Social Steven crowder demonetized

[franklinstower]

A broadcasting company that doesn't make a profit and pushes a political agenda sounds more like the BBC/CBC to me.

If Youtube were a business it would have adjusted it's business model to generate income.

Instead, they accept a profitless existence in the pursuit of pushing their various political agendas.

Hardly the behaviour of a private bussiess.

This is also an antritrust issue as Google essentially accepts that YouTube makes no money for them because it keeps competitors from being able to succesfully launch their own video services since competitors can't afford to lose money every month.

You are only defending youtube because they are demonitizing people you feel threatened by.

I'm defending youtube because I dont think the governmet has any right to police content or content restrictions.


I would support a public platform though as an alternative to forcing YouTube to host content it doesnt like.

I was also in support of making the net a public utility but we lost that battle.

 

[Victor Maitland]

Blair Cottrell , the Aussie nationalist , has had his bank accounts closed down for having "the wrong opinions".
That is next step of intimidation . You cant have a bank account if you dont buy into mainstream liberal opinion .

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Blair Cottrell , the Aussie nationalist , has had his bank accounts closed down for having "the wrong opinions".
That is next step of intimidation . You cant have a bank account if you dont buy into mainstream liberal opinion .

Actually it starts with loans and mortgages. A quick social media search and the cunts in power can deny applications or fuck them around. It's been happening.

 

[spamking]

Blair Cottrell , the Aussie nationalist , has had his bank accounts closed down for having "the wrong opinions".
That is next step of intimidation . You cant have a bank account if you dont buy into mainstream liberal opinion .

I ran into stuff like this when I first got my license to sell firearms. Many credit card processing companies won't process firearms sales and many online CMS/Shopping cart systems won't allow firearms businesses to use their platforms to sell (Shopify, etc.).

 

[Ruprecht]

Blair Cottrell , the Aussie nationalist , has had his bank accounts closed down for having "the wrong opinions".
That is next step of intimidation . You cant have a bank account if you dont buy into mainstream liberal opinion .

He's also a convicted criminal for aggravated burglary, property damage, arson, testosterone trafficking, possessing a controlled weapon, stalking, offences against the person act (threats), inciting and breaching court orders.
"Nationalist" doesn't really cover what he is. While he denies being a neo-nazi these days, he's also said he'd like to see a portrait of Adolf Hitler in Australian classrooms and Mein Kampf distributed to students as required reading. Unsurprisingly the New Zealand mosque shooter had associated with his group.
After he was given a somewhat sympathetic interview on Sky News (they've adopted a right-wing bias for their evening programming) there was a mass exodus of advertisers and one of their presenters quit. So it's absolutely unsurprising that no company wants to associate with him in any way. What's more he was advertising his Westpac account details for people to donate to his legal fees.

 

[xcvbn]

Wonder how long Twitter will leave this up?

You're victimizing yourself

Did....your dad rape your mom?

 

[spamking]

You're victimizing yourself

Did....your dad rape your mom?

 

[spamking]

@Ruprecht @Kafir-kun interesting read on this that mentions Section 230.

Link

Current law doesn't differentiate between a social media platform acting like a publisher and engaging in viewpoint discrimination. If Facebook shadow-bans conservatives and elevates left-wing voices, it's still considered a platform so long as Facebook itself isn't posting content. Section 230 could be amended to create more rules that platforms must follow to maintain its protection, but such an amendment would be risky.

A modest amendment could require social media companies to follow their own terms of service. But terms of service are often dense and easy to frequently update, so this wouldn't likely solve the problem, but it would force social media companies to be honest about their criteria for bans and suspensions.

Eliminating Section 230 altogether would render social media companies liable for every item posted by users, and thus lead to a chilling effect where there would be effectively no platforms willing to host the work of random individuals, leaving only employed journalists with the ability to speak out online.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Good thread

 

[Lead]

It is a private business, but it operates like a government enterprise.

Can you explain this further? What is it doing to operate more like a government enterprise than a private business?

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Can you explain this further?

I already did.

 

[Lead]

I already did.

Because it didn't make a profit?

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Because it didn't make a profit?

Because it doesn't care to make a profit, it pushes a specific political agenda and it ignores antitrust laws. Very much like the CBC here in Canada or the BBC in the UK.

 

[Lead]

Because it doesn't care to make a profit, it pushes a specific political agenda and it ignores antitrust laws. Very much like the CBC here in Canada or the BBC in the UK.

There's a few pieces here. A company doesn't need to make a profit to be considered a company. Many of these tech companies are playing a very long game which centers around growth and market share instead of immediate profits. Secondly, YouTube is one of many divisions of Alphabet/Google which is an insanely profitable business as a whole. Many times, you can have a company which has projects which they intend to eventually be profitable or they find intangible value in for a variety of reasons (internal functions, extended branding, research/development of some sort, etc). Although I think the plan would be to make YouTube profitable (if it isn't already because we don't have 2018 numbers from what it looks like) I'm certain Google sees a ton of intangible value with the consumer data they can gather from YouTube, as well as how it compliments a huge service like Adwords.

To take a step back from this also, there is still a wide variety of views being broadcast on YouTube which conflict with one another. Is your example to the CBC and/or BBC because they are publicly funded or something? Because that comparison becomes really poor when YouTube isn't publicly funded by the US government. Maybe if YouTube ran PBS or something like that but that isn't the case here.

 

[Lead]

it pushes a specific political agenda and it ignores antitrust laws.

