MGTOW Channels Demonetized on YouTube

[A_bomb47]

Whatever helps your incel ass sleep at night.

Fuckin hilarious. I was called a mangina and other magic words a few weeks ago by some bum on this forum because I have a wife and 2 children.

 

[panamaican]

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.

So, if you don't have cable tv (where the majority of the channels are) you don't have meaningful access to television either?

Seriously, think this through for a moment. There are literally millions of internet websites, and you're saying that lack of access to 3-4 of them means that someone no longer has meaningful access to the internet. You're making this claim even though the person can still access the millions of sites. They can still stream internet content via Netflix, Hulu, etc. they can still use the "internet of things". They can still stream music through Itunes or Spotify. They can still use GPS, internet radio, etc.

They can do all of these things but they no longer has meaningful access to the internet?

As I said previously, you don't really understand the subject but you want to push your point anyway. We can't move a conversation forward under those circumstances.

 

[Renard]

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?

Your argument is mostly semantics. You're saying that we have free speech because we have access to blank newspaper paper, even if a handful of corporations control the ink and decide what's written on it. These companies are acting as arbiters of all the communication and data that goes through them. The law isn't up to date with current reality, and it should be brought to speed to reflect the spirit of what was intended in the constitution. You're fine with the spirit not being respected because you agree with the leaning of these corporations.

 

[VivaRevolution]

So, if you don't have cable tv (where the majority of the channels are) you don't have meaningful access to television either?

Seriously, think this through for a moment. There are literally millions of internet websites, and you're saying that lack of access to 3-4 of them means that someone no longer has meaningful access to the internet. You're making this claim even though the person can still access the millions of sites. They can still stream internet content via Netflix, Hulu, etc. they can still use the "internet of things". They can still stream music through Itunes or Spotify. They can still use GPS, internet radio, etc.

They can do all of these things but they no longer has meaningful access to the internet?

As I said previously, you don't really understand the subject but you want to push your point anyway. We can't move a conversation forward under those circumstances.

Lol, the fact that you think I have no point to make, says more about you Jack, I mean pan, then it does about me.

 

[panamaican]

Your argument is mostly semantics. You're saying that we have free speech because we have access to blank newspaper paper, even if a handful of corporations control the ink and decide what's written on it. These companies are acting as arbiters of all the communication and data that goes through them. The law isn't up to date with current reality, and it should be brought to speed to reflect the spirit of what was intended in the constitution. You're fine with the spirit not being respected because you agree with the leaning of these corporations.

Actually, we have free speech so long as the government isn't limiting anyone. That's not semantics that's understanding the Constitution and the basic laws under which we live.

It's inane to call understanding the actual concepts in play "semantics". It's extremely far from semantics. Free speech never meant that newspaper couldn't limit what they printed. It never meant that radio couldn't limit what they played. It never meant that tv news couldn't cover what they wanted to cover. It meant that the government couldn't.

The law is fine. People aren't up to speed with technology. And rather than get up to speed they want to leverage the government instead of adjusting their behavior. Demanding that the government step in and tell a platform what it should and shouldn't allow would run contrary to free speech, not in accordance with it. Anyone who doesn't understand this, doesn't understand what "free speech" actually is.

 

[panamaican]

Lol, the fact that you think I have no point to make, says more about you Jack, I mean pan, then it does about me.

You haven't made a point. I would think that if you had one, you would have made it by now. If you don't even grasp the extent of the internet but are insistent that 3 sites represent all meaningful access then you can' make a meaningful point based on a deeply flawed premise.

 

[VivaRevolution]

You haven't made a point. I would think that if you had one, you would have made it by now. If you don't even grasp the extent of the internet but are insistent that 3 sites represent all meaningful access then you can' make a meaningful point based on a deeply flawed premise.

Strawman.

Shoo fly.

 

[panamaican]

Strawman.

Shoo fly.

Tsk tsk.

You've spent the numerous pages misrepresenting the relationship between the internet, a handful of very popular sites and what makes something a utility. Every time you make a misrepresentation, I correct you. I haven't assigned you a position yet, I've only corrected the positions you've stated.

I don't think you've make a point, I can't strawman something that I don't think exists.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Tsk tsk.

You've spent the numerous pages misrepresenting the relationship between the internet, a handful of very popular sites and what makes something a utility. Every time you make a misrepresentation, I correct you. I haven't assigned you a position yet, I've only corrected the positions you've stated.

