Anti establishment and non conformist.Originally Posted by sonatine
COOL STORY, OLD.
The Russians have been trying to reach you btw
Anti establishment and non conformist.
COOL STORY, OLD.
The Russians have been trying to reach you btw
It sounds like you aren't very familiar with much of Google's more controversial business practices. Thanks to various lawsuits exposing what goes on behind the curtain, this is something you could definitely rectify if you chose. The fact that Google video tapes almost everything and most of the stuff being exposed is stuff that is forbidden to be video taped when it is going on, pretty much is an admission of guilt they are being unethical and potentially breaking the law.
Exactly no one but a handful of very dull, very scared white people agree with you on any of this and I mean any of this.
I have weaned myself completely off of Facebook and Twitter. Doing my best with Youtube and Google, but it isn't easy. I would not be surprised if there was a huge backlash against social media at some point in the not too distant future.
Ok, enough fun here for now. Time to get to work on my losing DFS lineups.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
Even tho Shapiro and Crowder are the two most annoying dudes on the planet they shouldn't be banned. This crap that twitter's pulling is bullshit, that platform decides elections and should honor our American freedom of speech laws. Yea there's a war on whitey or anything that doesn't embrace open borders. Lauren Southern and some other people from the right got detained in the UK and iirc banned for life.
The ADL is working w YT on a censorship tool, it's almost ready and last but not least. YT got busted banning the hire of whites and Asians. Joking about black slaves and then deleting the evidence from the cloud. I'm surprised how well they covered this up, well they're google so yea.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtube...ays-1519948013
I think the recruiter who exposed this may of been Jewish, if so respect to him.
so youre saying they are 'entitled' to access?
show me in the constitution where conservative agitators are entitled to resources from privately held corporations please.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
I should probably just pay for WSJ. I get links to articles a lot I can't read due to the paywall.
Same here. Fuck social media.
HILLARY WON
It's nowhere to be found, but its surprising you hold such values or can't understand someone who does considering how much time you spend posting on this site.
so youre saying they are 'entitled' to access?
show me in the constitution where conservative agitators are entitled to resources from privately held corporations please.
But really what it comes down to is the libtards strong arming these corporations that are headed by cuck beta faggots to do whatever they say so they can win the propaganda war.
/thread
The important distinction here is that Crowder isn't complaining about being banned (or having his employees banned) from SxSW.
They went in there to purposely disrupt panels for lulz, they got thrown out, they got banned.
Fine. Even Crowder himself isn't trying to claim unfair treatment there.
The problem comes from unrelated companies -- Twitter, YouTube, Facebook -- refusing to let him show this year's video of what led to his employee's banning.
Why are they getting in the middle of this?
Crowder's video does not break any laws, does not show any nudity, does not release anyone's personal information, and does not violate any privacy.
It was taken in a semi-public setting (semi-public meaning anyone was welcome to walk in, provided they paid their admission fee and weren't banned), and it did not violate Texas recording laws.
YouTube initially claimed that it was because Sven Computer said, "I'm a big idiotic", so they bleeped the word "idiotic" and re-uploaded it.
Gone.
Then YouTube tried to claim it was a "privacy" violation -- that people appeared in the video without Crowder giving them permission. Since when was giving permission to film a requirement of YouTube?
Still, Crowder blurred everyone's faces (except Sven), and again, the video was quickly deleted for privacy violations.
It's clear this one is ideological. Furthermore, Twitter and Facebook banning people for LINKING the video is just LOL.
Legally you're correct.
so youre saying they are 'entitled' to access?
show me in the constitution where conservative agitators are entitled to resources from privately held corporations please.
But it's unsettling to me that a handful of corporations have almost complete dominance of social media and are censoring based on content, or at least marginalizing content they view as undesirable. It's unsettling to me even if the content being marginalized is content I don't like.
In my mind it's inconsistent to criticize Facebook for standing by while foreign agents manipulate their platform to influence American elections, but not seek to hold them to account when they use the platform to push a particular social agenda or prevent others from pushing their social agenda. Both are a perversion of the concept of the public arena.
Throughout American history the dominant form of media whether it was newspapers, radio, TV or whatever, offered enough diversity that many voices could be heard. Yes there were privately owned media and they often reflected the viewpoint of their owners, but if you don't like the views of the NY Times you can read the Wall Street Journal. If you don't like MSNBC you can watch Fox News. If Facebook, YouTube and Twitter don't let you collect followers and disseminate your views because of their content, there is basically nowhere else to go to reach as many people as quickly and easily. Much of our civic discourse now occurs on social media and has thus been swallowed up by a very small group of monolithic companies. Like huge financial institutions whose fingerprints are all over the economy of the country and have been labelled too big to fail, making them subject to extra regulations, companies with huge influence over the public sphere cannot be allowed to determine who has the right to promote their views and who does not.