Very important to point these two out again. Why would these two points make a company more a government entity? Many company's push different political agendas and it doesn't make them a government entity. Also, company's would be the ones who would ignore antitrust laws because they aren't a government entity that regulates their industry. You are almost arguing against your own point with the antitrust line.
If you are trying to say antitrust laws should be enforced better in the US for the tech industry, that would've been more accurate to what I think you are trying to take a stance with.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Very important to point these two out again. Why would these two points make a company more a government entity? Many company's push different political agendas and it doesn't make them a government entity. Also, company's would be the ones who would ignore antitrust laws because they aren't a government entity that regulates their industry. You are almost arguing against your own point with the antitrust line.
If you are trying to say antitrust laws should be enforced better in the US for the tech industry, that would've been more accurate to what I think you are trying to take a stance with.

I said it behaves more like a government entity than a business. Not that it is one.

A ubiquitous private propaganda outlet should be disconcerting imo. Unless of course you just see this as 'yay people I don't like getting fucked over! Woohoo!' Which lots of people seem to.

 

[Lead]

I said it behaves more like a government entity than a business. Not that it is one.

Yea, I know you aren't saying they are literally one but none of those three criteria really make that point well, imo. Alphabet is performing better as a company than the majority in the world. I think they have well thought out and calculated reasons for having YouTube as an acquisition and have alluded to a few clear guesses from our point of view outside the company.

A ubiquitous private propaganda outlet should be disconcerting imo. Unless of course you just see this as 'yay people I don't like getting fucked over! Woohoo!' Which lots of people seem to.

So I get that some people here might be making the private company argument simply because they like the results right now. You shouldn't however make your our decisions based on their thinking or you delegated your opinion to the opposite of those who just make you angry. There are way too many long term ramifications for some of the proposals I've seen some right leaning posters and media pundits makes like claiming facebook and others as public utilities. It's a massive overreach that's just going to give government more power which isn't what you want from a conservative standpoint.

I do see reasoning in antitrust actions for a variety of industries but can't fully wrap my head around how it would be practical. Like some of these companies work because of how much marketshare they have like google with search optimization or facebook with a go-to social network. The consumer suffers with them being broken up and most antitrust rulings in recent history have taken the interpretation that as long as the consumer isn't being affected, there isn't need for antitrust. It's all a fucking mess but this is a short-term problem imo that shouldn't lead to overreaction and long-term really shitty solution that will only cause more problems.

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

Yea, I know you aren't saying they are literally one but none of those three criteria really make that point well, imo. Alphabet is performing better as a company than the majority in the world. I think they have well thought out and calculated reasons for having YouTube as an acquisition and have alluded to a few clear guesses from our point of view outside the company.



So I get that some people here might be making the private company argument simply because they like the results right now. You shouldn't however make your our decisions based on their thinking or you delegated your opinion to the opposite of those who just make you angry. There are way too many long term ramifications for some of the proposals I've seen some right leaning posters and media pundits makes like claiming facebook and others as public utilities. It's a massive overreach that's just going to give government more power which isn't what you want from a conservative standpoint.

I do see reasoning in antitrust actions for a variety of industries but can't fully wrap my head around how it would be practical. Like some of these companies work because of how much marketshare they have like google with search optimization or facebook with a go-to social network. The consumer suffers with them being broken up and most antitrust rulings in recent history have taken the interpretation that as long as the consumer isn't being affected, there isn't need for antitrust. It's all a fucking mess but this is a short-term problem imo that shouldn't lead to overreaction and long-term really shitty solution that will only cause more problems.

I don't think Facebook or Youtube should be folded into government. I think people should just stop using them.

I closed my Facebook account years ago but Youtube is harder since it is literally the only usable service of it's kind.

However, it enjoys that position because it is run in a way that other businesses can't afford to.

It is basically doing what Walmart does by simply outlasting all it's competition because it has deep pockets and can just absorb the losses.

No one I know of thinks what Walmart does should be legal or is sustainable in the long run and everyone I know of sees the damage a company like Walmart does over time.

I'd love to see a company like Pornhub step into this arena with a censorship free alternative.

 

[Lead]

It's worth poi ting out as well @


I don't think Facebook or Youtube should be folded into government. I think people should just stop using them.

I closed my Facebook account years ago but Youtube is harder since it is literally the only usable service of it's kind.

However, it enjoys that position because it is run in a way that other businesses can't afford to.

It is basically doing what Walmart does by simply outlasting all it's competition because it has deep pockets and can just absorb the losses.

No one I know of thinks what Walmart does should be legal or is sustainable in the long run and everyone I know of sees the damage a company like Walmart does over time.

I'd love to see a company like Pornhub step into this arena with a censorship free alternative.

I think it's hard to see the long-term outlook here. Boycotting is an option but I think the outrage from those who use it does enough to fix some of these problems. YouTube has given conflicting statements about this whole thing because I think they rather no be involved but they have to cause they are the platform. I think what ultimately came out of this, last I checked, is Crowder would be restored back to his normal status if the communism or socialism is for f*gs shirt was removed. That really wasn't a big deal for how big this controversy has gotten.

As for competitors, I do see issues here and don't want to act like I'm completely unconcerned but Crowder himself has mentioned he already makes very little money through YouTube and the majority of it is through his membership service as I think other pundits do. YouTube is usually just a piece to these guys platforms. They use podcasts which run through multiple platforms like Apple, spotify, etc and are decentralized enough that it would be pretty big if you were removed entirely like Alex Jones. They also use facebook, twitter, etc. They aren't on a single platform because they acknowledge they need to be diversified to reach a wider audience but the revenue usually comes from their own membership/subscription (Shapiro does the DailyWire membership, etc)

Walmart (and Amazon) are hard examples because they go have margins but they just are very very slim because, as you mentioned, they are looking at growth in market share instead. Like my last post, it's been allowed because of antitrusts latest interpretation of the consumer benefiting or not. I've been tempted to make a thread about the subject for awhile now because there's a lot of overlap with current headlines like this one.

 

[spamking]