lol
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
lol
>>51843042
what video got removed?
>>51843053
The one promoting hate speech
>>51843042
>faggot OPs who post pics with no context
>>51844784
What more context do you want?
>>51843042
People are not allowed to dislike. Protest is labeled as 'hate speech' and is prohibited. Government wants you to praise it or, at least, tolerate.
Hate speech is still protected under the constitutional right of freedom of speech.
This is an unconstitutional act by Google.
I love porn and I don't think a private company should have to carry porn just because I love it. If you love hate, you should try to be equally mature about it.
>>51844962
It's googles sites, their rules.
You don't like niggers in your house, your rules.
>>51844962
The Constitution is an agreement between the Government and sovereign individuals. Google can't act unconstitutional.
>>51844962
Why do teenagers think it works like this?
>>51845047
It seems like corporations having complete control over citizens' primary means of communication is a way fucking bigger problem than the "hot button" net neutrality issues like fastlanes and data caps
>>51844962
Google is not a branch of the US government.
Youtube is like a coffee shop, if someone starts yelling about jews in your coffee shop, you can kick them out, it's your shop.
>>51845097
Because they're teenagers
>>51844962
yeah but private companies are not bound by the Constitution as its a limitation on government
>>51845102
Deus Ex when?
>>51845102
You primarily communicate via youtube videos? That's either very sad or completely amazing.
>>51845102
>It seems like corporations having complete control over citizens' primary means of communication is a way fucking bigger problem than the "hot button" net neutrality issues like fastlanes and data caps
Well, it's not, the corporations don't have complete control. The corporations can't coerce you with a gunpoint, if you are unhappy you can just not use youtube.
>>51845047
Pretty sure telling someone they have to leave your property on the basis of their race could still be considered a criminal act
>>51845135
>>51845170
95% of the information consumed worldwide is a combination between TV, Facebook, Wikipedia and Youtube.
I mean I can use my own stuff, sure, but there are billions of people exposed to the bullshit of the corporations between the former mentioned.
>>51845047
>>51845067
>>51845097
>>51845107
>>51845114
LIBERAL RACE TRAITOR KUCK FAGGOTS! FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH!
>>51845202
yes because getting kicked out for being a minority is the same exact thing as getting kicked out for hate speech
>>51845219
>retard doesn't know how the law works
>>51845135
Quit being a retard. It's pretty obvious that youtube, facebook, twitter, reddit, etc. are becoming so widely used that they drown out smaller communication platforms. Youtube videos have a bigger impact on public thought than your private conversations with friends & coworkers.
>>51845170
That's not a solution if the vast majority of people are still using those sites to communicate. You can't convince the whole population (at least half of which is stupid) to ditch convenience for freedom.
>>51845219
Free speech means the government cannot prosecute you for your opinion.
That is VERY different from a private party enforcing their own guidelines on their own property.
>>51845211
>>51845257
Not a problem since you can just ignore the information, they have no power over you other than what you give them willingly.
Forcing corporations to some free speech standard isn't freedom, it's the opposite.
I'd love to know what Youtube defines 'hate speech' as.
>He still uses clearnet services instead of content-decentralized networks for video consumption
You let this happen.
>>51845363
>you can ignore the information
You can't. Information slips in if you keep being exposed.
>>51845219
Let's turn this around.
Imagine you were to have a company, and some black/hispanic guy you hired starts giving speeches about how evil/stupid crackers are all day long.
Won't you fire him because 'freedom of speech'?
>>51845225
What?
>>51845363
That doesn't matter if billions of other people either don't care about their freedom or are too stupid to realize when it's in jeopardy. My own agency doesn't protect me from decisions made by the other 99.9999% of the world. When power over those people's ideas is consolidated under a handful of extremely wealthy corporations, democratic decisions aren't really democratic. Free will isn't a magic concept that protects people from psychological exploitation.
>>51845472
word
>>51843042
What? Any mirror of that video?
>>51845406
>if you keep being exposed
Ah, if you willingly keep exposed you can't complain you are being exposed.
>>51845472
Words without power without(gun,law,government official) are not exploitation, they are not coercive. Now you are grouping yourself with the hypersensitive liberals that want trigger words and content warnings because the words might "hurt" them. Don't you realize you are against free speech? You want to dictate what corporations are allowed to say? Why do you think you should have this power?
>>51845628
>willingly be exposed
What does that even mean? Because I want to use ANY medium that over 10 people worldwide use I'm 'willingly' exposing myself?
