UPDATE: Youtube's Censorship Crackdown (Youtube Blacklists Non-Liberal Channels)

[helltoupee]

I know there aren't direct parallels with this but if you think a large company that controls a good share of these small broadcasters outlet should be able censor and control their content, are you in the same view that a bakery that doesn't support gay marriage should be forced to make the cake regardless?

The bakery is a different situation, imo. The bakery wasn't asked to bake a "gay cake". The patrons simply wanted a regular cake, just like anyone else can buy and were denied as much simply due to their sexuality.

YT is not banning people from the ability to post content based on a preconceived notion of whether or not they are right wing, female, gay, black, yellow, or brown. *Anyone* is allowed to participate, and depending on their content, can be censored if it violates the terms they agreed to upon registration.

If the baker allowed the gay people to buy a cake, but refused to draw pictures of two men having anal sex on said cake, then they would be exercising the same rights as YT, which would be a valid comparison.

 

[HomerThompson]

Yep, this is a corporate crackdown on opposing views which is fine for most leftists seeing how most Silicon Valley Giants are all run by the left. It also shows you have far 'liberals' are removed from 'liberalism'. Liberals use to be the ones to fight for speech they didn't agree with but modern day progressives want them shut down.

You're such a jackass. I don't support this or advocate for it. Censorship is cancer.

But, youtube isn't obligated to keep content they don't want there. I don't like it, but they care about making money, not about ideology.

 

[HomerThompson]

The bakery is a different situation, imo. The bakery wasn't asked to bake a "gay cake". The patrons simply wanted a regular cake, just like anyone else can buy and were denied as much simply due to their sexuality.

YT is not banning people from the ability to post content based on a preconceived notion of whether or not they are right wing, female, gay, black, yellow, or brown. *Anyone* is allowed to participate, and depending on their content, can be censored if it violates the terms they agreed to upon registration.

If the baker allowed the gay people to buy a cake, but refused to draw pictures of two men having anal sex on said cake, then they would be exercising the same rights as YT, which would be a valid comparison.

Thank you for this post. People bring up the baker all the time in non-analogous situations.

 

[HomerThompson]

What in shit are you babbling about? I am not shitting on youtubes decision. I simply asked a question. Name a viable rival. You are the one that read into that question to sus out some ill intent. Also, I am standing on concrete right now. Thanks for the concern over my safety, but the structural integrity of the surface I am standing on is sound.

So, you're ok with youtube's decision?

 

[Pied Piper]

The Left is the most intolerant and is the most censoring political side.

Hopefully there is a freedom loving non leftist that starts a platform to counter youtube.

it will happen. censorship is never perpetual. were designed to revolt

 

[Kframe]

So, you're ok with youtube's decision?

Yes. Edit to add. Yes I am ok with it. It is their company. It also has no effect on me. I don't frequent those kinds of drivel. I watch the funny drivel. Funny cat videos for the win. Oh and Thuglife. I love Thuglife.

 

[AviatorShades]

The left's war on intellectuals and science.

Their silliness of their worldview relied on portraying the sole alternative as fundamentalist Christianity. If they could make the Bible seem silly, then their own equally silly belief system was validated!

Now that they're being confronted by evolutionary psychologists, geographers, etc who have turned their skepticism away from religion over to the radical left, all they can do is scurry like the feeble little rats they are and beg for censorship.

 

[Kframe]

Thank you for this post. People bring up the baker all the time in non-analogous situations.

So I don't understand this about the gay cake and the bakers. What was the gay couple asking to be on the cake? Was it a simple cake with no wording? Or was it the simple fact it was for a gay wedding that they refused?

 

[Kframe]

The bakery is a different situation, imo. The bakery wasn't asked to bake a "gay cake". The patrons simply wanted a regular cake, just like anyone else can buy and were denied as much simply due to their sexuality.

YT is not banning people from the ability to post content based on a preconceived notion of whether or not they are right wing, female, gay, black, yellow, or brown. *Anyone* is allowed to participate, and depending on their content, can be censored if it violates the terms they agreed to upon registration.

If the baker allowed the gay people to buy a cake, but refused to draw pictures of two men having anal sex on said cake, then they would be exercising the same rights as YT, which would be a valid comparison.

So the bakery. You said they were asked to make a regular cake and not a gay cake. What do you mean by regular cake? What would have constituted gay cake? Was it the writing on the cake the bakers didn't like or the fact it was a gay wedding? If the cake was not a gay wedding cake, but a regular one, why did they need it for a wedding?

I honestly never understood the bakery situation.

 

[TheStruggle]

You're such a jackass. I don't support this or advocate for it. Censorship is cancer.

