JUST IN: YouTube apologizes to the LGBT community over Steven Crowder

YouTube has just apologized to the LGBT community after they got offended that Crowder wasn’t kicked off the YouTube platform:

AXIOS – YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki apologized Monday to members of the LGBTQ community who were offended by the company’s response to antigay comments by Steven Crowder aimed at Vox journalist Carlos Maza. At the same time, she defended the company’s handling of the issue.

“I know the decision we made was very hurtful to LGBTQ community,” Wojcicki said, speaking at Code Conference. “That was not our intention at all.”

At the same time, Wojcicki said she was involved with and agreed with the company’s actions in the case.

Asked by Vox’s Peter Kafka whether YouTube can ever get a handle on the content issues it faces. Wojcicki said the company can continue to get better, pointing to progress the company made on violent extremist content. “I see how much improvement we have already made,” she said, adding later: “I’m not saying we’re done.”

Wojcicki rejected the idea that people should have to get approval before posting videos.

“I think we would lose a lot of voices,” she said, adding that there should be “tiers” of trust, requiring a track record for having ads or live streaming.



The fact that YouTube held this apology session just goes to show how they really feel about Crowder.

It’s a wonder they didn’t Alex Jones him, to be honest.

But don’t worry, that’s probably coming down the road though as they become more hostile to those who say anything they disagree with about their new protected classes, homosexuals and transgenders.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

160 thoughts on “JUST IN: YouTube apologizes to the LGBT community over Steven Crowder

  1. It’s time for congress to revoke Google/YouTube, Facebook and Twitter’s platform status….they are clearly publishers at this point.

  2. kama sutra describes numerous positions to mutually procreate
    homo sutra describes numerous positions to mutually masturbate
    -py 2019

  3. For those who are interested, the House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing today entitled, “Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 1: The Free and Diverse Press.” The hearing will commence at 2 pm.

  4. So let me get this straight (pun intended) 6% of the population which are perverted beyond recognition can tell the rest of us how to effing live and the intolerant can tell the tolerant what is accepted and what isn’t! Huh???

  5. This is why the left wins. Instead of standing strong on freedom of speech entity after entity caves to leftist bullies playing as victims. Everyone avoids stepping on their toes. God forbid we hurt their feelings.

    1. Agreed. And it’s the fatal flaw in political conservatism that we try so hard not to offend. That’s the whole reason why the left acts like butthurt crybabies: Because it works on us.

      That was the single greatest motivator for me transitioning to political libertarian ideology. Libertarians try not to offend, but we refuse to sacrifice the truth to do so. Truth hurt your feelings? To bad, suck it up buttercup, this is the truth.

      Conservatives naturally default to this position on issues like self defense. What’s the conservative response to someone breaking into your house to rob, rape, and murder you? Shoot them! If the intruder cries and whines that it’s not fair, boo hoo, while he’s trying to rape-rob-murder us, do we change our minds? No! We shoot the b*stard.

      So, too, politically (though not literally shooting them). When the left steps over the line we must hammer them with truth. Cry? Too bad. Truth.

      1. @pvg I think having a filter is a good idea to an extent. There was (and as far as I know still is) an alternative website that pretty much allows about anything. I heard that it’s a crap website because it’s infested with extremism and hate.

        I think we need a website that incorporates the setup of FB and/or Twitter, but without PC and leftists controlling what content is acceptable and what isn’t. To them, hate speech is anything they disagree with. That’s what needs to change to make these websites work.

  6. Also this. More privatized tyranny.

    https://news.grabien.com/story-google-ceo-new-youtube-rules-we-want-really-prevent-borderli

    Google’s CEO says he wants to see YouTube expand its crackdown on content.

    The company’s chairman, Sundar Pichai, said he’s hoping to take Google’s model of prioritizing of “quality content” over to YouTube.

    Pichai spoke with Axios’ Ina Fried, who expressed concern the tech company wasn’t taking a harder line against offensive content, pointing out a video she had seen of a “teenager who appeared to be donning Muslim garb, spewing a lot of anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, homophobic hate.”

