MGTOW Channels Demonetized on YouTube

[panamaican]

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 first thing people need to do is stop using "social media" as a catchall for what are multiple different companies with different terms of services and different internal rules regarding how they manage their platforms. What Youtube allows isn't the same thing as what Facebook allows or what Instagram or Twitter allows. They're all social media companies but they're not governed by the same rules.

 

[VuvuzelaBzz]

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.

Terms of service tend to be nebulous and arbitrarily enforced. If taken to court I wouldn't be surprised if it could be proven that they are used to remove users on political grounds.

The first thing people need to do is stop using "social media" as a catchall for what are multiple different companies with different terms of services and different internal rules regarding how they manage their platforms. What Youtube allows isn't the same thing as what Facebook allows or what Instagram or Twitter allows. They're all social media companies but they're not governed by the same rules.

I'm not sure how this is a reply to my post. They are all subject to the rule of law, which is what I'm suggesting they may be regulated under. I used social media as a catchall there because every major social media site engages in types of curation I find worrying.

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.

The principle of freedom of expression and the first amendment are not one and the same. The first amendment just protects it from the government, and we are left to protect it from private entities. I'm not saying the government should step in, I'm saying that the way many of the social media sites operate is a threat to it, in my estimation.

 

[Falsedawn]

Terms of service tend to be nebulous and arbitrarily enforced. If taken to court I wouldn't be surprised if it could be proven that they are used to remove users on political grounds.

I'm not sure how this is a reply to my post. They are all subject to the rule of law, which is what I'm suggesting they may be regulated under. I used social media as a catchall there because every major social media site engages in types of curation I find worrying.

The principle of freedom of expression and the first amendment are not one and the same. The first amendment just protects it from the government, and we are left to protect it from private entities. I'm not saying the government should step in, I'm saying that the way many of the social media sites operate is a threat to it, in my estimation.

Well when you're talking about "freedom of expression" as it relates to the law, if you're not talking about the 1st amendment, you're just bitching tbh.

 

[panamaican]

Terms of service tend to be nebulous and arbitrarily enforced. If taken to court I wouldn't be surprised if it could be proven that they are used to remove users on political grounds.

Terms of service have been around for a very long time both on the internet and off. They've been litigated many times in the past and the companies usually win because they're terms of service. If you don't agree to the terms of service, you're not obligated to use the service. If you accept the terms of service, you're agreeing on what comes with that.

I'm not sure how this is a reply to my post. They are all subject to the rule of law, which is what I'm suggesting they may be regulated under. I say used social media as a catchall there because every major social media site engages in types of curation I find worrying.

I know you used it as a catchall. My specific point is that you shouldn't do that because the internal rules by which they make their decisions are all different. So when you say they all engage in types of curation you find worrying, it's too broad. Are you saying that they all engage in the same types of curation? OR are you saying that the specific curation in each site has a specific problem that you can identify as a problem.

For example - Youtube uses a software algorithm to demonetize channels. But it's not the same algorithm that Vimeo uses. Is your issue with Youtube's specific algorithm? Is it with the idea of algorithms themselves? When you just say "social media" you are treating the 2 as identical.

 

[VivaRevolution]

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

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up. Really moved the conversation along. <--------e-sacarsm.

 

[panamaican]

Well, I'm glad you cleared that up. Really moved the conversation along. <--------e-sacarsm.

Well, you weren't making any point that required moving along. We covered what makes something a utility. You asked some questions based on that explanation. You received further clarification. Where should the conversation be moving? Treating an unlikely speculatory position as if it had a significant chance of occurence?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Well, you weren't making any point that required moving along. We covered what makes something a utility. You asked some questions based on that explanation. You received further clarification. Where should the conversation be moving? Treating an unlikely speculatory position as if it had a significant chance of occurence?

Lol, do you as a rule engage in social conversation as a lawyer?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Well, you weren't making any point that required moving along. We covered what makes something a utility. You asked some questions based on that explanation. You received further clarification. Where should the conversation be moving? Treating an unlikely speculatory position as if it had a significant chance of occurence?

Here let me move the conversation along. If ISP's need to be regulated as a utility, and it does, YouTube and Twitter are ISP's in their own right.

So yes, utility is the wrong word. Utility service provider would be far more accurate.

 

[panamaican]

Lol, do you as a rule engage in social conversation as a lawyer?

