MGTOW Channels Demonetized on YouTube

[skold]

Confirmed blue-pilled cuck

Whatever helps your incel ass sleep at night.

 

[Sano]

This thread reminded me of this MGTOW-inspired masterpiece:

Speaking of fedoras:

 

[panamaican]

What are you talking about? Shoulder width, jaw size, brow ridge etc are all proper indicators of testosterone. Somebody's physically appearance can be very telling about their testosterone levels.

And when looking at 2 out of shape individuals 40-100 lbs overweight, you can determine which one has more testosterone and, thus, which of the 2 overweight individuals is more masculine?

His argument wasn't that some people have more testosterone or that testosterone has impact on visual characteristics. His argument was that masculinity can be determined/rated simply by looking for physical indicators of testosterone.

 

[panamaican]

Why isn't social media a utility?

What differentiates YouTube and Comcast?

Physical infrastructure. Utilities are about the physical infrastructure required to deliver the good.

Gas - requires the laying of physical pipes. If someone doesn't lay them, the people can't get gas.
Electricity - requires the wires/cabling/power plants. If someone doesn't put them up, people can't get electricity.
Water - pipes.
Telephone - wires.

Youtube doesn't manage the physical infrastructure required for the internet. Comcast does manage the physical infrastructure required for cable/internet.

 

[Scheme]

Whatever your thoughts on MGTOW is, this is still very alarming. Why would these channels be demonetized?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Physical infrastructure. Utilities are about the physical infrastructure required to deliver the good.

Gas - requires the laying of physical pipes. If someone doesn't lay them, the people can't get gas.
Electricity - requires the wires/cabling/power plants. If someone doesn't put them up, people can't get electricity.
Water - pipes.
Telephone - wires.

Youtube doesn't manage the physical infrastructure required for the internet. Comcast does manage the physical infrastructure required for cable/internet.

So to you I ask the same question.

Is a cell phone provider a utility?

Where is the physical infastructure?

If Comcast is a utility, then isn't DirecTV?

Or is Comcast a utility, and DirecTV not, because of physical infastructure?

If so, it seems a absurd definition.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Lol "real men"

<Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo>

<Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo><Lmaoo>

You remind me of...

 

[panamaican]

So to you I ask the same question.

Is a cell phone provider a utility?

Where is the physical infastructure?

If Comcast is a utility, then isn't DirecTV?

Or is Comcast a utility, and DirecTV not, because of physical infastructure?

If so, it seems a absurd definition.

Not everything with physical infrastructure MUST be treated as utility.

The government makes that determination based on the importance of the good to society. Electricity, for example, is pretty much a modern necessity so most states treat it as a utility. DirecTV isn't a modern necessity so no government treats it as such.

Many governments are debating if the internet has finally crossed into a modern necessity requiring them to treat the physical provision of the good as a utility. Youtube uses the internet but it's not part of how people get access to the internet. Comcast, otoh, manages a significant amount of the physical delivery of internet services to American households.

But Comcast wouldn't be the utility. They would be a utility provider. The internet would be the utility.

And, again, not everything that has a physical infrastructure must be treated as a utility. But without that physical infrastructure it's very unlikely that something will be treated as a utility.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Not everything with physical infrastructure MUST be treated as utility.

The government makes that determination based on the importance of the good to society. Electricity, for example, is pretty much a modern necessity so most states treat it as a utility. DirecTV isn't a modern necessity so no government treats it as such.

Many governments are debating if the internet has finally crossed into a modern necessity requiring them to treat the physical provision of the good as a utility. Youtube uses the internet but it's not part of how people get access to the internet. Comcast, otoh, manages a significant amount of the physical delivery of internet services to American households.

But Comcast wouldn't be the utility. They would be a utility provider. The internet would be the utility.

And, again, not everything that has a physical infrastructure must be treated as a utility. But without that physical infrastructure it's very unlikely that something will be treated as a utility.

How about we call it a speech utility. That it is critical to the expression of speech today?

 

[panamaican]

How about we call it a speech utility. That it is critical to the expression of speech today?

But it's not. Again...the internet would be the utility, not the various sites found on the internet.

 

[VuvuzelaBzz]

But it's not. Again...the internet would be the utility, not the various sites found on the internet.

I realise Viva is the one bringing up the whole utility issue, but from what I've gathered the most realistic way of social media websites being held to account for their regulation of speech is the distinction between platform and publisher. My understanding is that platforms are not held legally liable for what is hosted on them, but in turn are not allowed to curate that content on political grounds, while publishers are legally liable for the curated content they publish. The legal standard that will likely be set in the near future will determine whether the curation social media platforms engage in currently should require them to forfeit their status as platforms, thus making them liable for the content they host.

 

[Falsedawn]

I realise he's the one bringing up the whole utility issue, but from what I've gathered the most realistic way of social media websites being held to account for their regulation of speech is the distinction between platform and publisher. My understanding is that platforms are not held legally liable for what is hosted on them, but in turn are not allowed to curate that content on political grounds, while publishers are legally liable for the curated content they publish. The legal standard that will likely be set in the near future will determine whether the curation social media platforms engage in currently should require them to forfeit their status as platforms, thus making them liable for the content they host.

Moderation of the platform doesn't implicitly forfeit those protections, that's asinine. If that's the case, then you're basically gutting the DMCA because one of the requirements of being adherent is to moderate at the copyright holder's request. You can't require those actions for people that pay and then forbid them when it comes to curation of the platform.