    “I don’t know all the details of this specific video, but in general, look, I mean all of us, you know, none of us want harmful content on our platforms,” Pichai said. “Last quarter alone we removed 9 million videos from the platform.”

    The CEO then said he wants to expand YouTube’s view of what’s prohibited.

    “And so we are bringing that same notion [from Google] and approach to YouTube, so that we can rank higher quality stuff better and really prevent borderline content — content which doesn’t exactly violate policies, which need to be removed, but which can still cause harm.”

    In a move Pichair said acknowledged would be controversial, “fact checkers” will be brought in to monitor YouTube videos.

    “The thing we are trying to do is to bring more authoritative sources and fact checks on videos, which may be controversial,” Pichair admitted. “It’s a case where we got it wrong, but that’s what we are trying to do and we are working hard to improve.”

    The interview aired on Axios’ HBO show, “Axios on HBO.”

    1. privatized tyranny.

      You seriously need to stop saying that. It’s lowering the collective IQ of the nation.

      Which was already in danger to begin with.

      1. Do you really not understand what @Tracy means by ‘privatized tyranny?’

        Do you really think it’s impossible for a near monopoly to exercise many of the tools of tyranny or for a corporate giant to abuse their power while a weak and indifferent government looks the other way?

        Maybe an example will help. Whatever most people on this site think about gays, few if any think they should be thrown off roof-tops or hunted down and brutalized. Yet, that is exactly what happens in many countries, especially Russia. Officials just ignore the violence and in many cases condone it.

        While tyranny usually comes from a strong, central government; private entities can engage in many of the abuses for which tyrannies are known.

        1. That’s still not tyranny.

          If a corporation (giant or otherwise) is depriving you of your rights – and we can’t even reasonably point to where that’s happening in this case – you have legal redress against them in an impartial Court of Law. Something you will never get in a tyranny. Maybe they can act crappy and unfairly, but that doesn’t make them tyrants nor what they are doing “tyranny” in any way shape or form.

          Youtube has not oppressed, subjugated, imprisoned, tortured, or killed anyone in any way shape or form. They’re not tyrants. They’re just assholes.

          1. noun: tyranny; plural noun: tyrannies
            cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

          2. Youtube has not oppressed, subjugated, imprisoned, tortured, or killed anyone in any way shape or form.

            Google who owns YouTube sure has enabled the Chinese government to do all of that. Do you think they’d have any qualms about enabling that here?

        2. Ummm . . . hunting down and killing other human beings is not comparable refusing to share revenue with online pundunces.

  7. “Tiers of trust.” So like how China rates its citizens and decides who can have privileges and live as freely as possible in that country? And I’m sorry is homosexuality a disability or something? When are rap videos or videos using rap music going to be demonetized, taken down and/or those posting have their channels blocked? If videos are posted of someone making fun of heterosexuals, will the same actions be taken and a big apology issued by the SJWs at Youtube? Sick of the gaystapo.

      1. Reminds me of. I didn’t compare it to a country. Here you are being obtuse again. Is that you, Annie?

          1. I remember the screen name but nothing specific about the comments. I must’ve ignored that one a lot. 🙂

          1. Could be. She was the only person that would troll through and attempt to irritate people in this same manner. Just who it reminds me of, so I think it’s definitely a possibility.

            1. Yes, it’s the same style….introduces something not actually related to the convo, just throws it into the mix, then seems to expect others to catch up to her convoluted thought process. Kinda weird.

            2. No need to give too much thought to your hunch, nor call in Freud for analysis. I knew it was her over a month ago. I’m sure L.O.A. finds it boring hanging out in other gutters where everyone agrees, that has to get boring for her.

        1. You just scored a direct hit, Squirrelly — you are very attentive and perceptive. Little Oral Annie, Queen Of The Bile.

        2. I understood it was a comparison. I just found it inapt. In my opinion, businesses and countries are not similarly situated with regard to such issues.

  8. adding that there should be “tiers” of trust, requiring a track record for having ads or live streaming.

    Sort of like a social credit score there, eh communist China?

    1. Like the ‘Black Mirror’ episode where every interaction is ranked, and ranking determines what buildings you can enter, the prices you pay, your access to transport, and where you can live.

