[The New Yorker] Alex Jones, the First Amendment, and the Digital Public Square

Except they are. There are plenty of phoney balooney “centers” and “institutions” on both sides.

 

So switch phone companies if you need to make money off the Sandy Hook shooting by calling it fake...

 

this statement from Youtube after they demonitized Steven Crowder is quite disturbing

 

Why can't Steven Crowder pick himself up from his bootstraps and engineer his own video streaming service where he can post whatever he wants and monatize in what ever method he wants?

 

He does, pretty much everyone of his videos are already demonetized, the issue is really anyone else who doesn't have millions of subscibers and the ability to create their own service, like was the intended purpose of things like youtube.

Crowder isn't the target, the guy is a comedian and says offensive things like every other comedian, small time creators and the entire youtube model are the target, and Vox's masters will profit the most.

 

Because Steven Crowder wears a white hat.

 

Good. It would benefit American society if less children thought of being a social media influencer as a career choice.

 

Ok. So what now? Government regulation of YouTube?

 

Let the free market solve this.

 

That would be the expected position of pure free marketeer, which I believe @Commodore is. And I’m curious if that apply here too for him.

 

I agree the solution will be technological (an uncensorable/decentralized platform for hosting content).

In general the left favors and agitates to silence speech they don't like. It goes beyond boycotts, the left doesn't want Crowder or Alex Jones to be heard by people that want to hear them.

"We're not going to dissuade you from listening to Alex Jones, we're going to stop you."

 

But what if the free market doesn't trend to that desire? Google is maximizing profits with YouTube. Obviously they believe their methods maximize profits. Who's to say a new platform that promises "no censorship" will eventually lead to censorship if it eventually maximizes profits?

This might blow your mind but maybe the free market doesn't like edgelord right wingers?

 

It wouldn't be a promise, it would be hard wired with open source code (analogous to BitTorrent)

but they do, hence the effort to demonetize them

 

Source codes can be altered if the video streaming service feels as if they aren't maximizing profits by allowing certain types of speech.

What does that have to do with the video streaming service's profits, in this case Google? You think they are demonetizing Crowder out of principle? These are business decisions, not moral decisions.

 

My son discussed this YouTube/Crowder issue on his channel last night.

 

31 minutes: "So when you get banned from Facebook, Twitter [etc]...what do you *do* on the internet? Other than p*rn?"

Well....there's this bbs out of Houston....

 

I used to identify as "liberal," but "liberal" is coming to mean "You're not allowed to talk, Hate Dude!"

YouTube is turning into ****.

 

It shows how reading actual articles rather than memes and clickbait headlines is completely lost amongst the general public.

 

Right? I thought that was great, especially being that I've never had a facebook or twitter or whatnot.

 

Let's see. . . . Go to the YouTube page without being logged in and what do we get. . . .

Jimmy Kimmel Live!
America's Got Talent
ESPN
Dude Perfect [?!?!?!!]

YouTube TV:
The Bachelorette
SportsCenter

First 14/20 videos listed: over 1 million views.

YouTube is just a medium for megacorps. They want Walt Disney. Are they pretending to edify the public, nay, educate us? hahahahahaha

hahahahaha