Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
See, but here's the thing. Irresponsible speech that promotes violence will always lead to suppression. You 4chan jackoffs knew this a long time ago, but thought that it was more important to be edgelords and have lulz than it was to be responsible. So now, you reap the whirlwind and spoil it for every
And that if Carlin were alive today and did the same bits today he did then he would likewise probably be thrown in jail for so called "Hate Speech" right?
That's utter nonsense. You can find tons of comedians doing Carlin's act and even going further today and not being "thrown in jail for hate speech". You can't just throw nonsense like that out and not be challenged.
Do you really believe that "Count Dankula" is the equivalent of George Carlin?
And say what you will about the right but you can go to any right wing website and be as leftist as you want,
Breitbart refused to publish my 2000 word essay on the benefits of Socialism. And that was before they banned me from their comments section for saying Steve Bannon looks like Baron Harkonnen.
Bad analogy (it's almost like this is slashdot). A better analogy would be if Breitbart refused to sell you ad space for your socialist screed. But that's flawed too: Breitbart is a publisher, not a common carrier, and can e.g. be sued for libel for what they publish.
There's no objective way to distinguish who is "the press", but I think self-selection could work well. Let corporations decide whether they're a publisher, with editorial control and liability, or a platform with neither.
A better analogy would be if Breitbart refused to sell you ad space for your socialist screed.
No. You seem to have forgotten that YouTube hasn't sold a goddamn thing to the people who post videos. They're not the customers. They're the product, and their relationship to YouTube is entirely voluntary...on both sides.
And why are you OK with Breitbart censoring my 2000-word essay on the benefits of Socialism by not posting it on their website?
It's not just YouTube. It's also Facebook refusing to sell pro-life ads, and that sort of thing.
Anyway, if YouTube censors beyond what the laws require, they should be liable for libel, copyright infringment, and everything else from every random person who posts. The EU clearly ants that to be the future, probably because they want to destroy a platform that allows people to gasp, the horror, say what they want.
And why are you OK with Breitbart censoring my 2000-word essay on the benefits of Socialism by not posting it on their website?
Breitbart is a publisher, not a platform. They're already liable for libel, copyright infring
Also, are they a publicly held corporation? I have no idea. If not, it's a different world.
Why does it matter if they are publicly held or privately held? In both cases, they own their property. Maybe you don't understand what "publicly held" means. It doesn't mean that it's owned by the general public or that it's publicly owned. It just means that anyone can buy shares.
Also, courts have held that Facebook and YouTube are indeed "publishers", but the distinction doesn't matter. Either way, it's their
"publicly held" means. It doesn't mean that it's owned by the general public or that it's publicly owned. It just means that anyone can buy shares.
It has been a key distinction in multiple SCOTUS rulings, including Citizens Unieted. A group of people, peaceably assembled, have a First Amendment right to political expression. in a partnership or tightly held corporation, the rights of the owners aren't reduced by the fact they've gotten together.
A publicly held corporation, OTOH, has no rights, constitutional or otherwise. It does not have the right to political expression. If corporate involvement is politics hurts the people, and it damn well doe
A publicly held corporation, OTOH, has no rights, constitutional or otherwise. It does not have the right to political expression.
That is 100% not true. You can go all the way back to Santa Clara v Southern Pacific and the Supreme Court has never held a distinction under the First Amendment for publicly held vs closely held corporations.
And Citizens United, the most recent case, also did not hold a distinction.
Did I mention that we need to ban publicly held corporations making campaign contributions?
I believe it's you that wrote " Did I mention that we need to ban publicly held corporations making campaign contributions?" you nobend. So it's fairly clear who's in favor of censorship as long as it's the right kind of censorship.
Good (Score:1, Insightful)
I see no problem here (except with some employees who are complaining, who should probably be fired).
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or
* A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
See, but here's the thing. Irresponsible speech that promotes violence will always lead to suppression. You 4chan jackoffs knew this a long time ago, but thought that it was more important to be edgelords and have lulz than it was to be responsible. So now, you reap the whirlwind and spoil it for every
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's utter nonsense. You can find tons of comedians doing Carlin's act and even going further today and not being "thrown in jail for hate speech". You can't just throw nonsense like that out and not be challenged.
Do you really believe that "Count Dankula" is the equivalent of George Carlin?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Breitbart refused to publish my 2000 word essay on the benefits of Socialism. And that was before they banned me from their comments section for saying Steve Bannon looks like Baron Harkonnen.
So, I'm sorry, you're just wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad analogy (it's almost like this is slashdot). A better analogy would be if Breitbart refused to sell you ad space for your socialist screed. But that's flawed too: Breitbart is a publisher, not a common carrier, and can e.g. be sued for libel for what they publish.
There's no objective way to distinguish who is "the press", but I think self-selection could work well. Let corporations decide whether they're a publisher, with editorial control and liability, or a platform with neither.
Re:Good (Score:2)
No. You seem to have forgotten that YouTube hasn't sold a goddamn thing to the people who post videos. They're not the customers. They're the product, and their relationship to YouTube is entirely voluntary...on both sides.
And why are you OK with Breitbart censoring my 2000-word essay on the benefits of Socialism by not posting it on their website?
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just YouTube. It's also Facebook refusing to sell pro-life ads, and that sort of thing.
Anyway, if YouTube censors beyond what the laws require, they should be liable for libel, copyright infringment, and everything else from every random person who posts. The EU clearly ants that to be the future, probably because they want to destroy a platform that allows people to gasp, the horror, say what they want.
And why are you OK with Breitbart censoring my 2000-word essay on the benefits of Socialism by not posting it on their website?
Breitbart is a publisher, not a platform. They're already liable for libel, copyright infring
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it matter if they are publicly held or privately held? In both cases, they own their property. Maybe you don't understand what "publicly held" means. It doesn't mean that it's owned by the general public or that it's publicly owned. It just means that anyone can buy shares.
Also, courts have held that Facebook and YouTube are indeed "publishers", but the distinction doesn't matter. Either way, it's their
Re: (Score:2)
"publicly held" means. It doesn't mean that it's owned by the general public or that it's publicly owned. It just means that anyone can buy shares.
It has been a key distinction in multiple SCOTUS rulings, including Citizens Unieted. A group of people, peaceably assembled, have a First Amendment right to political expression. in a partnership or tightly held corporation, the rights of the owners aren't reduced by the fact they've gotten together.
A publicly held corporation, OTOH, has no rights, constitutional or otherwise. It does not have the right to political expression. If corporate involvement is politics hurts the people, and it damn well doe
Re: (Score:2)
That is 100% not true. You can go all the way back to Santa Clara v Southern Pacific and the Supreme Court has never held a distinction under the First Amendment for publicly held vs closely held corporations.
And Citizens United, the most recent case, also did not hold a distinction.
I agr
Re: (Score:2)
OK, I get it. You just love censorship, as long as the other guys are censored. All else is rationalization.
Re: (Score:0)