      It’s dystopian near-future where your “social credit score” dictates your life and all the controls are implemented by private companies — no tyranny there — just a dystopia that looks exactly like it.

      1. Yes.

        It’s also a self-imposed dystopia that was consented to. (Note that the happiest one was the truck lady who had no f’s to give.) This is, incidentally, what I can’t get past with conservatives and youtube/twitter/etc. They’re like battered spouses with their obsession in using these – and only these – platforms.

        It’s like none of them realize that youtube doesn’t have a hold on them at all, except the one they willingly give it.

        1. “Nothing to see here folks…just a dystopian nightmare, but since they agreed to it, everything is a okay.”

          If @tracy ‘s term is out there, your logic here is a million light years beyond.

          First, nothing in the story discusses how it came about. Second, consent is not a defense to evil. Following your point, since a plurality of German’s elected Hitler and he assumed control legitimately, Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and others have nothing to complain about it because “that was consented to.”

          Third, this is why our founders argued our rights were inalienable and given by God – we can’t sell ourselves into slavery, even if we wanted to.

          When a conman scores on a mark, the fact the mark foolishly agreed to things most rational people would never agree to, doesn’t change the moral or ethical nature of the scam.

    2. Do you think Google/YouTube would have any qualms whatsoever doing what they do for China, here?

      1. Nope. So we’d better keep a close eye on our government, hadn’t we.

        Any tool in the wrong hands, whether it’s weapons or youtubes, is a problem. But we don’t blame the tool – we blame the ones holding it.

        1. Calling them a “tool” is deceptive. They are a gun that’s aimed only at conservatives and Republicans, but you choose to blissfully ignore that.

  9. kama sutra describes numerous positions to mutually procreate
    homo sutra describes numerous positions to mutually masturbate
    -py 2019

  10. It’s time for congress to revoke Google/YouTube, Facebook and Twitter’s platform status….they are clearly publishers at this point.

  11. As detestable but predictable as YouTube’s statement is, Steven Crowder HAD to understand that his risque words and actions would be used against him. If not, then Crowder isn’t as smart as I once thought.

    I know many commenters want to pretend that Conservatives / Republicans and Liberals / Democrats all play by the same Rules, but that’s never true. Conservatives / Republicans are held to a higher standard than the Liberal / Democrats, and have been for decades now.

    It’s why a Democrat politician can survive racial comments or the occasional Felony, while Democrats (and some Republicans) call for the Republican politician’s immediate resignation and often GET IT.

    It’s also why Democrat media personalities can survive inappropriate comments on air while the Republican / Conservative media personality is run out of town on a rail and black-balled.

    Is it FAIR? NO! Never was! Is it B.S.? ABSOLUTELY! Doesn’t change the facts though.

    I like Steven Crowder, but I was shocked that he continually used such offensive language and gestures and since we all know that we’re held to a different standard, Crowder should be grateful to still have a platform on YouTube.

    1. You don’t get it. Even if Crowder toned down his “offensive” language, they’d just find something else about what he said to be offended by.

    2. We don’t need to be held to their standards. We don’t have to acquiesce to their standards, and we don’t have to give them the ground either. Crowder is a comedian, and comedian’s make jokes. Crowder is funny, usually. However, even when he’s not, the idea of Free Speech should be the principal we adhere to. The left couldn’t get the government to strip us of our rights, so they use “private / protected” companies to silence us, then organize attacks and attempt to ruin peoples lives through said attacks.

      It is time to then say no more, they don’t own the goal posts, they don’t own the idea of what is right or wrong. If they want to be offended let them be, and fight them everywhere.

  12. So let me get this straight (pun intended) 6% of the population which are perverted beyond recognition can tell the rest of us how to effing live and the intolerant can tell the tolerant what is accepted and what isn’t! Huh???

  13. For those who are interested, the House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing today entitled, “Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 1: The Free and Diverse Press.” The hearing will commence at 2 pm.

    1. I look forward to them discussing how media corps and tech corps are banding together to squash the competition from independent creators.