I'm not sure what the best solution is but it's naive to think there is not a problem.
HILLARY WON
Legally you're correct.
But it's unsettling to me that a handful of corporations have almost complete dominance of social media and are censoring based on content, or at least marginalizing content they view as undesirable. It's unsettling to me even if the content being marginalized is content I don't like.
In my mind it's inconsistent to criticize Facebook for standing by while foreign agents manipulate their platform to influence American elections, but not seek to hold them to account when they use the platform to push a particular social agenda or prevent others from pushing their social agenda. Both are a perversion of the concept of the public arena.
Throughout American history the dominant form of media whether it was newspapers, radio, TV or whatever, offered enough diversity that many voices could be heard. Yes there were privately owned media and they often reflected the viewpoint of their owners, but if you don't like the views of the NY Times you can read the Wall Street Journal. If you don't like MSNBC you can watch Fox News. If Facebook, YouTube and Twitter don't let you collect followers and disseminate your views because of their content, there is basically nowhere else to go to reach as many people as quickly and easily. Much of our civic discourse now occurs on social media and has thus been swallowed up by a very small group of monolithic companies. Like huge financial institutions whose fingerprints are all over the economy of the country and have been labelled too big to fail, making them subject to extra regulations, companies with huge influence over the public sphere cannot be allowed to determine who has the right to promote their views and who does not.
I'm not sure what the best solution is but it's naive to think there is not a problem.
Are you going to wax poetic about the philosophical dangers of artists monopolizing the art scene next?
And whats with all these scientists dictating what is or isnt science?
Corporations are clamping down on toxic behavior where they find it. Its really just that simple. Not to mention, the right wing already has a media platform; church.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
nu-internet shitsites like twitter and reddit suck. they have every right to suck, but they still suck.
Legally you're correct.
But it's unsettling to me that a handful of corporations have almost complete dominance of social media and are censoring based on content, or at least marginalizing content they view as undesirable. It's unsettling to me even if the content being marginalized is content I don't like.
In my mind it's inconsistent to criticize Facebook for standing by while foreign agents manipulate their platform to influence American elections, but not seek to hold them to account when they use the platform to push a particular social agenda or prevent others from pushing their social agenda. Both are a perversion of the concept of the public arena.
Throughout American history the dominant form of media whether it was newspapers, radio, TV or whatever, offered enough diversity that many voices could be heard. Yes there were privately owned media and they often reflected the viewpoint of their owners, but if you don't like the views of the NY Times you can read the Wall Street Journal. If you don't like MSNBC you can watch Fox News. If Facebook, YouTube and Twitter don't let you collect followers and disseminate your views because of their content, there is basically nowhere else to go to reach as many people as quickly and easily. Much of our civic discourse now occurs on social media and has thus been swallowed up by a very small group of monolithic companies. Like huge financial institutions whose fingerprints are all over the economy of the country and have been labelled too big to fail, making them subject to extra regulations, companies with huge influence over the public sphere cannot be allowed to determine who has the right to promote their views and who does not.
I'm not sure what the best solution is but it's naive to think there is not a problem.
Good post hongshitter. although hongthonger hates what I say he respects my 1st amendment right, so he's not a 0 more like a 1-2
I don't think those are analogous.
Are you going to wax poetic about the philosophical dangers of artists monopolizing the art scene next?
And whats with all these scientists dictating what is or isnt science?
Corporations are clamping down on toxic behavior where they find it. Its really just that simple. Not to mention, the right wing already has a media platform; church.
Artists don't control the art scene. Anyone can make what they call art and try to get others to like it.
Scientists accept what has been proven through the scientific method, and nobody has a monopoly on doing science.
In those cases, content may be rejected after it is evaluated by its consumers for quality. Content is not kept out of the arena in the first place.
HILLARY WON
They suck soooooo bad
HILLARY WON
Show me someone who was preemptively banned from any of the platforms at bar tho. The people being lionized by conservitards are professional agitators at best.
When William Buckley gets censored, I'll fucking march with them.
To be clear; the people impacted are not right wing intellectuals looking to balance a dialog, they are hack wanna be reality tv stars trying to get twitter rich, and their contributions are well documented and utterly disruptive and retarded. They caught their 3 strikes ages ago and now they have to sleep in the beds they made.
Last edited by sonatine; 03-16-2018 at 05:57 PM.
"Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." - Alejandro Jodorowsky
"America is not so much a nightmare as a non-dream. The American non-dream is precisely a move to wipe the dream out of existence. The dream is a spontaneous happening and therefore dangerous to a control system set up by the non-dreamers." -- William S. Burroughs
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote
