MGTOW Channels Demonetized on YouTube

[panamaican]

Sounds like BLM.

And you don't struggle with understanding why some people don't like them.

 

[Bamboozled]

lol @ blaming the left wing instead of blaming the free market.

The free market would pay for content as long as it's generating views.

I don't think you understand economics.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

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

I doubt many of them voted at all.

And not supporting Hillary doesn't make you a conservative. All the Dems here claim to have not voted for her.

 

[panamaican]

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.

Terms of service are not foolproof. And there's nothing that prevents terms of service from include political language. There's nothing that prevents terms of service from giving the company carte blanche to regulate what happens when you're using their products, location, services.

The problem with your argument is that you're starting with the premise that something illegal is occuring when it's not. Something that you don't like is occurring and you're hoping that there's some way to treat it as illegal.

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.

Sure and people pressuring Youtube is fine. People trying to use the government to enforce speech is not.

Here's the ugly reality that some people have to accept - sometimes your position is not the majority one. Sometimes a person might find a corporate practice unsupportable and then they find out that only a minority of people agree with them. By all means, they should challenge that position but they should not delude themselves into thinking that they represent the majority position either.

Also, I'm not sure how to respond to the assertion that you don't want to rely on some free market ideal. I'm a big fan of letting the free market resolve free market issues.

 

[floivanus]

Takes ads off the videos

Nope, they can and do still put ads on demonitized videos

 

[VuvuzelaBzz]

Terms of service are not foolproof. And there's nothing that prevents terms of service from include political language. There's nothing that prevents terms of service from giving the company carte blanche to regulate what happens when you're using their products, location, services.

The problem with your argument is that you're starting with the premise that something illegal is occuring when it's not. Something that you don't like is occurring and you're hoping that there's some way to treat it as illegal.



Sure and people pressuring Youtube is fine. People trying to use the government to enforce speech is not.

Here's the ugly reality that some people have to accept - sometimes your position is not the majority one. Sometimes a person might find a corporate practice unsupportable and then they find out that only a minority of people agree with them. By all means, they should challenge that position but they should not delude themselves into thinking that they represent the majority position either.

Also, I'm not sure how to respond to the assertion that you don't want to rely on some free market ideal. I'm a big fan of letting the free market resolve free market issues.

I'm not starting with the premise that something illegal is occurring; I'm starting with the premise that Ted Cruz, whatever you may think of him, has implied that he believes something illegal is occurring and that I've heard that it is likely to be pursued. I posted these op-eds supporting either side of that argument earlier:

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'm not trying to use the government to enforce speech, and I'm not sure where you got that from. I said I don't like the way many major social media platforms curate their sites and that I'm not knowledgeable enough in legal matters to know one way or the other if Cruz's claim is true, after bringing up a line of legal inquiry that is likely to be pursued in court in the near future.

The free market works, but there is an element of pragmatism required for that. It's idealistic to suggest that simply not using a service with as much traffic as Youtube is a realistic way of effecting desirable change. All it would do is keep content exclusive to Youtube that's interesting to me from me. The only way any of these social media sites will change any of their policies are legal mandates, complacency and activist pressure. Your suggestion would only work if there were a viable alternative and Youtube was complacent. There is no viable competitor currently, so for the time being the only option is an attempt at raising awareness and applying pressure.

 

[StrikerKing]

Spoiler

I guess this guy is masculine in your opinion because he is sticking up for the "oppressed"...

If you don`t correlate T with masculinity i don`t know what to tell you. I guess you are living in a parallel universe.

The whole T appearance thing is pretty much bullshit. How bone structure, appearance, etc is almost entirely based off your genetic code, regardless of how much testosterone you have.

 

[Rusk]

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.

There is no arguing with them, they think one is masculine if you are a male feminist... war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength...

their dishonesty and they way the misrepresent my argument is really disgusting too

But whatever... fuck em..

Blablablablabla Saying that "testosterone" is all that matters blablablabla

All that time you put in your post to refute an argument that i did not made. Look at page 5 then get back to me.

The whole T appearance thing is pretty much bullshit. How bone structure, appearance, etc is almost entirely based off your genetic code, regardless of how much testosterone you have.

yeah sure genetics....

 

[RockstarChris]

Demonetizing removes ads from the videos, or are there still ads but the channel no longer gets paid?

That would be illegal. Those users own that content.

 

[Sketch]

I know. He quoted me and mentioned fat people for some reason. I then explained tone of voice and body language etc can also be indicators and he ignored my reply. These people live in an alternate reality.

 

[panamaican]

I know. He quoted me and mentioned fat people for some reason. I then explained tone of voice and body language etc can also be indicators and he ignored my reply. These people live in an alternate reality.

You ain't gotta lie. Post #215.

 

[Mr Holmes]

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

The Bernie bros seem like a real cool group of dudes.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That would be illegal. Those users own that content.

I'd like to think so.

 

[RockstarChris]

I'd like to think so.

My 769 videos on youtube are copywrite RockstarChrisLP. So are any naked sex pics from my phone. I copywrite anything that is me or sounds like me.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You're basically incels.

You can't can't get chicks so you are pretending that they don't want to get chicks.

Not really, from what I've seen MGTOWs are more often divorcee men or men who have somehow been negatively affected by a divorce or know someone who has been. They seem to skew older than the incels because of that.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Maybe you cross over sometimes (as anyone who has ever watched the Bee Movie on a certain porn site can attest to).

I need to know more.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The free market would pay for content as long as it's generating views.

I don't think you understand economics.

No it wouldn't because those views only matter if there are ads attached to them and the advertisers banded together to get their ads removed from controversial videos because the viewers were associating their ads with said videos. So YT went on a demonetizing spree to placate the advertisers, their actual source of revenue.

 

[IBeLurkin]

I never recall hearing about a MGTOW support group that people went to...but I dont expect a cuck like you would think anyone could be different since you handed your women over to the real men you clearly know nothing about. lol...also, if all men are sensitive then why do your female dominators keep telling men they need to get in touch with their feminine side, like you. lol...hahahaha...

Omg this is hilarious

 

[IBeLurkin]

The left wing has been notably sympathetic to corporate censorship.

In terms of free market, it seems to me like a very few corporations, Google, Facebook, Twitter et al control far too much to the space in which Americans communicate. I'd love to see some anti-trust action here, you know, to free up the market.

As far as mgtow, it seems very lame.

Just to be clear...

You want the government to regulate some private companies because they're too successful...for the good of the free market?

It's sometimes hard to tell if people are being sarcastic via text...Im assuming you were, right?

 

[Bamboozled]

No it wouldn't because those views only matter if there are ads attached to them and the advertisers banded together to get their ads removed from controversial videos because the viewers were associating their ads with said videos. So YT went on a demonetizing spree to placate the advertisers, their actual source of revenue.

Source?