      Tim Pool (@Timcast) Tweeted:
      And here it is

      Why did @kevinroose smear Youtube with an anecdote while providing no real data? Why did he put @PhillyD in a collage about radicalization?

      Read it for yourself

      “The journalists who create that content deserve a cut of that $4.7 billion”

      https://t.co/a7GF4Zyxqn https://twitter.com/Timcast/status/1138062520361598977?s=17

      1. The digital information market for lack of a better description is undergoing rapid change. That has major implications for all who fall within its broad ecosystem, including audiences, advertisers, journalists/other content creators, distributors, etc. The ability to monetize content and capture value related to that content in the face of rapid change, intense competition, and shifting customer tastes/preferences, etc., remains an important issue. For some content creators e.g., newspapers, it might well be an existential one as readers continue to shift away from print to digital content.

        That there’s an emerging battle over who captures what share of the value between content creators e.g., journalists, and content distributors illustrates the larger issue about monetization/value capture.

        For now, the content distributors enjoy a decided advantage in doing both (relatively small number of distributors vs. enormous number of creators), the scale to bring creators before large audiences, relationships with advertisers, etc. Only a relatively small number of content creators, typically well-branded ones and those with well-developed distribution platforms, possess comparable market power.

  14. As detestable but predictable as YouTube’s statement is, Steven Crowder HAD to understand that his risque words and actions would be used against him. If not, then Crowder isn’t as smart as I once thought.

    I know many commenters want to pretend that Conservatives / Republicans and Liberals / Democrats all play by the same Rules, but that’s never true. Conservatives / Republicans are held to a higher standard than the Liberal / Democrats, and have been for decades now.

    It’s why a Democrat politician can survive racial comments or the occasional Felony, while Democrats (and some Republicans) call for the Republican politician’s immediate resignation and often GET IT.

    It’s also why Democrat media personalities can survive inappropriate comments on air while the Republican / Conservative media personality is run out of town on a rail and black-balled.

    Is it FAIR? NO! Never was! Is it B.S.? ABSOLUTELY! Doesn’t change the facts though.

    I like Steven Crowder, but I was shocked that he continually used such offensive language and gestures and since we all know that we’re held to a different standard, Crowder should be grateful to still have a platform on YouTube.

    1. We don’t need to be held to their standards. We don’t have to acquiesce to their standards, and we don’t have to give them the ground either. Crowder is a comedian, and comedian’s make jokes. Crowder is funny, usually. However, even when he’s not, the idea of Free Speech should be the principal we adhere to. The left couldn’t get the government to strip us of our rights, so they use “private / protected” companies to silence us, then organize attacks and attempt to ruin peoples lives through said attacks.

      It is time to then say no more, they don’t own the goal posts, they don’t own the idea of what is right or wrong. If they want to be offended let them be, and fight them everywhere.

    2. You don’t get it. Even if Crowder toned down his “offensive” language, they’d just find something else about what he said to be offended by.

  15. This is why the left wins. Instead of standing strong on freedom of speech entity after entity caves to leftist bullies playing as victims. Everyone avoids stepping on their toes. God forbid we hurt their feelings.

    1. Agreed. And it’s the fatal flaw in political conservatism that we try so hard not to offend. That’s the whole reason why the left acts like butthurt crybabies: Because it works on us.

      That was the single greatest motivator for me transitioning to political libertarian ideology. Libertarians try not to offend, but we refuse to sacrifice the truth to do so. Truth hurt your feelings? To bad, suck it up buttercup, this is the truth.

      Conservatives naturally default to this position on issues like self defense. What’s the conservative response to someone breaking into your house to rob, rape, and murder you? Shoot them! If the intruder cries and whines that it’s not fair, boo hoo, while he’s trying to rape-rob-murder us, do we change our minds? No! We shoot the b*stard.

      So, too, politically (though not literally shooting them). When the left steps over the line we must hammer them with truth. Cry? Too bad. Truth.

      1. @pvg I think having a filter is a good idea to an extent. There was (and as far as I know still is) an alternative website that pretty much allows about anything. I heard that it’s a crap website because it’s infested with extremism and hate.

