go cash your soro's check

I'm still waiting for these Soros checks I'm supposed to get for being a liberal. Do me a favor and tell Soros to hop to it since you seem to know his behaviors and spending habits so well.

Basement trolls? Your rebuttal is basement trolls everyone should ignore. Maybe you wouldn't be so uptight if you didn't read comment sections on websites.

Nice try, but no. These trolls do more than solely plague comments sections. There are very REAL harassment campaigns undertaken against people where death threats are sent to them, their kids are harassed, people have had stuff MAILED to their home addresses, their private info gets doxxed on right wing websites. And all it takes for these harassment campaigns to kick off is for Donald Trump to say he doesn't like someone. It doesn't matter if he was correct in his pronouncement or if the person he is hating on is vindicated in the long run, that person is GETTING harassed.

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I wish I had a more neutral program that didn't hush wrong think

You can if you're Google.

It's a good thing their motto is "Don't Be Evil" right?