Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

a reply to: Krazysh0t

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.

I appreciate your reasonable responses here. It's like finding a pocket of fresh air in a room full of stink.

You're right. The "wisdom of generations" does not work in this case. But I would argue this is the result of a growing relativism among western culture. Because I doubt the same people would apply the same principle to colonialists. For instance, should Europeans be able to freely migrate to, say, Africa, without no concern for the indigenous people there?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Colonialism has only recently (within the last so many decades) been considered immoral, and mostly because the US keeps screwing # up overseas while being shown on the news for the whole world to see. But if you were to look at the wisdom of the generations then you'd see that colonialism was considered a good thing for a healthy empire through most of history. Heck, back in the biblical days empires were seen as the height of civilization and you lived in one if you wanted to call yourself "civilized".

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Colonialism has only recently (within the last so many decades) been considered immoral, and mostly because the US keeps screwing # up overseas while being shown on the news for the whole world to see. But if you were to look at the wisdom of the generations then you'd see that colonialism was considered a good thing for a healthy empire through most of history. Heck, back in the biblical days empires were seen as the height of civilization and you lived in one if you wanted to call yourself "civilized".

Yes, even slavery was considered a good thing, civilized, if not entirely natural. But in open societies that promote the free exchange of ideas, bad or unjust ideas such as slavery eventually fall to better ideas. It may be a long slow historical process, but it happens.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Colonialism has only recently (within the last so many decades) been considered immoral, and mostly because the US keeps screwing # up overseas while being shown on the news for the whole world to see. But if you were to look at the wisdom of the generations then you'd see that colonialism was considered a good thing for a healthy empire through most of history. Heck, back in the biblical days empires were seen as the height of civilization and you lived in one if you wanted to call yourself "civilized".

Yes, even slavery was considered a good thing, civilized, if not entirely natural. But in open societies that promote the free exchange of ideas, bad or unjust ideas such as slavery eventually fall to better ideas. It may be a long slow historical process, but it happens.

Actually, I think that is the biggest division to today's current political strife. Younger liberals, with access to more information than ever through the internet, are updating morality at a MUCH faster pace than was traditionally accepted causing a huge backlash from more conservative people since they like the way things have been and change is tough. Usually morality change waits until the older generations die, but with the internet, public morality can change six times before lunch. I'd be lying if I said that wasn't overwhelming.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Colonialism has only recently (within the last so many decades) been considered immoral, and mostly because the US keeps screwing # up overseas while being shown on the news for the whole world to see. But if you were to look at the wisdom of the generations then you'd see that colonialism was considered a good thing for a healthy empire through most of history. Heck, back in the biblical days empires were seen as the height of civilization and you lived in one if you wanted to call yourself "civilized".

Yes, even slavery was considered a good thing, civilized, if not entirely natural. But in open societies that promote the free exchange of ideas, bad or unjust ideas such as slavery eventually fall to better ideas. It may be a long slow historical process, but it happens.

Actually, I think that is the biggest division to today's current political strife. Younger liberals, with access to more information than ever through the internet, are updating morality at a MUCH faster pace than was traditionally accepted causing a huge backlash from more conservative people since they like the way things have been and change is tough. Usually morality change waits until the older generations die, but with the internet, public morality can change six times before lunch. I'd be lying if I said that wasn't overwhelming.

I completely agree.

Everyone is a conservative when it comes to the mores he agrees with. But what mores to keep and which ones to get rid of is a discussion only free speech can offer. Without it we’d still be stuck in theocracy or totalitarianism.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The internet happens to remain the best tool for free speech ever devised even with names like Google or Youtube censoring content. Even China can't totally keep a tight lid on it with their Great Firewall and stuff leaks through.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The internet happens to remain the best tool for free speech ever devised even with names like Google or Youtube censoring content. Even China can't totally keep a tight lid on it with their Great Firewall and stuff leaks through.

That’s true. It’s as liberating as the printing press was. But there are actors of any political or ideological stripe that would see the voices on it suppressed.

Yes, I agree it is Google’s right to censor anyone they choose for reasons of “safety” (an Orwellian reason if I’ve ever seen one), but I do not agree that censoring people is ethical, good, or safe. I believe it is the exact opposite.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I believe there is a purpose and place for everything. At times freedom of speech and the ability to speak your mind is good and at other times censorship is needed for things. It requires careful nuance and critical thought to apply these. UNFORTUNATELY those two things are sorely lacking these days, so its easy for them to be abused, and this is true for both freedom of expression and censorship.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: introvert


Well, to be fair, you are a doody head.