        I think we need a website that incorporates the setup of FB and/or Twitter, but without PC and leftists controlling what content is acceptable and what isn’t. To them, hate speech is anything they disagree with. That’s what needs to change to make these websites work.

  16. We have Mothers’ DAY, Father’s DAY, Veteran’s DAY, Christmas DAY, Memorial DAY, but Pride MONTH? That tells you how screwed up we have become.

  17. “Tiers of trust.” So like how China rates its citizens and decides who can have privileges and live as freely as possible in that country? And I’m sorry is homosexuality a disability or something? When are rap videos or videos using rap music going to be demonetized, taken down and/or those posting have their channels blocked? If videos are posted of someone making fun of heterosexuals, will the same actions be taken and a big apology issued by the SJWs at Youtube? Sick of the gaystapo.

      1. Reminds me of. I didn’t compare it to a country. Here you are being obtuse again. Is that you, Annie?

        1. I understood it was a comparison. I just found it inapt. In my opinion, businesses and countries are not similarly situated with regard to such issues.

          1. Yeah, like how China rates it citizens because that’a exactly what it brought to mind. Since that’s what it brought to mind, that’s what I said in my comment. Too hard to understand? It’s the same idea as what China does to its citizenry, but I did not say Youtube, a business, is just like China, a country. I understand citizenry is different than platform users. I think you knew that but are just a troll.

            1. LOL. I still understand the comparison. I still disagree. That happens sometimes on the internet. Sorry it is so hard for you.

          2. No-one cares about your purposeless argumentation. Time to get some meds or counseling for your Asberger’s.

          1. Could be. She was the only person that would troll through and attempt to irritate people in this same manner. Just who it reminds me of, so I think it’s definitely a possibility.

            1. Yes, it’s the same style….introduces something not actually related to the convo, just throws it into the mix, then seems to expect others to catch up to her convoluted thought process. Kinda weird.

            2. No need to give too much thought to your hunch, nor call in Freud for analysis. I knew it was her over a month ago. I’m sure L.O.A. finds it boring hanging out in other gutters where everyone agrees, that has to get boring for her.

        2. You just scored a direct hit, Squirrelly — you are very attentive and perceptive. Little Oral Annie, Queen Of The Bile.

          1. I remember the screen name but nothing specific about the comments. I must’ve ignored that one a lot. 🙂

      2. Who’s writing the software that enables China to rate its citizens?

        Why, that would be GOOGLE.

  18. Also this. More privatized tyranny.

    https://news.grabien.com/story-google-ceo-new-youtube-rules-we-want-really-prevent-borderli

    Google’s CEO says he wants to see YouTube expand its crackdown on content.

    The company’s chairman, Sundar Pichai, said he’s hoping to take Google’s model of prioritizing of “quality content” over to YouTube.

    Pichai spoke with Axios’ Ina Fried, who expressed concern the tech company wasn’t taking a harder line against offensive content, pointing out a video she had seen of a “teenager who appeared to be donning Muslim garb, spewing a lot of anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, homophobic hate.”

    “I don’t know all the details of this specific video, but in general, look, I mean all of us, you know, none of us want harmful content on our platforms,” Pichai said. “Last quarter alone we removed 9 million videos from the platform.”

    The CEO then said he wants to expand YouTube’s view of what’s prohibited.

    “And so we are bringing that same notion [from Google] and approach to YouTube, so that we can rank higher quality stuff better and really prevent borderline content — content which doesn’t exactly violate policies, which need to be removed, but which can still cause harm.”

    In a move Pichair said acknowledged would be controversial, “fact checkers” will be brought in to monitor YouTube videos.

    “The thing we are trying to do is to bring more authoritative sources and fact checks on videos, which may be controversial,” Pichair admitted. “It’s a case where we got it wrong, but that’s what we are trying to do and we are working hard to improve.”

    The interview aired on Axios’ HBO show, “Axios on HBO.”

    1. privatized tyranny.

      You seriously need to stop saying that. It’s lowering the collective IQ of the nation.

      Which was already in danger to begin with.