Sure. And I generally don't engage in treating empty speculation as valid positions. If someone says "I saw Bigfoot" I'd still have the conversation but I wouldn't treat it like something that needed to be moved forward. I'd listen and then move the conversation to something that makes sense to talk about. If they insist on talking about the time they met Bigfoot, I'd eventually just leave the conversation.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Sure. And I generally don't engage in treating empty speculation as valid positions. If someone says "I saw Bigfoot" I'd still have the conversation but I wouldn't treat it like something that needed to be moved forward. I'd listen and then move the conversation to something that makes sense to talk about. If they insist on talking about the time they met Bigfoot, I'd eventually just leave the conversation.

Arrogance and self declared victory.

 

[panamaican]

Here let me move the conversation along. If ISP's need to be regulated as a utility, and it does, YouTube and Twitter are ISP's in their own right.

So yes, utility is the wrong word. Utility service provider would be far more accurate.

Youtube and Twitter are not Internet Service Providers. They do not provide anyone with access to the internet. If they disappeared right now, no one's ability to access the internet would be affected.

 

[panamaican]

Arrogance and self declared victory.

There's no victory. It's a conversation, not a competition. And it's hardly arrogance to determine when a conversation isn't going anywhere worthwhile.

 

[Sketch]

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.

And hes right. You could also tell by body language, tone of voice and volume.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Youtube and Twitter are not Internet Service Providers. They do not provide anyone with access to the internet. If they disappeared right now, no one's ability to access the internet would be affected.

No, just major parts of the internet.

The fact that you think that this difference ends the conversation makes me think you have some dog in this fight, and are not impartial for whatever reason.

 

[panamaican]

And hes right. You could also tell by body language, tone of voice and volume.

So, when you have to out of shape people standing right next to each other you can tell who's more masculine?

So if I have a 5'5" Asian man next to a 6' tall white man. The Asian man is always less masculine just by looking at him? No other factors need be assessed except appearance?

 

[panamaican]

No, just major parts of the internet.

The fact that you think that this difference ends the conversation makes me think you have some dog in this fight, and are not impartial for whatever reason.

Actually, I think you've started a conversation on a subject that you don't understand and are hellbent on pushing a point despite that.

Here's an easy one: How does Youtube or Twitter provide access to the internet?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Actually, I think you've started a conversation on a subject that you don't understand and are hellbent on pushing a point despite that.

Here's an easy one: How does Youtube or Twitter provide access to the internet?

They provide access to twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, which outside of porn, probably makes up 98% of internet activity.

Basically you are arguing that what 90% of what the public uses the internet for, isn't the internet.

It's like arguing that .com sites being closed to you, is not restricting you from the internet, because you can use .Tor sites.

No. 99% of internet activity is .com. if you restrict someone's access to everything but Tor sites, you are taking someone's internet access.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

The right wing has not been very good at moderating their own base in public discourse. It's one of those "this is why we can't have nice things" situations. Any forum or platform that is either very loosely moderated and/or has a heavy right wing adoption inevitably becomes overrun racists, fascists, extremists, misogynists, etc. Feel free to try to change my view.


That's a bigger issue that MGTOW. The First Amendment doesn't have the scope to social media or the internet in general. I wonder what the founding fathers would have said if they knew that the main forum for public debate would eventually be privately owned virtual spaces.

That's fair in places like the UK and Canada since we don't have freedom of speech but in America there is no need to moderste the base due to that pesky old freedom of speech you lefties hate so much.

Incels and MGTOW are politically nuetral groups so it's irrelevant anyway.

 

[panamaican]

They provide access to twitter, YouTube, and Facebook, which outside of porn, probably makes up 98% of internet activity.

Basically you are arguing that what 90% of what the public uses the internet for, isn't the internet.

It's like arguing that .com sites being closed to you, is not restricting you from the internet, because you can use .Tor sites.

No. 99% of internet activity is .com. if you restrict someone's access to everything but Tor sites, you are taking someone's internet access.

Like I said - you don't understand the subject.

If you don't have access to twitter, youtube and Facebook you've lost access to the internet? You couldn't access Google? Instagram? Sherdog? Yahoo?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Like I said - you don't understand the subject.

If you don't have access to twitter, youtube and Facebook you've lost access to the internet? You couldn't access Google? Instagram? Sherdog? Yahoo?

Yes, if you are being restricted from what the majority of internet activity is, your access to the minority of what the internet is used for is a meaningless distinction.