I strive to be the best I can be.

Mother would be proud...

a reply to: Southern Guardian

So what does that Actually Show here then ? A Monopolistic Corporation is Trying in their Humanistic Delusion to Conquer Da World through Virtual Political Manipulation ? Ah , Yeah ........Not .

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Nothing but scum sucking liberals in office,just look at the news and the liberal judges,getting as bad as the UK

originally posted by: Oldtimer2
Nothing but scum sucking liberals in office,just look at the news and the liberal judges,getting as bad as the UK

She was confirmed 90-0 by the Senate which means, my math is kinda crappy, that maybe some Republicans voted for her too.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The notion that a proper time and place exists for the exercising of ones rights baffles me.

It may be inconvenient to the whims of another, but that is certainly no reason for tyranny.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The notion that a proper time and place exists for the exercising of ones rights baffles me.

It may be inconvenient to the whims of another, but that is certainly no reason for tyranny.

You said it yourself. That if someone comes into your house and starts making a fool of themselves with their words, you'll show them the door. That's an example of what I'm talking about.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

im fully aware YouTube has the right as a private entity to infringe on the speech of its users, that doesnt change the fact they are doing it, which is my only statement, that you though you were somehow contradicting that is screwed up logic...


i would also remind you as a monopoly their actions effect the country as a state as a whole. so it is an important discussion that what was a private company that has now become such a large monopoly so as to be able to influence the nation en mass is employing censorship.

but i guess you want to look the other way cause "corporate monopoly rights!" or some such screwed up logic. you can thank whatever school you attended for making you gullible enough to support such screwed up actions, weren't you taught at all the danger of monopolies? werent you taught at all the important of free speech? dont you consider at all that when an entity obtains a certain level of power and influence theyve moved beyond "private" status?

this country by and large has screwed up logic to have allowed the nations monopolies to get to the sizes they are now.
but go ahead and tell me more about how they have the right to do this stuff and we should all just accept it....


eta: i should add the owner of youtube 'Google' has such a long history of ties to the cia and cooperation with the government, that continuing to call them a private company is just swallowing koolaid anymore... call them what they are. not what they pretend to be, not what they want you to think they are. they are state actors thru and thru.

originally posted by: NobodiesNormal
i would also remind you as a monopoly...

It what aspect(s), services or products are they effecting a monopoly?

a reply to: NobodiesNormal

You claim they are a corporate monopoly however if you tried to prove they are a corporate monopoly your case would fall apart.

Their product isn't unique and they are not the only ones offering that type of product.

Their product is more popular than others that doesn't make them a corporate monopoly, but it does make them successful.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well, I don't think its too far fetched to suggest that free speech can indeed be curtailed without involving the first.

The way I see it is that the first amendment was designed to keep the "government" from eradicating free speech, but I'm not convinced that means other entities and organizations are incapable of affecting free speech.

I'd even go so far as to say that it all comes down to power and.. err.. "ubiquitousness."

The reason I feel its important to look at it in this way is that powerful groups could rather easily start dissecting Rights simply by virtue of not being the government. The end result in such a scenario is pretty much the same as if the government was the one doing it.

In other words, given the hypothetical situation where say.. Google ends up wielding more power than the US government, would folks accept their eradication of rights solely due to them not being the government?

Personally, I think its a really interesting discussion. So, in this case we have YouTube allegedly censoring differing beliefs; is there any point that this no longer becomes acceptable? Or, as a "private" entity, do they have the ability to wield any level of power possible with immunity?

Was something like the first amendment written to avoid a general end result, or only to prevent the government from wielding that power specifically?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I believe there is a purpose and place for everything. At times freedom of speech and the ability to speak your mind is good and at other times censorship is needed for things. It requires careful nuance and critical thought to apply these. UNFORTUNATELY those two things are sorely lacking these days, so its easy for them to be abused, and this is true for both freedom of expression and censorship.

That's one of the eternal problems of free speech. Who decides what needs to be censored? Certainly not me. Certainly not you. I cannot think of one person, living or dead, who I would vote to make that decision. As we can see by looking at history, many censors from the inquisitors to the Gestapo thought otherwise.

a reply to: Serdgiam

Exactly right. Obviously official government censorship is oppressive, but governments with laws defending free speech have done more to protect free speech than the populations they govern. So it is a little disconcerting when the principle of free speech is applied only to governments.