      1. Do you really not understand what @Tracy means by ‘privatized tyranny?’

        Do you really think it’s impossible for a near monopoly to exercise many of the tools of tyranny or for a corporate giant to abuse their power while a weak and indifferent government looks the other way?

        Maybe an example will help. Whatever most people on this site think about gays, few if any think they should be thrown off roof-tops or hunted down and brutalized. Yet, that is exactly what happens in many countries, especially Russia. Officials just ignore the violence and in many cases condone it.

        While tyranny usually comes from a strong, central government; private entities can engage in many of the abuses for which tyrannies are known.

        1. That’s still not tyranny.

          If a corporation (giant or otherwise) is depriving you of your rights – and we can’t even reasonably point to where that’s happening in this case – you have legal redress against them in an impartial Court of Law. Something you will never get in a tyranny. Maybe they can act crappy and unfairly, but that doesn’t make them tyrants nor what they are doing “tyranny” in any way shape or form.

          Youtube has not oppressed, subjugated, imprisoned, tortured, or killed anyone in any way shape or form. They’re not tyrants. They’re just assholes.

          1. The tech giants are very much invested in maintaining a status quo and suppress the free speech of anyone using the digital public square to gain influence that is dangerous to the monopoly and the political system that they support.

            You may think tyranny is only prison but it also can be depriving a person access to the public square or preventing people from using the banking system to make a living for what the corporations disapprove of like selling guns.

            Also, this social credit stuff is coming. Our behavior will be controlled by corporations in order to buy and sell. Yeah but dont call it tyranny because “muh private company”

            1. The tech giants … suppress the free speech of anyone using the digital public square

              Correction: of anyone using their products. You still have the entire rest of the digital public square to free speech to your hearts content.

              You may think tyranny is only prison but it also can be depriving a person access to the public square

              Nobody is doing that.

              or preventing people from using the banking system to make a living for what the corporations disapprove of like selling guns

              Should a bank have to take on all clients that ask to open an account?

              Also, this social credit stuff is coming.

              Only if we ask for it.

              Our behavior will be controlled by corporations in order to buy and sell.

              Only with your consent.

              Yeah but dont call it tyranny because “muh private company”

              I remember when we used to defend private companies.

              I don’t call it tyranny because it’s not tyranny.

              1. Again, you’re being naive about political realities, human nature, and the nature of social media.

                They are the digital public square and just saying it isn’t so doesn’t change the reality. You completely miss the point of what the digital equivalent of the ‘public square’ is if you think popping up a website is same-same.

                The very nature of social media is people “go” where people “are.” Throwing up a website is like speaking in the dead-end alley behind the closed Polish restaurant while everyone else is speaking in the park.

                1. They are the digital public square and just saying it isn’t so doesn’t change the reality.

                  No they’re not. They’re one tiny sliver of a digital world that they own the rights to control however they see fit. The rest of that digital world is wide open.

                  The very nature of social media is people “go” where people “are.”

                  Then “people” need to “go” somewhere else, and convince the rest to follow. You know who could help lead in this effort but doesn’t? Preezy D.

                  Throwing up a website is like speaking in the dead-end alley behind the closed Polish restaurant while everyone else is speaking in the park.

                  No, it’s more like speaking on one side of the park, while everyone else is congregated on the other. The park is wide open for anyone to use, but people choose where to go. Facebook doesn’t compel its audience to stay. Youtube doesn’t command you to post your videos there. Twitter is not the only place where people can chat online. Build your own audience if your message is strong enough. Don’t cry because someone else isn’t offering you their audience.

                  They’re popular because we make them that way. They’re not like the power or water company where it’s use them or go without utilities. That power disappears overnight if people just make a different choice.

                  But they don’t want to, do they. Whose fault is that? Youtube’s? Not so much.

                2. Then “people” need to “go” somewhere else,

                  That’s the point where you begin to deny reality and shows you don’t understand social media or even human nature.

                3. Dude, you have a massive internet. Why are you so obsessed with asserting dominion over this tiny slice of it that could be made irrelevant overnight?

                4. Because a huge percentage of the population gets its information from that “tiny slice”.

                  It’s boggling how You Don’t Get That.

