One of the people swept up in the latest YouTube purge has spoken up:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znKj1CVN9Qc

Just more scary stuff happening in this world as all of our avenues of speech are slowly being controlled by corporations who bend the knee to the leftists.

EDIT:

Youtube is trying to purge this video from existence. There were dozens of these uploaded across various channels yesterday and it appears this is the only one left:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Z9vf0xjOfs

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Scurvy,

They aren't "bending the knee to leftists."

They ARE leftists. Youtube, FB, Twitter etc., almost any wellknown ap/website you can think of right now, is owned by a leftist.

How about Tumblr? Patreon?

Most of these companies are "liberal" left-coast based and have been. It's just that the PC/SJW thing has really frothed up in the last, oh, 2 years or so.

Across the board, and dealing with content from Peterson and others, these companies/people are now exercising their rights as private companies/platforms/websites to censor content.

This is a shame, but is it really that surprising? This is the "tolerance" of the Left.

They aren't interested in Freedom, or Tolerance, or any speech that doesn't fit their dogma.

And they get to use the distinction between freedom of speech in a public venue, and the rights of a privately owned space, to censor as they please.

The Market will solve this, really.

The market isn't going to solve this. You think anyone near the majority even knows what patreon is? The market tried to solve it with Gab, Subscribestar and others and what happens? All the leftist tech companies collude to exclude. Apple and Google collude with Twitter to not let Gab in their marketplaces. Paypal/Patreon and Mastercard collude to exclude subscribestar from being able to process payments.

Sure, it might not be a big deal now but these young social media types are the ones influencing the next generation. The millenials are obviously already lost but keeping alternative (IE, not in line with PC/SJW culture) viewpoints on these platforms is a big deal.

I saw a thread on here the other day mocking pewdiepie. Sure, no one over the age of 22 understands it but the kids do. He's got one of the biggest channels on youtube and he's a believer in free speech. Hate to say it but he's probably a major factor in younger kids even understanding the meaning of that instead of the generic squawking of 'freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences'.

These websites are the new public square and we need SCOTUS to rule as such. If they can determine that privately owned shopping malls are in the public square, then they can deem social media that way as well.

I am not so pessimistic about this. The millennials are liberal, we know this. However, the generation right behind them, generation Z are actually very conservative.

These kids are very aware of what is happening with all of this censorship. I fully expect some of them to destroy these big tech companies that want to be our nannies. I’m not sure how old that momkey guy is, but he looks like he’s under 23...that’s a generation Z kid then. These kids will start up a competitor to you tube and google/facebook censored news feeds. They hate this BS and they’re the techy ones who will soon dominate the market.

Here’s an example of one such article describing generation Z. Google will show you countless more. These young kids give me hope. My oldest niece and nephew are each in high school and about to start college. They are conservative as can be. They are what this article describes to a T. They are HUGE Trump supporters

https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...er-generation-z/amp/

"There oughta be a law" is not the solution here. It will lead to a narrowing of rights and expanded government power.

If you want government control of private enterprise, you're headed the wrong way.

quote:

The Market will solve this, really.

It can, it should but not in the short run.
Which leads to ask "how much damage can be done in the short run?".
Not in favor of guberment intervention all that much but you have to realize the stakes are different.
It's not just money at stake but the ability to control every other aspect of your like.
Gone unchecked and liberal takeover and domination cultivated by colluding media may be more than what simple capitalism can overcome.
I hope not for all our sakes.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
"There oughta be a law" is not the solution here. It will lead to a narrowing of rights and expanded government power.

If you want government control of private enterprise, you're headed the wrong way.

How is the expansion of the people's free speech rights, headed in the wrong way?

If the government didn't pick and choose winner, we might not have the problems we have today with tech companies.

Youtube took this kid's livelihood away for no reason. They accused him of the crime of hate speech (for making fun of a spree killer) and hurt him financially with no repercussions...

Edit: The government has successfully outsourced social control to private companies who are not beholden to the constitution...

I appreciate YouTube for their videos. Music, motorcycles,guns, all sorts of things.

They are slapping people like me square in the face with moves like this.

