|
you know this wouldn't even be an issue if everyone just ran an adblocker and took the power from the advertisers because nobody would see their poo poo
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Unless you consider youtube a utility instead of a service (lol), you're not entitled to anything whatsoever. Why aren't you freedom of speech people equally upset at SA for all it's vile censorship? It's my constitutional right to post goatcx and derail every thread with gamergate, you don't want to CENSOR me do you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:Unless you consider youtube a utility instead of a service (lol), you're not entitled to anything whatsoever. Why aren't you freedom of speech people equally upset at SA for all it's vile censorship? It's my constitutional right to post goatcx and derail every thread with gamergate, you don't want to CENSOR me do you? yes, that's right, YouTube shouldn't be forced to host content at gunpoint. Now, setting aside what they must do, one might suggest what they should do, like "minimize censorship."
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
beep boop there is no law against this
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
Youtube (and twitter, facebook, g+, and GBS) will stop caring about their new rules on what is or isn't allowed to post as soon as the election is over. It's important to control what people think and say right now because Trump might be leading, and they feel obligated to "fix" peoples opinions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
These aren't even new rules. They are just clarifying things that have existed for a year
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:These aren't even new rules. They are just clarifying things that have existed for a year no they are just being selectively enforced against people who don't say the right things and have the right opinions, like on twitter or facebook or even gbs no big deal so long as you toe the line, have the right beliefs, and vote the right way, then who cares right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
the thing is the old mainstream media has an approval rating of like 6% right now - we have to make sure people stop hearing this competing narrative from the "alt right" or else Hillary might not get her presidency - and it's her turn.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:I would like to see the Bitch Robocop movie
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Zorodius posted:yes, that's right, YouTube shouldn't be forced to host content at gunpoint. I was responding to the guy who specifically brought up the bill of rights and how wrong it is for a corporation to disregard it. Sure they should do what they can to minimize censorship, but it's worth pointing out this has nothing to do with what youtube does and does not host, and it never did.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
emoji posted:There is literally no 'produced' YouTube content worth watching anyway with the exception of pirated slightly hard to find TV shows which stay up bc they slightly alter the pitch to avoid auto takedown, and they're not going to censor the boring-rear end hydraulic press videos/baby animal/weed science/epic fail complications making up the other 95% of YouTube. I've never compelled to subscribe to a single channel ever. People simply don't put serious creative work on YouTube as the primary outlet. what about retsupurae, eh? EH???
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:Unless you consider youtube a utility instead of a service (lol), you're not entitled to anything whatsoever. Why aren't you freedom of speech people equally upset at SA for all it's vile censorship? It's my constitutional right to post goatcx and derail every thread with gamergate, you don't want to CENSOR me do you? today of all days we should remember those brave soldiers who died for my right to say cuck
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:41
|
|
|
rezatahs posted:you know this wouldn't even be an issue if everyone just ran an adblocker and took the power from the advertisers because nobody would see their poo poo yeah it wouldn't be an issue because youtube would find another way to make money like charging users and everyone would quit using the ewe tubes
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:Personally I hate censorship, I think that companies should absolutely be forced to pay to show ads on "BITCH SJW GETS TAZED PT 5 (PRANK GONE SEXUAL)" Link plz
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
why is mister burns swirling a condom packet around in mister simpson's lager
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:no they are just being selectively enforced against people who don't say the right things and have the right opinions, like on twitter or facebook or even gbs right!
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
counterfeitsaint posted:You don't actually get to walk into the middle of a bank and be all like "gently caress you, I have the right to assembly and the freedom of religion, I'm holding my satanist mass right here in your lobby. You don't get you refute my RIGHT you CORPORATION!" Right, so excluding absolutely nonsensical examples of flagrantly exercising your right to the detriment of a business, it still doesn't follow that corporations are utterly exempt from being beholden to the same human rights that citizens in this country are expected to enjoy. It doesn't make sense and people only bring it up to justify companies firing people for voicing opinions or beliefs that they don't like. A freedom of speech is freedom of speech, and that freedom should be defended in all layers of society. Misusing this right is as criminal as any other--you have a right to bear arms, absolutely, but you don't have a right to go shoot those arms at people, property and most wildlife. By your logic, it should absolutely be okay for companies to have fired people for having communist sympathies, or that Walmart is actually well in its rights to practice such flagrant anti-union practices even today. People's rights do not play second fiddle to the rights of corporations.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Falun Bong Refugee posted:Bob Ross ASMR videos seem like they would be worth the extra dough. Only if it's people dressed as him complete with magic marker beard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:yeah it wouldn't be an issue because youtube would find another way to make money like charging users and everyone would quit using the ewe tubes one can dream
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:yeah it wouldn't be an issue because youtube would find another way to make money like charging users and everyone would quit using the ewe tubes Aren't they trying to do that anyway with whatever the new paid subscription thing is? Turns out people won't pay for low quality internet entertainment imagine that  .