For instance, it's like telling a museum they have to include your 4 year old's finger painting at risk of losing any funding since they curate their pieces. If it doesn't meet the standard of quality for the museum, it doesn't belong there anyway

 

[VuvuzelaBzz]

Moderation of the platform doesn't implicitly forfeit those protections, that's asinine. If that's the case, then you're basically gutting the DMCA because one of the requirements of being adherent is to moderate at the copyright holder's request. You can't require those actions for people that pay and then forbid them when it comes to curation of the platform.

For instance, it's like telling a museum they have to include your 4 year old's finger painting at risk of losing any funding since they curate their pieces. If it doesn't meet the standard of quality for the museum, it doesn't belong there anyway

It's not my argument, it just seems to be coming to a head, ever since the Zuck's Senate hearing. Here's a couple op-eds from either side on the issue. It's been a while since I read them, so I might not be representing everything with perfect accuracy.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral

I never said moderation itself was the issue though, only moderation on political grounds, which is what I recall.

 

[Falsedawn]

They do not respect their own intelligence if they subscribe to that sort of thinking.

I have never told you that you should tell them to respect men, and I don't really even know how you've come up with that based on what I've written. I suppose it is one of these preconceived American debates, that I often find myself subjected to here.

I've spoken of the practicality of remaining a neutral observer, and an objective judge of other people's character, at a time when people struggle to uphold standards without submitting to hypocrisy. With neither respect nor disrespect granted to people, until warranted.

That is not to say that standards should not exist, but the problem with upholding the standards as of now, is that upholding such standards would likely come off as even more offensive and inconvenient to women than the men. I do not think that women are particularly interested in a general debate about "respect for men", any more so (or even less so) than men are in a debate about respect for women.

Until both genders show a willingness to uphold a standard of conduct, neutrality appears the best alternative. If it were only men who did so in disproportion, we would only serve to enable these sorts of "MGTOW" movements, as a result of the created double standards.



From a practical point of view, what I can say is that I have certainly had far greater results in changing the mind of a "misogynist" by appealing to their rationality rather than idealism or sentimentality. They find themselves, ultimately, more offended by their own hypocrisy and weakness of thought, than their deemed disrespect of others or even lack of results. Which is quite common to men, really. They often prefer boiling in their own grease, rather than submitting to another's will in order to find salvation.

Appealing to their "better sense", their lost chivalry, or even lost opportunities, will usually be received with sneers and contempt. But when made to appear intellectually fragile, these men show a much greater desire to re-evaluate their ideas.

The problem Is that when you refuse to acknowledge a valid issue, you're not being neutral, you're handwaving.

There's no presumption involved. If I say "Respect all women" and you say "No, respect all people" when the issue explicitly involves women, then you're indicating that you're content with the current situation by bringing the remainder of the set into an issue that only involves the subset.

If I said "Fuck breast cancer" at a breast cancer benefit and you said "Well, fuck all diseases", it would be the same thing. This isn't exactly hard to understand.

 

[Falsedawn]

It's not my argument, it just seems to be coming to a head, ever since the Zuck's Senate hearing. Here's a couple articles from either side on the issue. It's been a while since I read them, so I might not be representing everything with perfect accuracy.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral

I never said moderation itself was the issue though, only moderation on political grounds, which is what I recall.

And moderation on political grounds wouldn't preclude those protections either, as the EFF position indicates.

This is people with less than mainstream ideas trying to codify their entitlement to certain platforms in the code of law, and that's not valid. You're not entitled to any audience on the internet.

 

[MilesAbove]

ffs, how am I always ending up in the wrong thread lately? Life is hard.

 

[VuvuzelaBzz]

And moderation on political grounds wouldn't preclude those protections either, as the EFF position indicates.

This is people with less than mainstream ideas trying to codify their entitlement to certain platforms in the code of law, and that's not valid. You're not entitled to any audience on the internet.

I lack the legal knowledge to make any definitive judgement on that, it's just what I've heard mentioned most commonly when it comes to extending the principle of freedom of expression onto social media through legal means. I'm not arguing for it, though I do think social media's regulation of political speech is a net negative for society and would like to see it go away.

 

[panamaican]

I realise Viva is the one bringing up the whole utility issue, but from what I've gathered the most realistic way of social media websites being held to account for their regulation of speech is the distinction between platform and publisher. My understanding is that platforms are not held legally liable for what is hosted on them, but in turn are not allowed to curate that content on political grounds, while publishers are legally liable for the curated content they publish. The legal standard that will likely be set in the near future will determine whether the curation social media platforms engage in currently should require them to forfeit their status as platforms, thus making them liable for the content they host.

They're not curating content on political grounds. Some sites are being demontesized for economic reasons. They're curating others for violations of their terms of service.

 

[asdffdsa]

Whenever I end up on a MGTOW video on youtube I know I have gone at least one click too far.

 

[Falsedawn]

I lack the legal knowledge to make any definitive judgement on that, it's just what I've heard mentioned most commonly when it comes to extending the principle of freedom of expression onto social media through legal means. I'm not arguing for it, though I do think social media's regulation of political speech is a net negative for society and would like to see it go away.

The actual principle of freedom of expression is alive and well on the internet. The first amendment guarantees the right to speak freely without persecution from the government. It does not preclude society from moderating the forum of ideas in accordance with the current standards of that same society.

If the government were to deem them not worthy of protection because of their political belief, and then force them to include ideas in contrast to their stated beliefs, THAT would be a first amendment violation on the grounds of a forced endorsement of speech. You're effectively telling them "I don't give a shit about your objections, if you don't play ball we're going to punish you".

Access to the internet should be codified in law (Net Neutrality). Access to an audience should not.