I don't think you've make a point, I can't strawman something that I don't think exists.

I see it isn't just my posts of substance you can't understand.

What part of the two words, shoo fly, did you misinterpret?

 

[Renard]

Actually, we have free speech so long as the government isn't limiting anyone. That's not semantics that's understanding the Constitution and the basic laws under which we live.

It's inane to call understanding the actual concepts in play "semantics". It's extremely far from semantics. Free speech never meant that newspaper couldn't limit what they printed. It never meant that radio couldn't limit what they played. It never meant that tv news couldn't cover what they wanted to cover. It meant that the government couldn't.

The law is fine. People aren't up to speed with technology. And rather than get up to speed they want to leverage the government instead of adjusting their behavior. Demanding that the government step in and tell a platform what it should and shouldn't allow would run contrary to free speech, not in accordance with it. Anyone who doesn't understand this, doesn't understand what "free speech" actually is.

So if the founding fathers were alive today, they would be a-OK with free speech not existing on the most widely used communication platform on the planet? And if they were writing the constitution today, they would make the decision not to include this huge communication platform in protected free speech? Yeah right, fat chance. The only reason the protection doesn't exist today is because the technology wasn't even invented yet, they couldn't include something they couldn't even imagine. We know what the spirit of the document was, and it's not being respected. Pretty simple. You just don't care and think it's fine as it is.

 

[VuvuzelaBzz]

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.

This is the post you replied to before:

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.

I was stating my feelings on the issue as an aside, as I felt they were relevant as to where I'm coming from, having presented a legal means of regulating social media platforms which is likely to be attempted in the near future.

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 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.

You said they "usually" win, thus admitting that it does not necessarily mean that if there is an attempt to prove they enforce their terms of service on political grounds that they will not be found guilty of doing so, which could lead to them being deemed publishers, were the pro-regulation side to prevail.

The fact various social media platforms have different terms of service means very little to me if they enforce them in ways that I feel compromise the principle of freedom of expression. As for your question, they all engage in different kinds of curation I find worrying, though there is some overlap between them.

My criticism of Youtube has little to do with their demonetisation algorithms, though the way they caved to smear articles by the WSJ and others about Pewdiepie in enacting new policies regarding demonetisation is the kind of move that will eventually lead to their demise. My problem with them is that they ban people like Alex Jones. I don't care if their terms of service give them an excuse to do so, the fact they acted in unison with multiple other platforms in doing it is rather worrying. Buffoons like him are the canary in the coalmine.

 

[Darkballs]

Actually my first 2 posts have nothing to do with that. You cuck assclowns are the ones that dragged into this out of outrage over your women being plowed by MGTOW members.

Ah. So men who spend all day complaining about not getting laid, are actually plowing our women all the time?

You need to think your insults through a little more.

 

[panamaican]

I see it isn't just my posts of substance you can't understand.

What part of the two words, shoo fly, did you misinterpret?

Oh, I understood them just fine. But I feel it's important to continue helping you understand things.

 

[panamaican]

So if the founding fathers were alive today, they would be a-OK with free speech not existing on the most widely used communication platform on the planet? And if they were writing the constitution today, they would make the decision not to include this huge communication platform in protected free speech? Yeah right, fat chance. The only reason the protection doesn't exist today is because the technology wasn't even invented yet, they couldn't include something they couldn't even imagine. We know what the spirit of the document was, and it's not being respected. Pretty simple. You just don't care and think it's fine as it is.

The Founding Fathers would understand that just because the communication platform is popular doesn't mean that the government should start regulating speech on it.

When the FF's were alive, the local paper was the equivalent of the internet. Almost everything printed went through the hands and control of only 1 or 2 organizations. Those organizations had tremendous power to shape the thoughts of the Americans who relied almost exclusively on those papers for information.

The FF's knew this and still insisted that the government shouldn't step in and dictate what those incredibly powerful newspapers should and shouldn't print.

When people claim the technology was too different, they don't understand the scale of influence that newspapers used to exert over public thought. The internet has actually made it easier for broad opinions to get out there. In the old days, if you didn't like what your newspaper was printing, unless you had the money to buy a printing press, pay for reporters and pay for distribution, you had no say at all. Now? If you don't like Facebook - you go to Instagram. You don't like Sherdog, you go to another MMA forum. We have far more opportunieis for public speech than ever before.

