quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
I strongly disagree with YouTube but it is their website so they can do what they please.

Some of you people need an education in private property, what it means, what it applies to, and what it entails.

Breaking monetization contracts due to unpublished standards and rules is nothing but shitbaggery.

They literally removed my monetization because I couldn't keep a certain number of followers watching a certain number of hours a month, however I am STILL required to show ads now, but anyone and everyone can STEAL my content for ad revenue with zero consequences as I have to pay an attorney to pursue the thieves.

Youtube needs to see just how shitty the FCC and IRS can be.

Did you watch the videos? Youtube manually approved his videos for monetization and then gave him strikes on those same videos.

I would actually enjoy watching YouTube take some heat. There is no doubt some "shitbaggery".

That said, I heard (Creator Insider) that 98% of all creators haven't made a penny.

Part of their rationale for demonetization was they said they wanted more time to vet the applicants for suitable content. We all know it hasn't been 100% successful. Meanwhile, legitimate producers of good content have been excluded.

I have no idea whether I'll be accepted, once I hit that magical 1,000 subscriber mark.


The insider channel has been suggesting alternatives to ad revenue. SWAG, Patreon etc. The idea of begging for money is repulsive to me.

I still think it's important to share our experience though...even if we don't get paid.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Your mind is made up philosophically.

Why are you telling me what I think? You are incorrect.

quote:

Your idea seems to me to be borne of fear.

That is my impression of the idea.

One that I told you is also incorrect. What I think is not out of fear.

quote:

Fear government. For the benefit of the open minded I posted. Sigmonkey said to heed your idea and I said and say, "no."

There are some who are ardent about philosophically fearing government. Some are impossibly entrenched in those ideas and some are not.

So, when I tell you that I'm just skeptical, you just assume I'm impossibly entrenched? When I tell you that's not the case, you insist you know me better than I? Good work.

quote:

I believe those of an open or different opinion should be able to explore ideas other than fear.

You may wish to recast the word "fear" to ambiguate it with your idea, "skepticism," but it still partakes of fear to me.

Man, you should always be skeptical of power. Questioning what the government is up to is a healthy thing.

quote:

Fear the government is the thrust of your posts. I don't think that fear is always warranted.

Again. I've told you repeatedly that's not what I am about. You seem to have leapt to a conclusion about me, and now you're telling me about my own philosophy? Come off it, you're wrong. You don't know me, and when I tell you that I don't mean "fear," kindly take my word that I'm intelligent enough to know what it is.

quote:

Ronald Reagan talked of skepticism of government help then proceeded to use the federal government to help all kinds of citizens.

Abstract philosophies or bumper-sticker phrases do not always comport with actual needs and good policy-making, to me.

Your syllogism seems, like another poster, to be:
All government intervention is bad.
This partakes of government intervention.
Therefore. this is bad.
All A is B.
C is A.
Therefore, all C is B.

A perfect, unassailable syllogism. It's perfect logic but factually wrong in its major premise.

Again, this is my criticism of the idea.

[/quote]

You've made a lot of assumptions.

If you'd care to read my posts, I never said all government was bad. What government is bad at, is finely crafted solutions. It's simply difficult to do, for one.

The reason I say the market is the solution here, is because that is a good first step. If it can't be solved in the marketplace, then we go to the courts or the legislature. But starting by changing the law is not a good strategy for virtually any solution.

Here is a recent example. The law linked there, is one piece of all this censoring/purging going on on various platforms. At the very least, they are using it as a convenient excuse to get rid of ideas they don't like. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

What YouTube and other platforms are doing right now is a mistake. While it probably won't irreparably damage these companies, it does show a clear opportunity in the marketplace. The guys at the "Intellectual Dark Web" have been talking about an alternative to Patreon, I hope that means the launch of a new site in the vein of youtube/patreon.

More venues or platforms for people to give and get content, is a good thing.

Trying to control who can do what on their private website and what it means for free speech through the courts or legislature, is by no means always a good thing.

When it comes down to our rights, the reason you don't rush to a legislative solution, is that it typically ends up in a narrowing of those rights, and the party in power won't always be. You think you get what you want, but next year the other side uses its new power that people ceded to it, in a way they didn't want.

It's necessary, for a functioning society, that government do a variety of things. Roads, water, building standards, etc.

Free speech? I'm right to be skeptical of what law might be next. If we take into account both that the parties seem to agree on a whole lot, and that even the courts are politicized, this is why a solution that doesn't involve these bodies is preferable.

The first stop is a business opportunity for someone. If it must end up in the courts, better there than in the halls of a legislative body. If there, than better at the state than federal level.

Just for review.

Stop insisting that I fear the government. When I use words like skepticism or mistrust, I mean them.

You keep telling me what I think, then taking it apart. It's like you aren't listening.

Do me a solid and stop telling me what my philosophies are, and that my mind is made up. If you're so certain of that that you're going to ignore me when I tell you you're incorrect about it, then just leave me be and focus on someone else.

Your idea seemed clear to me: " 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."

I thought I was taking you, your philosophy and your conclusion at your word. I mean no offense to you. I just want to challenge that idea.

I don't think your conclusion is warranted.

Carry on.

I mean, dude, would you stop already. You're spamming an otherwise interesting thread/topic.

Fear by definition is characterized by alarm or grave concern. Arc seems pretty damn chill in his posts. Skeptical, by definition, means having a level of doubt or reservations that something will occur.