But, youtube isn't obligated to keep content they don't want there. I don't like it, but they care about making money, not about ideology.

Funny, I didn't call you out by name, guilt much?

 

[TheStruggle]

The bakery is a different situation, imo. The bakery wasn't asked to bake a "gay cake". The patrons simply wanted a regular cake, just like anyone else can buy and were denied as much simply due to their sexuality.

YT is not banning people from the ability to post content based on a preconceived notion of whether or not they are right wing, female, gay, black, yellow, or brown. *Anyone* is allowed to participate, and depending on their content, can be censored if it violates the terms they agreed to upon registration.

If the baker allowed the gay people to buy a cake, but refused to draw pictures of two men having anal sex on said cake, then they would be exercising the same rights as YT, which would be a valid comparison.

Ok, what terms did any of these people violate? The majority of people getting censored are not alt-right and don't post any hate speech. So what did they do outside of having the wrong opinion?

 

[helltoupee]

So the bakery. You said they were asked to make a regular cake and not a gay cake. What do you mean by regular cake? What would have constituted gay cake? Was it the writing on the cake the bakers didn't like or the fact it was a gay wedding? If the cake was not a gay wedding cake, but a regular one, why did they need it for a wedding?

I honestly never understood the bakery situation.

From what I understand, a gay couple walked in, asked for a wedding cake, and were refused simply because they were gay.

If the gay couple was asking for a customized cake with gay themes, then I support the bakery's right to refuse.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Conservatives should praise the entrepreneurial freedom expressed in this policy and support or create alternative video uploading platforms.

Fair enough, but liberals should be protesting the overweening power of this corporation to suppress non-socially normative views.

 

[helltoupee]

Ok, what terms did any of these people violate? The majority of people getting censored are not alt-right and don't post any hate speech. So what did they do outside of having the wrong opinion?

I don't know specifically.

I was simply responding to the comparison of the bakery and YT.

YT didn't deny these people who were censored initial registration and participation on their website based on their opinions, sex, race, age, etc etc etc. - which is what actually occurred in the bakery scenario - at least from what I understand.

If the majority of the people being banned from YT is not a result of hate speech content, then I don't agree with this moral stance (ie terms of service being applied selectively). I do recognize it is legal, however.

 

[Fawlty]

What in shit are you babbling about? I am not shitting on youtubes decision. I simply asked a question. Name a viable rival. You are the one that read into that question to sus out some ill intent. Also, I am standing on concrete right now. Thanks for the concern over my safety, but the structural integrity of the surface I am standing on is sound.

Twitch could get there.

 

[HomerThompson]

Yes. Edit to add. Yes I am ok with it. It is their company. It also has no effect on me. I don't frequent those kinds of drivel. I watch the funny drivel. Funny cat videos for the win. Oh and Thuglife. I love Thuglife.

Ok. My bad then.

 

[HomerThompson]

So I don't understand this about the gay cake and the bakers. What was the gay couple asking to be on the cake? Was it a simple cake with no wording? Or was it the simple fact it was for a gay wedding that they refused?

They refused because it was for a gay wedding.

 

[Kframe]

They refused because it was for a gay wedding.

Ok. I normally only get my news from the local radio and they didn't go into much detail. Only that a bakery refused a gay couple. I can see why they got sued. They had no right to refuse service solely based on their lgbt status. Look Christian or not, you have to follow the law. Jesus even said as much when he said give to Ceaser what is Ceasers, and give to God what is Gods.

 

[Kframe]

Twitch could get there.

You know, I don't know much about twitch beyond one gaming channel I frequent on it. Though it seems to be set up for gamers. Not that that is a bad thing.

 

[Lead]

The bakery is a different situation, imo. The bakery wasn't asked to bake a "gay cake". The patrons simply wanted a regular cake, just like anyone else can buy and were denied as much simply due to their sexuality.

YT is not banning people from the ability to post content based on a preconceived notion of whether or not they are right wing, female, gay, black, yellow, or brown. *Anyone* is allowed to participate, and depending on their content, can be censored if it violates the terms they agreed to upon registration.

If the baker allowed the gay people to buy a cake, but refused to draw pictures of two men having anal sex on said cake, then they would be exercising the same rights as YT, which would be a valid comparison.

I'd hone in on that last portion here. If I didn't hear someone like Peterson is involved in this, I would've assumed they are just handling extremists who are uploading pretty bad content. The fact they picked him makes me think this is farther than the perceived norm. If they could point out the specific reason he was included in this, I'd consider whether or not they overstepped but at this point in time without them saying what he did, I'm going to assume they did.