>>51845360
>>51845114
>>51845107
>>51845102
>>51845067
>>51845047
Even if you have freedom of speech under the law (i.e. the government cannot punish you for anything you say), companies that control hugely important communication media have the right to punish you (via censorship or social ostracization) for saying things they don't agree with.
Practically, how can you actually call that free speech?
It's not like we're in ancient Athens where you could have your opinion heard by yelling really loud in the middle of a forum. In a population of 7 billion people a single voice is powerless without the assistance of mass media, and the usage of mass media isn't properly protected by the law.
>>51845675
Willingly means nobody is forcing you to do it. Only government is allowed to force people into things, because this power is dangerous there is a constitution that limits how the government can use its force.
>>51845438
No, I'd fire him for not fitting in with the company culture and creating a negative work environment.
>>51845694
The huge role media plays in a democracy/society is a problem indeed. However compared to ancient Athens I, as an individual, have a far greater chance of spreading a message around the country than a guy that starts yelling at the main square.
>>51845756
I think you are taking things too literal here. 'as long as they don't put a gun to your head everything is alright' is no logic.
>>51845768
interesting, and how does this compare to Facebook banning a person for not fitting in their culture and creating a negative enviroment?
>>51843042
hahaha
oh wow
>>51845628
>Now you are grouping yourself with the hypersensitive liberals that want trigger words and content warnings because the words might "hurt" them. Don't you realize you are against free speech?
What the hell are you talking about? I want people to be able to speak freely on the internet without companies having the right to censor them.
Google blocking your communications for containing "objectionable content" isn't the same thing as the owner of a local bar kicking you out for being a nuisance. They might LEGALLY be similar, but in practice they are not. Google controls several of the most important communications tools in the modern world; the local bar gives you an audience of a few dozen people at most.
>>51845911
I thinkt he problem here is not Google banning people that break the rules, but the fact that Google owns most of the important communication tools in the modern world.
>>51845782
Facebook isn't a government entity bound to respect the Bill of Rights. If you want a Facebook profile, you have to play by their rules that you agreed to when you made a profile in the first place.
>>51846032
I think you misunderstood my, that was exactly my point.
Why would you as an employer be allowed to fire someone for hatespeech but shouldn't a private company be allowed to ban a customer for breaking the same rules?
>>51845694
>>51845911
Why would someone else have to deliver your message, for free? If you pay them they might but even they don't have to accept. You don't have power over other people. Having power to force other people to obey your commands is anti freedom.
>>51845107
>Google is not a branch of the US government.
yea, ok..
If your point is that private organizations should be allowed to fire/ban/remove people from employment or services based on their willful violation of a contract that both parties agreed to at inception, then I fully agree with you.
>>51845438
The last line on this post wasn't terribly clear as to which side you were arguing for
>>51846067
We need to agree to give up some liberties to preserve others, which is the principle of the social contract. Obviously complete legal freedom is anarchy, which is a bad system and leads to an imbalance of power similar to the imbalance currently created by companies like Google.
Under an ideal capitalist, democratic system (i.e. the way we optimistically imagine things work), we could create alternatives to Google to meet the demand for more open communication platforms. But in reality that doesn't work because few people are likely to move to the alternative unless it can miraculously amass the same amount of capital that Google has (do you have $500 billion to spare?).
>>51846293
>We need to agree to give up some liberties to preserve others
>to preserve others
You never had the liberty to coerce other people with force so I don't understand how you can say you want to preserve it. I don't think that can be called a liberty anyway.
What you are complaining isn't something new. Newspapers used to have lot more power than the internet companies have now. With the internet you can go to site like this and reach a lot of people. Over time the ability reach more people has increased. So I would argue that the democracy has survived worse than what we have now so the current situation isn't really an threat.
>>51845543
it was a moonman video
>>51845675
>Because I want to use ANY medium that over 10 people worldwide use I'm 'willingly' exposing myself?
Why does everybody and their mum want to become an outlet for mass media these days? Just talk to people normally. Your ideas are not, I repeat not, as interesting or life changing as you think. Not everyone needs to see them. This applies to everyone. If you do think they are interesting, create your own website or publish a fanzine or a manifesto or something.
That said, IMHO, all multibillion companies should be taxed so hard that their centralized publishing model becomes unsustainable. The only large media outlets online should be public service.
>>51846066
Fucking destroyed him.
