- 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 2:45 pm to slackster
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:45 pm to slackster
quote:
but I also understand that mixing business and pleasure may have been a poor choice in this case.
Nah, the ruling as to that was barely a speed bump for him, though.
1
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:46 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Do you disagree with the ruling on that?
oh i think the ruling was really terrible and could lead to some truly troubling results when/if it becomes real precedent
quote:
I don't know that you can distinguish personal from "official" proclamations of a president.
it's not possible and no "judicial test" will solve it
also, the most absurd part is the people aren't IP banned or anything. they just have to view his tweets on a different account. they were made that they wouldn't be able to view/respond from their checkmarked/famous accounts. it's absurd
it's like saying the person isn't banned from the "public square" but their first choice of pen, is
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:47 pm to slackster
quote:
The person's role as a private citizen certainly did.
the dispute is over the account and forum, not the person
otherwise, you're creating different forms of speech with different restrictions, based on political rank
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:49 pm to LSU316
quote:
quote:
WTF. What do they have against an accurate and in-depth presentation of WW1!?
quote:
The types of people that caused the issues that led to that war are currently taking over world politics again....so yea.
Monarchs?
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:49 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
Nah, the ruling as to that was barely a speed bump for him, though.
Yeah I don't mean to imply he has some baggage because of the ruling, I'm just talking about the legal decision going against him.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
it's not possible and no "judicial test" will solve it
quote:
The President 1 and multiple members of his administration have described
2 his use of the Account as official. The President has stipulated that he, with the
3 assistance of Defendant Daniel Scavino, uses the Account frequently “to
4 announce, describe, and defend his policies; to promote his Administration’s
5 legislative agenda; to announce official decisions; to engage with foreign political
6 leaders; to publicize state visits; [and] to challenge media organizations whose
7 coverage of his Administration he believes to be unfair.” Id. at 56. In June 2017,
8 then-White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer stated at a press conference that
9 President Trump’s tweets should be considered “official statements by the
10 President of the United States.” Id. at 55-56. In June 2017, the White House
11 responded to a request for official White House records from the House
12 Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence by referring the Committee to a
13 statement made by the President on Twitter.
quote:
also, the most absurd part is the people aren't IP banned or anything. they just have to view his tweets on a different account. they were made that they wouldn't be able to view/respond from their checkmarked/famous accounts. it's absurd
I do agree with this. The workaround was super simple - just logoff.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 2:51 pm to SlowFlowPro
The question I have, though, is, could Trump shut his Twitter down under the ruling and move to a platform with a different construct?
Posted on 10/3/19 at 3:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
different forms of speech with different restrictions, based on political rank
Well, I mean that's pretty much how it is already.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 3:03 pm to slackster
quote:
I do agree with this. The workaround was super simple - just logoff.
But that's the point. They weren't mad they couldn't respond to Trump, they were mad they couldn't be seen by all their other blue check friends responding to Trump.
I mean how are you supposed to virtue signal to your friends if your friends don't know you're the one virtue signaling?
Style over substance and such.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 3:23 pm to slackster
quote:
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.
sure is !!!
you're creeping back into my top 3 posters dude
Posted on 10/3/19 at 3:52 pm to Mr Perfect
quote:
this is just cutting off any violence from advertising. has zero to do with conservative or liberal
Lol. Do you actually believe this?
Posted on 10/3/19 at 3:53 pm to Jcorye1
yes?
Posted on 10/3/19 at 4:00 pm to Salmon
quote:
so The Great War channel was a conservative channel? Why would a channel about the WWs being political at all? I'm confused
I wasn't speaking to that specific channel, but to the quote which discussed political versus corporate reasons for the actions.
As to slackster, the demonetization coupled with shenanigans re: searching (see S. Crowder) will inevitably push out content because those people will not be abler to rely on their content to make a living.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 4:11 pm to udtiger
I'm someone who doesn't always blame YouTube for demonetization. A lot of it is a bunch of average joes with charisma and a good on screen presence who got real big real quick who don't understand just what type of content is and is not advertiser friendly, but this is just BS on YouTube's part.
YouTube has to be one of the most poorly run companies on the planet. I am astounded at how clueless and tone deaf they can be.
YouTube has to be one of the most poorly run companies on the planet. I am astounded at how clueless and tone deaf they can be.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 4:21 pm to udtiger
quote:
Their primary purpose is to choke off/starve independent content.
This, they are trying to create their own stars.
Take the black girl who lived in the van(lol). Out of no where, she's being promoted by retard defranco, then another video of him pimping her. Suddenly, she's getting 100K subs by the hour. People being subbed to her, w/o their consent. Fake arse subs.
Suddenly, her channel is called out, and the subs slow to a crawl. People still getting subbed to her w/o approval or accepting the sub.
Fake youtube stars=more $ for them, and they can control them. Pewdiepie became to big, and they couldn't control him.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 4:33 pm to Mr Perfect
quote:
you're creeping back into my top 3 posters dude
Oh wow golly gee!
You’re such a tool
Posted on 10/3/19 at 5:34 pm to prplhze2000
They are typical cock sucking libs.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 6:20 pm to prplhze2000
Haven’t read anything other than the first page itt. However, frick YOUTUBE communist motherfrickers.
The best thing that could happen to YouTube is to have another video streaming service not run by thought police and communist pieces of shite.
The best thing that could happen to YouTube is to have another video streaming service not run by thought police and communist pieces of shite.
Posted on 10/3/19 at 6:23 pm to prplhze2000
Posted on 10/3/19 at 6:31 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Google is a private sector company. Unless you want big government to regulate what they can and cannot offer their customers, then you should patronize companies that are more in line with your views.
People like you do not understand this thing at all. Like don’t understand it one bit.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News