He is clearly skeptical, not fearful. Can you let that settle in please?

There are plenty of places where governmental regulation works. There are plenty of others where it doesn't. I for one don't think we need it here. Choosing what platform to view content through isn't one where I think we need intervention. If they are somehow engaging in unfair competition, then we already have laws for that.

If I'm looking for something gun related, I go to full30 first and search for it. That's because I know google will give me youtube results and youtube can suck it. It's a simple choice. No .gov is required for this issue.=

All of this censorship is relatively new in this space. A competitor isn't created quickly, give it a chance to work. Have you noticed how apple is now marketing "what happens on your iPhone stays on your iPhone?" They are clearly going after Google "spying" on their customers to collect data. Let's see if apple goes after this space too.

If y'all aren't searching full30 first for gun vids, please start. Being self aware and not doing what is convenient here is the answer, not government regulation. The alternative is simply a choice we make....so do it.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by roberth:
I strongly disagree with YouTube but it is their website so they can do what they please.

Some of you people need an education in private property, what it means, what it applies to, and what it entails.

Despite the fact that there are other video platforms out there, such as Vimeo, don't you think that Youtube- with support from its monster-sized owner Google- constitutes a de facto monopoly?

Pretty much a monopoly and worse if you attach all of the colluding media - it is a CARTEL!

How you fix it needs careful consideration and not some knee-jerk law.
It does need to be viewed as something larger than a single free enterprise entity, IMO.
Additionally, couple that with the political affect makes it particularly difficult to evaluate.
Years ago the libs tried to force Conservative stations to host an equal amount of Liberal content.
That was the wrong approach, we don't need the same here in reverse either.
However, discrimination based on political views is perfectly legal.
Couple this discrimination with a biased Cartel makes for a dangerous outcome.

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
Your idea seemed clear to me: " 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."

I thought I was taking you, your philosophy and your conclusion at your word. I mean no offense to you. I just want to challenge that idea.

I don't think your conclusion is warranted.

Carry on.

You didn't challenge my idea, you made your own conclusion and spent a lot of time insisting it was mine. This isn't a challenge, or even a discussion. By putting words in my mouth, and talking down to what you believe my "philosohy" is, you were doing little more than arguing amongst yourself.

Whether you think my conclusion is warranted, is irrelevant. Particularly because I never said "all government is bad" or almost any of the things you heaped on.

Free speech is not a simple issue, and my distrust in the likelihood of a law crafted well enough to do the job without unintended consequences, is well founded.

In case anyone missed the link I posted, here it is again:

A current example of government legislation and censorship.

This is a great example of trying to solve one problem while creating others, at the detriment to free speech. Legislation like this, coupled with the climate that I mentioned my first post in this thread, is why Youtube and other sites are cleaning house. On one hand, it's CYA, on the other it's the perfect cover for them to enforce their leftist ideology with the cover of getting rid of content that doesn't meet their standards.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:
Pretty much a monopoly and worse if you attach all of the colluding media - it is a CARTEL!

How you fix it needs careful consideration and not some knee-jerk law.
It does need to be viewed as something larger than a single free enterprise entity, IMO.
Additionally, couple that with the political affect makes it particularly difficult to evaluate.
Years ago the libs tried to force Conservative stations to host an equal amount of Liberal content.
That was the wrong approach, we don't need the same here in reverse either.
However, discrimination based on political views is perfectly legal.
Couple this discrimination with a biased Cartel makes for a dangerous outcome.

A monopoly, cartel, cabal.. The "media" as in the broadcast media, is for the most part silent on this issue because they believe silencing anything outside of leftist ideas is legitimate.

The problem is bigger than Youtube, and bigger than the internet. When Jerry Seinfeld won't play college campuses, something is deeply wrong with our culture. As the culture itself shifts to more and more digital space, then it is increasingly in the domain of companies who at their core are the Left.

While Youtube might be sued to stop these practices, or a law be crafted to make it more "fair," can you legislate away a cultural shift? The only viable solution may BE alternate platforms. Someone mentioned Gab, and I recall not only did Google and Apple not host them, but they were painted as outright white-supremacist and anti-Semitic. I think Gab still exists? One might expect this smear tactic against any platform that allows anthing close to "hate speech."

There must be a way to allow free speech, that includes things deemed offensive and "hate speech," and still survive as a platform. The SJW and safe space mentality, and the idea that speech is actual violence or that being offended is actually injury, has done serious damage to now several generations of Americans.

How do we reverse this indoctrination? Is it possible? If we don't, then Youtube is the least of the coming problems.

It is sad and ultimately ironic that censorship can wear the cloak of equality and tolerance. It dovetails in nicely with the mindset of Antifa.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
I mean, dude, would you stop already. You're spamming an otherwise interesting thread/topic.

esdunbar, you spoke and I'm out.

https://twitter.com/VincentHat.../1084572150382673920

Someone at Youtube clearly has it out for this kid.

I really don't like to generalize with statements like left-wing/right-wing.

I DO believe we're getting pussified as a species. Unfortunately, there will always be speech nazis, who censor content. The young man in question may be a victim.

What, really, can be done about it in this context? not much.

I truly hope someone at youtube/google has done something criminal with this and google as a corp has to answer to the iron fist of the FCC.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:
I truly hope someone at youtube/google has done something criminal with this and google as a corp has to answer to the iron fist of the FCC.

My impression of the FCC more like an ineffectual tap with a velvet mallet...when they're not sidelined by a government shutdown