It's disrespectful and breeds anger.

I'm here today to tell them, if a real competitor comes out allowing all content, left and right, I will give them my full support.

I do DO NOT want to be told what I should like or dislike.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
I am not so pessimistic about this. The millennials are liberal, we know this. However, the generation right behind them, generation Z are actually very conservative.

These kids are very aware of what is happening with all of this censorship. I fully expect some of them to destroy these big tech companies that want to be our nannies. I’m not sure how old that momkey guy is, but he looks like he’s under 23...that’s a generation Z kid then. These kids will start up a competitor to you tube and google/facebook censored news feeds. They hate this BS and they’re the techy ones who will soon dominate the market.

Here’s an example of one such article describing generation Z. Google will show you countless more. These young kids give me hope. My oldest niece and nephew are each in high school and about to start college. They are conservative as can be. They are what this article describes to a T. They are HUGE Trump supporters

https://www.google.com/amp/s/w...er-generation-z/amp/

He is Gen Z (aka Zoomer) and actually has a podcast where he argues with a bleeding heart liberal called Boomer vs Zoomer.

I agree Gen Z is definitely more conservative. Nothing draws a kid's attention like telling they they can't watch or read something. Deplatforming Alex Jones just made young kids seek him out to see what he said that made him persona non grata on the internet.

The problem is that as long as a small handful of companies are control the levers of power with the government's blessing, they will make sure that no viable alternative can take off.

Apple, Google, Mastercard, Paypal etc can all exert an inordinate amount of control over people's internet experience.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
I am not so pessimistic about this. The millennials are liberal, we know this. However, the generation right behind them, generation Z are actually very conservative.

I hear this paraded around as fact, and I have yet to see it. More fake news from the lame stream media??

Kids, all kids, 0 to 30 years old, are indoctrinated leftist, communist, progressives.

Yet generation z is somehow a bunch of gun totin texans? I dont believe it.

quote:

Originally posted by bubbatime:

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
I am not so pessimistic about this. The millennials are liberal, we know this. However, the generation right behind them, generation Z are actually very conservative.

I hear this paraded around as fact, and I have yet to see it. More fake news from the lame stream media??

Kids, all kids, 0 to 30 years old, are indoctrinated leftist, communist, progressives.

Yet generation z is somehow a bunch of gun totin texans? I dont believe it.

I don't know about gun totin texans but they are free speech absolutists. You don't have to look hard for signs. As I said before, Pewdiepie has one of the largest channels on youtube with 80 million subscribers and almost all of them are Gen Z kids. He's pretty conservative considering the current climate and a big promoter of free speech.

Here's an article from a non mainstream conservative website:

https://www.theamericanconserv...-zs-rightward-drift/

Edit: If you think any future generation is going to be pro traditional marriage, anti abortion and socially conservative, you are living a fantasy. Those issues are dead and buried whether you like it or not.

Gen Z is probably going to be more libertarian than anything if you want to get specific. Anti government control, anti social control, pro freedom.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
"There oughta be a law" is not the solution here. It will lead to a narrowing of rights and expanded government power.

If you want government control of private enterprise, you're headed the wrong way.

How is the expansion of the people's free speech rights, headed in the wrong way?

If the government didn't pick and choose winner, we might not have the problems we have today with tech companies.

Youtube took this kid's livelihood away for no reason. They accused him of the crime of hate speech (for making fun of a spree killer) and hurt him financially with no repercussions...

Edit: The government has successfully outsourced social control to private companies who are not beholden to the constitution...

I don't think you understand your "free speech rights" and how a private venue/space/website operates in that context.

My point is that clamoring to craft another law, is almost certainly a double edged sword to be used against you in the future. If not done carefully, you're almost certainly handing over more power to the government and/or your adversaries.

Youtube is a private website. Sigforum is a private website. In both cases, the owner of the site has great discretion on what content they allow. How exactly do we muck with that so that the net result is more freedom, not less?

If Youtube is forced to host more conservative content, will Sigforum find itself being forced to host more liberal content?

