so I guess my real question (and I'll ask it here vs the other thread), what to do about warehousing and/or making available historical material that may be offensive to some? Bob summarized in the earlier post: is there a third model (if I am following the conversation correctly): 3. no decisions about content, which makes them a steward in some sense similar to a public library that houses copies of Lady Chatterley's Lover or Huckleberry Finn etc. I don't think libraries are public utilities in the sense of regulation and government oversight. Or are utilities simply different than libraries in that they are for-profit private companies, whereas most libraries are not-for-profit private companies.
Seriously, go to Google marketplace and search for Triumph of The Will. You will get more returns than you can count. I'm sure if you wait long enough, a documentary will appear on The History Channel, and you can plug in your VCR and record on tape, if you roll that way. Or do you demand that everything be free? I'm sure most libraries with a historical film collection have it, too. It's also on Dailymotion and Vimeo and Amazon Prime, if you are a Prime member.
And the Bible. Remember when Lot's daughters got him drunk and both got pregnant with him? Jesus Christ!
I'm actually not worried about being able to access Triumph of the Will. I am more interested in the philosophical point about who makes the decisions
They are a for-profit business. Presumably the owners of the business make the decision and reap results. YouTube is not the whole marketplace. If they make a bad decision, the vaunted free market can address that. Or the government could nationalize YouTube and dictate rules if you prefer.
Also, I think a lot of people are conflating demonetization with being banned. Crowder was demonetized, his video was allowed to stay up, he can continue to publish videos until he addresses the issues youtube has with his channel, which I think had to do with that shirt he sold. This video was removed entirely. I think the conversation gets muddied when people say demonetization is also some kind of free speech violation because it implies some kind of entitlement to profit from your speech.
For most content creators demonetization essentially shuts down their channel. You can argue semantics, but the effect is not unlike censorship.
So you have a right to be paid for content you choose to publish on YouTube? If I want to put out my TV show, but the only people who will show it is the public access channel who won't pay, have I been censored? I appreciate your position. It was my first instinct when I thought of the subject. YouTube has become ubiquitous and equal to online content. But I don't think you have guarantees to any specific publisher in any other avenue of publishing, much less guarantees to access to ad revenue. Technically, any time anybody refuses anything, it is censorship I guess, but at that point the term has become diluted to the point of uselessness.
I think it is part of history and should be allowed to be seen by those who wish to understand why people dislike Nazis, how the Nazis were spread their philosophy and propaganda.
Nazis going to be Nazis. No need to give them a point to rally around by claiming their free speech rights are being violated. One of their favorite and most effective ways of relating to normal folks is to ask for support because their free speech rights ,that they could give a crap about for others , are being violated. Also, we already have enough hidden control of the mainstream media information --often times by what they do not make public. For instance just watch ABC, NBC, CBS Nightly "News: for their their 5 minutes of carefully curated national news , along with weather, crime-- a blonde or cute kid being viciously killed and the ending happy piece such as a smiling quadriplegic young veteran climbs Mount Everest or attends daughter's graduation. The last thing we need is now a few billionaires on facebook, twitter and a couple of other platforms deciding what to allow on the other main source of media besides the 5 or 6 corporate boards of the mainstream media. We should have a serious discussion that concerns all the media. What is the best way to regulate media and "No" just letting billionaires control through THE Market is not the answer. Before Reagan and Clinton deregulated media we were doing it much better. NPR was better funded. Billionaires could not effectvely buy up all the AM stations to inculcate folks with the need to give them more tax breaks and hate government. Even music stations had to have 5 minutes or so of actual news a few times per day as part of their deal for having access to the pubilic air waves. Maybe we should have mandatory 5 minute civic lessons on relatively neutral topics like the steps in passing a bill or how to reigster to vote or even the reasons for Freedom of the Press, what is in the Bill of Rights etc.
Indeed. Nothing could be considered more "Nazi-like" than the banning of any material deemed "offensive".
Is it censorship if I build a house and don't allow Nazi rallies to be held in my house? If I was ingenious enough to design and create a successful video hosting site, what about my rights to not fund and promote people I vehemently disagree with? Crowder can hire right wing software and web developers to host his own content on the internet. He can pay for the servers. He has the freedom to do that and no one should stop him from having the ability to do that.
In only semi related news, I visited Auschwitz with my ten year old son today. Jeez we have some evil amongst us.
What? So you think frames will make you look more bi or gay? How did you do research for these frames?