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
so people use youtube for something other than listening to music strange imo
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
OctoberBlues posted:I guess you can't curse now and get the video monetized? I mean I ain't selling cars but my ROI on You Tube ads is pretty significant, I think most people who aren't making money on a platform quit pretty quick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:no they are just being selectively enforced against people who don't say the right things and have the right opinions, like on twitter or facebook or even gbs Also this is true, see the channels of the two people making fun of the robotcop (I'll never get sick of this) vs the lyft driver with a hula hoop bobble.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:Aren't they trying to do that anyway with whatever the new paid subscription thing is? Turns out people won't pay for low quality internet entertainment imagine that actually they'd love to do both, get you to pay for user access AND get advertisers to pay to advertise you
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
I guess the difference, too, is a matter of perspective: Is the demonetization a punishment or a merely a lack of reward? No one is taking down the videos in most cases, they're not being censored, deleted, blocked or edited. You can still produce the content, just be aware you might not benefit from it anymore. I can't really think of a good non-internet example since this is all so internet-centric a topic. I don't hear many people commenting about the Patreon side of things, either, in comparison to the monetization of producing content.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Right, so excluding absolutely nonsensical examples of flagrantly exercising your right to the detriment of a business, it still doesn't follow that corporations are utterly exempt from being beholden to the same human rights that citizens in this country are expected to enjoy. It doesn't make sense and people only bring it up to justify companies firing people for voicing opinions or beliefs that they don't like. youtube not paying you 3 cents for an ad on your dumb youtube rant channel in which you probe your prostate while screaming HITLER HITLER HITLER which is totally not a detriment to their business = human rights violation you think like a little baby child and are dumb
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:actually they'd love to do both, get you to pay for user access AND get advertisers to pay to advertise you Youtube is trying to become comcast  ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:17
|
|
|
Flesh Forge posted:youtube not paying you 3 cents for an ad on your dumb youtube rant channel in which you probe your prostate while screaming HITLER HITLER HITLER which is totally not a detriment to their business = human rights violation Freedom of speech is a human right in the United States. Your counter example is precisely as ridiculous as the other poster's example. You prop up cartoonish poo poo like this and then call me childish, that's droll. I'm not talking specifically to the Youtube situation, I'm responding directly to the logic presented that stated the bill of rights and all other rights stated by the Constitution are only applicable to interactions between the public and the government, and all private enterprise is thus exempt from being even tangentially beholden to these ideals. That's patently absurd, as I explained above, and a very dangerous stance to take.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
Ted Cruz added a countdown clock to October 1st, when Obama plans on turning over control of the DNS to ICANN. Even if Congress manages to pass the bill to stop the executive action, Obama can just veto it, so I'm pretty sure the internet is going to change a great deal and have a lot more censorship in the coming years. https://www.cruz.senate.gov/internetcountdownclock/
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
DreamShipWrecked posted:These aren't even new rules. They are just clarifying things that have existed for a year It's that they're telling people that their stuff is being demonetised now where before they had no indicator other than videos mysteriously earning them less money despite performing as well as their other, still monetised, content. So it's a lovely thing that reveals youtube having already been doing a lovely thing for a long time. counterfeitsaint posted:Unless you consider youtube a utility instead of a service (lol), you're not entitled to anything whatsoever What about when that's basically how services market themselves? Both Youtube and Twitter have marketed themselves as big free speech platforms with YT's rules pretty much consisting of "no porn or gore". JediTalentAgent posted:I guess the difference, too, is a matter of perspective: Is the demonetization a punishment or a merely a lack of reward? No one is taking down the videos in most cases, they're not being censored, deleted, blocked or edited. You can still produce the content, just be aware you might not benefit from it anymore. Considering that producing that stuff is how many people are paying their bills, if the income they have a reasonable expectation of earning as a result of producing said content is cut off then producing more content is unviable and they can't reasonably continue(at least not in the same quality/quantity), which to me is a censorship where whatever it is that the person is producing dies a slow and somewhat confusing death(at least before the current clarification that has people up in arms) instead of the swift silencing that we're more familiar with.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I'm not talking specifically to the Youtube situation, I'm responding directly to the logic presented that stated the bill of rights and all other rights stated by the Constitution are only applicable to interactions between the public and the government, and all private enterprise is thus exempt from being even tangentially beholden to these ideals. That's patently absurd, as I explained above, and a very dangerous stance to take. you can think it's absurd but it doesn't change the fact that it's how it is
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
lohli posted:Considering that producing that stuff is how many people are paying their bills, if the income they have a reasonable expectation of earning as a result of producing said content is cut off then producing more content is unviable and they can't reasonably continue(at least not in the same quality/quantity), which to me is a censorship where whatever it is that the person is producing dies a slow and somewhat confusing death(at least before the current clarification that has people up in arms) instead of the swift silencing that we're more familiar with. they have to abide by the terms of services of the platform they use for distribution. sucks for them
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Ted Cruz added a countdown clock to October 1st, when Obama plans on turning over control of the DNS to ICANN. Even if Congress manages to pass the bill to stop the executive action, Obama can just veto it, so I'm pretty sure the internet is going to change a great deal and have a lot more censorship in the coming years. That's why it's important to start archiving now so we can huddle around our secret flash drives in our dystopian future. We'll boot up some arcane old computer device that is severed from the Internet to watch content from the more enlightened time of 2016 where vulgar language and displays were once commonplace.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Ted Cruz added a countdown clock to October 1st, when Obama plans on turning over control of the DNS to ICANN. Even if Congress manages to pass the bill to stop the executive action, Obama can just veto it, so I'm pretty sure the internet is going to change a great deal and have a lot more censorship in the coming years. Why is this significant?
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:you can think it's absurd but it doesn't change the fact that it's how it is Yes, but it is wrong, and it should not be tolerated quietly.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:Why is this significant? Because, under international control, free speech on the internet may no longer be protected by the first amendment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:Freedom of speech is a human right in the United States. Your counter example is precisely as ridiculous as the other poster's example. You prop up cartoonish poo poo like this and then call me childish, that's droll. your an idiot
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:38
|
|
|
Azuth0667 posted:Youtube is trying to become comcast exactly
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 10:30 |
|
|
Something Awful the internet's last great posting forums...
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2016 17:41
|
|