But with that comes a problem of equality. Specifically, that people want to believe that their opinions should be considered the equal of other people's opinion just because they feel strongly about them. So they feel they should get the largest audience. It's like a local tv host believing that they deserve a nationally syndicated show...regardless of their ratings. They don't care that they don't have the audience that supports that position.

The law is fine. It's the people who need to adjust.

 

[Higus]

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.

I wonder what percentage of self-proclaimed incels and incel apologists voted for Hillary...

 

[dontsnitch]

These lonely losers are sad, but the hate towards them is even more sad. I can't figure this one out.

 

[panamaican]

You said they "usually" win, thus admitting that it does not necessarily mean that if there is an attempt to prove they enforce their terms of service on political grounds that they will not be found guilty of doing so, which could lead to them being deemed publishers, were the pro-regulation side to prevail.

Yes...usually win. Do you want to get into the times that they actually lose or just pretend that it supports your position?

The fact various social media platforms have different terms of service means very little to me if they enforce them in ways that I feel compromise the principle of freedom of expression. As for your question, they all engage in different kinds of curation I find worrying, though there is some overlap between them.

My criticism of Youtube has little to do with their demonetisation algorithms, though the way they caved to smear articles by the WSJ and others about Pewdiepie in enacting new policies regarding demonetisation is the kind of move that will eventually lead to their demise. My problem with them is that they ban people like Alex Jones. I don't care if their terms of service give them an excuse to do so, the fact they acted in unison with multiple other platforms in doing it is rather worrying. Buffoons like him are the canary in the coalmine.

Okay, I'm going to assume that you know the difference between a corporation and the government. If a restaurant stopped serving a dish that you liked, you'd go to another restaurant. If a tv station stopped showing a show that you liked, you watch a different channel. If a sports team traded away your favorite athlete - you'd root for a different team.

The theme here is that when a corporation stops doing something that you like, you can simply support a different corporation. You say Alex Jones is the canary in the coal mine. No, he's not. If banning Alex Jones is the canary in the coalmine, support for the corporation would follow thereafter as advertisers and consumers left. If that doesn't happen then it's just like any corporation getting rid of a product that doesn't matter to their consumer base.

So, if you don't like how Youtube does something, stop using them and if you have enough people who agree with you, Youtube will respond.

 

[panamaican]

These lonely losers are sad, but the hate towards them is even more sad. I can't figure this one out.

I'll help. These lonely losers end up encouraging members of their subgroup to use violence against innocent people to push their agendas.

Plenty of guys struggle with finding meaningful relationships. They don't demonize women or society as a result and they don't create environments that result in others killing women who never did anything to them.

 

[dontsnitch]

I'll help. These lonely losers end up encouraging members of their subgroup to use violence against innocent people to push their agendas.

Sounds like BLM.

 

[VuvuzelaBzz]

Yes...usually win. Do you want to get into the times that they actually lose or just pretend that it supports your position?



Okay, I'm going to assume that you know the difference between a corporation and the government. If a restaurant stopped serving a dish that you liked, you'd go to another restaurant. If a tv station stopped showing a show that you liked, you watch a different channel. If a sports team traded away your favorite athlete - you'd root for a different team.

The theme here is that when a corporation stops doing something that you like, you can simply support a different corporation. You say Alex Jones is the canary in the coal mine. No, he's not. If banning Alex Jones is the canary in the coalmine, support for the corporation would follow thereafter as advertisers and consumers left. If that doesn't happen then it's just like any corporation getting rid of a product that doesn't matter to their consumer base.

So, if you don't like how Youtube does something, stop using them and if you have enough people who agree with you, Youtube will respond.

The point is that terms of service aren't foolproof and that the terms of service do not have to be proven to be legally invalid in order for a court to decide that they are enforced on political grounds. I'm not saying that it will be proven, as it seems like something rather difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but the terms of service themselves are not much of a protection against it, only against lawsuits by individuals banned from the platform.

I could stop using the service Youtube provides entirely, or I could keep talking about the policies of theirs I find to be disturbing until there's enough people aware of them and disturbed by them to pressure Youtube in the same way other activist groups do so that they change said policies. I'm not sure how an individual keeping quiet and not using the service is going to change anything about a site that pulls 1.8 billion users per month. I think I'll stick with the proven tactic instead of some free market ideal of how to pressure corporate behemoths. Realistically I just expect a more efficient alternative to eventually pop up, but that doesn't mean I won't call out actions I find to be objectionable when they are the dominant presence in their area of social media.