                5. It’s boggling how you’re stuck on stupid on this issue like some glued you to stupid with superglue,

                6. It’s boggling how much of their bitch Youtube has made you and all the other whiny “conservatives” now screeching that they should be controlled.

                7. You’re mentally broken.

                  Don’t reply to me any more on this thread because I’m sick to the teeth of reading your IQ 40 bullsh!t.

                8. Real estate is not a commodity. Some real estate is worth more than others.

                  To treat “the internet” – a conglomeration of interconnected systems started by our government using our tax dollars – as one big glob of equivalent space shows a bewildering lack of understanding or willful ignorance on your part.

              2. I remember when we used to defend private companies.

                I defend private companies that dont use their monopolistic behavior to influence elections and protect the status quo. Corporations working to keep their politician friends in power and remove political foes by deplatforming the people who call out these things

                A neutral public square is dangerous to their power.

                1. Which makes it all the more mind-boggling why conservatives insist on using non-neutral private venues to get their word out, particularly when it’s not even remotely their only choice.

          2. Youtube has not oppressed, subjugated, imprisoned, tortured, or killed anyone in any way shape or form. They’re not tyrants.

            Conveniently, you’re leaving out of few words in the definition of tyranny: suppression, high-handedness, bullying, harshness, strictness, severity, injustice, unjustness

                1. So the guy who depantsed you in front of the cheerleading squad and then stuffed you in a gym locker when you were a teenager was a tyrant? That where you’re trying to go with this?

                2. If that bully is doing it regularly and no one can stop him, yes he’s a tyrant.

                  Tyranny isn’t just a one-time event.

                3. Oh for the love of… I can’t even talk to you people if you’re going to be this irrationally unreasonable to pretzel-logic your asinine position, that you’re now equating schoolyard bullies with f*ucking tyrants. Pull your head out bro.

                1. I don’t know. I just figure since we’re all throwing around meaningless terms, that I’d join in.

          3. Actually, I gave you an example. Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away or refute it. You’re being naive in thinking only a government authority can oppress or censor.

            You’re so concerned about use of a term by @tracy , but you haven’t stopped to look at the actual definition of the terms you’re misusing.

          4. noun: tyranny; plural noun: tyrannies
            cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary use of power or control.

          5. Youtube has not oppressed, subjugated, imprisoned, tortured, or killed anyone in any way shape or form.

            Google who owns YouTube sure has enabled the Chinese government to do all of that. Do you think they’d have any qualms about enabling that here?

              1. Do you own stock in these companies?

                That’s the only reason I can think of why you’d twist yourself into knots defending them. It makes no damn sense otherwise.

                1. It makes no sense because you’re being irrational here. You’re not thinking clearly, FF. You’re so angry at these companies that it’s jaundiced your ability to be objective.

                2. Yea, they said that about Galileo and Copernicus too. And the minority of folks who were against slavery in its heyday. Not to say that I’m on the same page as those two greats – just that social “consensus” was always a big ad populum fallacy.

                  If 99% of people say that 2+2=5, and lone solitary caustic ‘ol AT says “No you morons, it’s four.” Guess what – 1% AT is right.

                  If you’re banking on popular opinion to validate your incorrect position, you’re barking up the wrong tree. A collectivist tree, incidentally.

        2. Ummm . . . hunting down and killing other human beings is not comparable refusing to share revenue with online pundunces.

          1. Nor did I write that.

            @AT has been attacking @Tracy over the use of ‘privatized tyranny.’ If you read what I actually wrote, you’d see the only point I was making in that post is that private entities can use many of the tools and tactics of a tyranny.

            1. but the tools and tactics are not the same. there is no right to free speech on someone else’s private platform.

              1. Supreme Court majority decision, Munn vs. Illinois, 1876:

                Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.

                In other words, the Supreme Court said you were WRONG over 140 years ago.

  19. adding that there should be “tiers” of trust, requiring a track record for having ads or live streaming.

    Sort of like a social credit score there, eh communist China?

    1. Like the ‘Black Mirror’ episode where every interaction is ranked, and ranking determines what buildings you can enter, the prices you pay, your access to transport, and where you can live.

