- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: YouTube demonetizes The Great War channel.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:09 pm to victoire sécurisé
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:09 pm to victoire sécurisé
quote:
Google is not the US government. You have no right to free speech on Google’s property.
the ruling on Trump's twitter is kind of eating away at this
if Twitter is a "public form" subject to regulation, then larger platforms like Youtube should, logically, fall under the same umbella
1
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:10 pm to Dead End
quote:
I love this standard leftist response.
, it's the exact same response people up in arms about California's college pay law. "If you don't like the NCAA, start a new platform"
The only difference is that people tend to claim the California law is a bunch of leftist SJW BS.
It's comical how similar the left/right defenses are at their core.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the ruling on Trump's twitter is kind of eating away at this if
Twitter is a "public form" subject to regulation, then larger platforms like Youtube should, logically, fall under the same umbella
You know that's not how the ruling was made.
The ruling was if government officials use the platform to conduct business (essentially opening up their own thread for dialogue), then that thread needs to be open to all. You cannot block users from participating in that discussion.
I sort of see the logic there. If you start a conversation, you have to keep it open to the public. If you want the privacy protections of a regular Joe, you cannot use your account for government business.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:24 pm to slackster
quote:
The ruling was if government officials use the platform to conduct business (essentially opening up their own thread for dialogue), then that thread needs to be open to all. You cannot block users from participating in that discussion.
that's utterly retarded because it's a private platform
if Trump hosts a gathering at his house, he's allowed to choose who he invites. hell, try being a random journalist strolling up to the WH for a briefing. even our actual government doesn't work that way
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:24 pm to Klark Kent
quote:
Thought a little. Still not buying your typical horseshite. If that’s the case how does the History channel maintain advertisers on public television?
I'd imagine it's because the History Channel doesn't have the following ad-friendly guidelines.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's utterly retarded because it's a private platform if Trump hosts a gathering at his house, he's allowed to choose who he invites. hell, try being a random journalist strolling up to the WH for a briefing. even our actual government doesn't work that way
The court addressed that too. They basically said that because Trump's Twitter is otherwise open to the public at large, blocking users is unconstitutional. If he had a private account from the get go, they may have decided differently.
Court Opinion
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:29 pm to Dr RC
quote:
IMO the nefarious route would be it's probably more likely that YouTube isn't trying to silence people whose ideals don't jive with theirs so much as they are getting paid to push content created by corporations with deep pockets and are fine with a side effect being that it cuts off revenues for smaller independent creators.
Their primary purpose is to choke off/starve independent content.
Because progs/libs have an infinitely easier road to access the MSM for messaging, the added bonus is that its right leaning and conservative voices that are silenced.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:30 pm to slackster
quote:
They basically said that because Trump's Twitter is otherwise open to the public at large, blocking users is unconstitutional.
and that is idiotic
Twitter is either private or it isn't
This post was edited on 10/3/19 at 2:31 pm
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:31 pm to udtiger
so The Great War channel was a conservative channel?
Why would a channel about the WWs being political at all?
I'm confused
Why would a channel about the WWs being political at all?
I'm confused
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:31 pm to udtiger
quote:
Their primary purpose is to choke off/starve independent content. Because progs/libs have an infinitely easier road to access the MSM for messaging, the added bonus is that its right leaning and conservative voices that are silenced.
You do understand that the videos are still on YouTube, right? Not having ads =/= being silenced.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:31 pm to Dead End
quote:
I love this standard leftist response.
They are giddy that speech and ideas are being stifled (not sniffled).
This post was edited on 10/3/19 at 2:33 pm
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:32 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and that is idiotic
Twitter is either private or it isn't
Agreed
Plus I find the pettiness of a President blocking someone to be hilarious
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:32 pm to slackster
what about if Youtube makes their algorithm so even if you search the name "The Year Where 4Chan Won", you won't find the video of the name
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:33 pm to Salmon
quote:
Plus I find the pettiness of a President blocking someone to be hilarious
the funniest part is all the DEM politicians who are now involved in lawsuits b/c they've blocked people
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:35 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
what about if Youtube makes their algorithm so even if you search the name "The Year Where 4Chan Won", you won't find the video of the name
I just searched "The Year Where 4Chan Won" on YT and its the 5th video on the 1st page
This post was edited on 10/3/19 at 2:36 pm
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:36 pm to Salmon
ETA
it's way at the bottom of page one
it's still something, though, b/c it should easily be #1
it's way at the bottom of page one
it's still something, though, b/c it should easily be #1
This post was edited on 10/3/19 at 2:38 pm
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
and that is idiotic
Twitter is either private or it isn't
I can see both arguments, but the court seems to think his account is public. The 2nd District was unanimous and 2 of the 3 were Bush appointees.
quote:
President Trump established his account, with the handle
11 @realDonaldTrump, (the “Account”) in March 2009. No one disputes that before
12 he became President the Account was a purely private one or that once he leaves
13 office the Account will presumably revert to its private status. This litigation
14 concerns what the Account is now.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:39 pm to slackster
the courts are trying to re-shape our constitution with technology they don't understand, which leads to absurd results
the account did not change
Twitter did not change
no amount of word soup can alter that reality
the account did not change
Twitter did not change
no amount of word soup can alter that reality
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:43 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the courts are trying to re-shape our constitution with technology they don't understand, which leads to absurd results
the account did not change
Twitter did not change
no amount of word soup can alter that reality
Do you disagree with the ruling on that? I don't know that I do. I don't know that you can distinguish personal from "official" proclamations of a president.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the account did not change
Twitter did not change
The person's role as a private citizen certainly did.
Like I said, I see the slippery slope side of it, but I also understand that mixing business and pleasure may have been a poor choice in this case.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News