My point stands, in that the solution is the market. Someone somewhere has some venture capital to start a web portal that could compete with Youtube. Particularly now that they are censoring so liberally.

quote:

If Youtube is forced to host more conservative content, will Sigforum find itself being forced to host more liberal content?

There is a difference between being forced to host content and not being allowed to censor content at the platform level.
Not one for regulations but I am skeptical the free market will fix it with all of the media collusion.
Troubling nonetheless as I still think they may have a major role in 2020 in fixing the election for the Dems.
YMMV

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

The Market will solve this, really.

It can, it should but not in the short run.
Which leads to ask "how much damage can be done in the short run?".
...
I hope not for all our sakes.

That's assuming a free and open market with many buyers and sellers. But that doesn't describe the social media platforms.

I'm not advocating for laws to combat the current oligopoly but to think the "market" can solve the problem sounds like a canned response.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:
"There oughta be a law" is not the solution here. It will lead to a narrowing of rights and expanded government power.

If you want government control of private enterprise, you're headed the wrong way.

How is the expansion of the people's free speech rights, headed in the wrong way?

If the government didn't pick and choose winner, we might not have the problems we have today with tech companies.

Youtube took this kid's livelihood away for no reason. They accused him of the crime of hate speech (for making fun of a spree killer) and hurt him financially with no repercussions...

Edit: The government has successfully outsourced social control to private companies who are not beholden to the constitution...

I don't think you understand your "free speech rights" and how a private venue/space/website operates in that context.

My point is that clamoring to craft another law, is almost certainly a double edged sword to be used against you in the future. If not done carefully, you're almost certainly handing over more power to the government and/or your adversaries.

Youtube is a private website. Sigforum is a private website. In both cases, the owner of the site has great discretion on what content they allow. How exactly do we muck with that so that the net result is more freedom, not less?

If Youtube is forced to host more conservative content, will Sigforum find itself being forced to host more liberal content?

My point stands, in that the solution is the market. Someone somewhere has some venture capital to start a web portal that could compete with Youtube. Particularly now that they are censoring so liberally.

I didn't say we needed a new law. I said SCOTUS should declare sites like Youtube to be in the public square.

It's literally one of the largest websites on the internet and is essential to current cultural discourse.

You can't draw a comparison between youtube and a relatively tiny site like sigforum.

It is what it is, you support corporate censorship.

I don't "support corporate censorship."

I'm not on youtubes side, in that they purport to be free and open, but aren't.

If an internet provider were censoring content, that would be a much more clear cut case of the SC being able to declare such a "public square" or "in the public domain."

But in the eyes of the law, the size has little to do with it, and if you want Youtube to have to surrender its right to censor content, well guess what, a site like this becomes vulnerable to the same.

A law would have to be very carefully crafted to make a distinction between Youtube and Sigforum, do you think that would happen? I don't.

Again, the market is the solution. Allowing the law and thereby the state to step in, is seldom a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by arcwelder76:


The Market will solve this, really.

Maybe.

At times in our history we have recognized that some operations are so pervasive and entrenched that only trust busting and intervention will meaningfully solve the problems.

Standard Oil had competitors too.

See THIS. It is hard to address such things and it takes both self-discipline and leadership.

quote:

arcwelder76

What this guy said.

Listen to it...

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

arcwelder76

What this guy said.

Listen to it...

Nope. It is based on fear - fear of what would happen if runaway regulation resulted.

Historically, regulation hasn't hit every market participant alike - as arc fears.

No, not fear. Mistrust and skepticism.

Regulation is difficult to get right, and given almost any legislative bodies success rate, asking for new laws is not a great long term strategy if you actually enjoy freedom.

Clamoring for a legislative fix is the realm of Statism.

The reason I'd rather trust the market with something like this, is that it is possible without new laws to see a competitive website/platform emerge that is more fair/balanced than a Youtube.

This purging by various companies isn't in their favor, it only applied to the hard left, the people who have really bought into the SJW nonsense. There are still Democrats who value actual free speech, and then there is still everybody in the middle between the Right and Left. They may not vote, but they vote with their views and wallets.

If a court decision, or new law is the necessary fix, it should be done thoughtfully, and I'm right to not have a great deal of faith in such a thing.

But fear, no.