      It’s dystopian near-future where your “social credit score” dictates your life and all the controls are implemented by private companies — no tyranny there — just a dystopia that looks exactly like it.

      1. Yes.

        It’s also a self-imposed dystopia that was consented to. (Note that the happiest one was the truck lady who had no f’s to give.) This is, incidentally, what I can’t get past with conservatives and youtube/twitter/etc. They’re like battered spouses with their obsession in using these – and only these – platforms.

        It’s like none of them realize that youtube doesn’t have a hold on them at all, except the one they willingly give it.

        1. “Nothing to see here folks…just a dystopian nightmare, but since they agreed to it, everything is a okay.”

          If @tracy ‘s term is out there, your logic here is a million light years beyond.

          First, nothing in the story discusses how it came about. Second, consent is not a defense to evil. Following your point, since a plurality of German’s elected Hitler and he assumed control legitimately, Jews, Gypsies, Gays, and others have nothing to complain about it because “that was consented to.”

          Third, this is why our founders argued our rights were inalienable and given by God – we can’t sell ourselves into slavery, even if we wanted to.

          When a conman scores on a mark, the fact the mark foolishly agreed to things most rational people would never agree to, doesn’t change the moral or ethical nature of the scam.

          1. My point is, we do this crap to ourselves. If you want to stop it from happening, simply withdraw your consent to it.

            Third, this is why our founders argued our rights were inalienable and given by God – we can’t sell ourselves into slavery, even if we wanted to.

            None of our rights are at issue on this subject.

            1. Ask 6 million Jews and numerous other minorities killed in Nazi Germany about how withdrawing consent worked…

              1. We’re seriously considering not being able to youtube the same as concentration camps now?

                Folks have walked off the ledge on this issue. Leaped off it.

                1. No. You’re the one who argued giving consent establishes moral right.

                  You’re the one in a fantasyland who thinks once consent is given, it can just be revoked and everything will be hunky-dory.

                  You’re the one saying tyranny, authoritarian TTPs, and censorship can only come from government, so if a publicly traded company does it, their actions are moral and ethical.

                  You, just like socialists and communists, are spitting into the wind by saying, “that’s not how it should be,” when we have thousands of years of human nature telling us this is how humans behave.

                  In a debate about the word ‘tyranny,’ you argued revocation of consent. I only showed how that doesn’t always work. No comparison was made, you just don’t like the fact you painted yourself into a corner.

                2. so if a publicly traded company does it, their actions are moral and ethical.

                  I didn’t say they were moral or ethical – just that they haven’t wronged anyone. No harm has occurred, no rights have been deprived.

                  Unfairness isn’t wrongness. You gotta get that through your head, Tex.

                3. Wow…that’s a mind-boggling narrow definition of “wronged” and “harmed.”

                  Regardless, today is a new day and there is a new thread about the censorship and tyrannical actions by publicly traded internet monopolies.

    2. Do you think Google/YouTube would have any qualms whatsoever doing what they do for China, here?

      1. Nope. So we’d better keep a close eye on our government, hadn’t we.

        Any tool in the wrong hands, whether it’s weapons or youtubes, is a problem. But we don’t blame the tool – we blame the ones holding it.

        1. Calling them a “tool” is deceptive. They are a gun that’s aimed only at conservatives and Republicans, but you choose to blissfully ignore that.

            1. I’m blaming the people wielding the gun.

              It’s boggling that you’re too stuck on stupid to realize that.

              1. Your point was about China using Youtube. That’s a problem with government, not with Youtube. Youtube is a tool for China (or potentially our own government). A tool in the wrong hands is bad.

                But don’t blame the tool. And don’t blame the owner for someone else’s misuse of that tool.

  20. We have Mothers’ DAY, Father’s DAY, Veteran’s DAY, Christmas DAY, Memorial DAY, but Pride MONTH? That tells you how screwed up we have become.

  21. We have Mothers’ DAY, Father’s DAY, Veteran’s DAY, Christmas DAY, Memorial DAY, but Pride MONTH? That tells you how screwed up we have become.

Comments are closed.