Google defeats lawsuit claiming YouTube censors conservatives

originally posted by: milypr81
a reply to: intrepid

They censor a ton of right wing content. They have no problem leaving elsagate and jihadi material however.

An empty and unsourced disagreement doesn't magically make you correct. Got a list for this "ton of right wing content" that was censored? It would help if you also had access to Youtube's censorship and content takedown policy as well.

originally posted by: intrepid
I seriously doubt they censor conservative content. That's a #load of content. I'm assuming they censor SOME conservative content. I also assume they censor some OTHER content as well. You just don't hear whining about that.

Youtube censors all sorts of content and I have yet to see any evidence the censorship was based solely on the political nature/affiliation of the material. There always seems to be a clear violation of it's terms and conditions.

In this case, the material was not censored. They simply placed an age restriction on the material and placing reasonable age restrictions on certain material is not only accepted practice, in many cases it is the responsible thing to do.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

But they weren't. All that happened is that their videos now require age verification before viewing.

Is it censorship if someone needs to be 18 to purchase an R rated movie or an M rated game?

PragerU is neither R nor M rated. So yes.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

It's called an analogy. YouTube has their own guidelines for what they identify as mature content. If what the MPAA or ESRB does isn't censorship why would what YouTube does be considered censorship?

Hell, you don't even need to provide an ID to get around YouTube's age verification system. As long as you have an account and have your birth date set to say you're over 18 then you're set.

a reply to: introvert

So you think those that support the rights of others are censors. Got it.

You believe you're supporting the rights of others by defending censorship?

I don't think anyone mentioned human rights. We are talking about constitutional rights.

You are.

Why you do not support individual liberty and rights is beyond me.

Spoken as you defend google censoring people. I would laugh if it wasn't so worrying.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

It's called an analogy. YouTube has their own guidelines for what they identify as mature content. If what the MPAA or ESRB does isn't censorship why would what YouTube does be considered censorship?

It is censorship, and you can watch videos of people arguing in congress why that is the case.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah it took me more that a few conversations with him to understand this too. I always argue free speech along the 1st Amendment guidelines but he argues it philosophically and seems to imply that the philosophical ideal idea of free speech should be applied universally in reality. It's just not possible though.

Let's be honest, both you and Slap have confused the 1st with the principle it is meant to enshrine, and have framed your outlook of free speech on such a circular misunderstanding.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But a realist understands that totally free speech is impossible. Allowing you to have totally free speech can infringe on someone else's speech or other rights.

"Realists" used to think abolishing slavery was impossible. I don't subscribe to that argument.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What the PMRC was demanding is very different than a rating system.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Youtube does the same or more to the left-leaning sites than they do to the right.

The guy who brought the lawsuit is an idiot because his claim is Youtube discriminates against his site because it is right-leaning which is false and because youtube has every right to even if they did. He is the same guy who argued against net neutrality and now is acting like a child because a corporation is exercising its rights.

The ease with which you folks defend the rights of corporation to censor people is astounding.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

What the PMRC was demanding is very different than a rating system.

You should double check that one.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Grimpachi

Youtube does the same or more to the left-leaning sites than they do to the right.

The guy who brought the lawsuit is an idiot because his claim is Youtube discriminates against his site because it is right-leaning which is false and because youtube has every right to even if they did. He is the same guy who argued against net neutrality and now is acting like a child because a corporation is exercising its rights.

The ease with which you folks defend the rights of corporation to censor people is astounding.

Weeellllllllll we wouldn't have to if some would stop complaining about the corp's exercising those rights.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

But a realist understands that totally free speech is impossible. Allowing you to have totally free speech can infringe on someone else's speech or other rights.

"Realists" used to think abolishing slavery was impossible. I don't subscribe to that argument.

Um... Slavery isn't abolished. It was only made illegal, but it still exists in the world. Hell it even still exists in the US.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yeah it took me more that a few conversations with him to understand this too. I always argue free speech along the 1st Amendment guidelines but he argues it philosophically and seems to imply that the philosophical ideal idea of free speech should be applied universally in reality. It's just not possible though.

Let's be honest, both you and Slap have confused the 1st with the principle it is meant to enshrine, and have framed your outlook of free speech on such a circular misunderstanding.

Let us be honest? Who is "us"? You have a mouse in your pocket?

a reply to: intrepid

Weeellllllllll we wouldn't have to if some would stop complaining about the corp's exercising those rights.

Your principles shift as much as the sands they are built on.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: intrepid

Weeellllllllll we wouldn't have to if some would stop complaining about the corp's exercising those rights.

Your principles shift as much as the sands they are built on.

You have a cogent point?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let us be honest? Who is "us"? You have a mouse in your pocket?

Maybe it was a matter of ignorance and not honesty. Either way, this one misapprehension led to countless others.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let us be honest? Who is "us"? You have a mouse in your pocket?

Maybe it was a matter of ignorance and not honesty. Either way, this one misapprehension led to countless others.

I saw it as a matter of you projecting your opinions as facts and trying to sucker us into agreeing with you.

a reply to: intrepid

You have a cogent point?

I was pretty explicit about it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I saw it as a matter of you projecting your opinions as facts and trying to sucker us into agreeing with you.

Ignorance then. You saw it wrongly.