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.

109
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
17 Comment threads
92 Thread replies
23 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
newest oldest most voted
pybop
Member
Noble Member
pybop

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

Rocket Matt
Member
Active Member
Rocket Matt

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

BlackR1
Member
Trusted Member
BlackR1

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… Read more »

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

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.

TheNightmareIsReal
Member
Active Member
TheNightmareIsReal

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.

Rednca
Member
Active Member
Rednca

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???

Pickle Plants
Member
Active Member
Pickle Plants

Support Steven Crowder. Join the Mug Club.

Don Sutherland
Member
Active Member
Don Sutherland

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.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

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

Don Sutherland
Member
Active Member
Don Sutherland

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… Read more »

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

F YouTube and Google, with a rusty chainsaw.

C.W. Smith
Member
Active Member
C.W. Smith

The only apology that’s actually owed is the one they’ll never give.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

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.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

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… Read more »

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Texas ChrisTexas Chris We better start soon because PC is kicking our ass and changing culture.

Ronbo
Member
Noble Member
Ronbo

We’re f*cked.

PVG
Member
Noble Member
PVG

Nope! This is America! Someone will come up with a better alternative.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

AvatarPVG 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.

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

YouTube/Google – in league with evil. It’s fundamentally that simple.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

I wonder the dollar amount of donations that will go to LGBTQ groups after this.

Eric
Member
Noble Member
Eric

Some are more equal than others….

Karen
Member
Active Member
Karen

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.

Squirrelly
Member
Noble Member
Squirrelly

“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.

T_ump
Member
T_ump

Not quite the same, though, is it? Youtube is a business, not a country.

Squirrelly
Member
Noble Member
Squirrelly

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

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

idea lol

T_ump
Member
T_ump

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.

Squirrelly
Member
Noble Member
Squirrelly

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.

T_ump
Member
T_ump

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

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

Stop being an a-hole.

In_Russet_Shadows
Member
Active Member
In_Russet_Shadows

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

Hidyho
Member
Noble Member
Hidyho

THANK YOU! I was trying to figure out who this one reminded me of!! idea

Squirrelly
Member
Noble Member
Squirrelly

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.

Hidyho
Member
Noble Member
Hidyho

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.

FedUp
Member
Active Member
FedUp

Mama always said, “Once a guttersnipe, always a guttersnipe.” wink

FedUp
Member
Active Member
FedUp

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.

FedUp
Member
Active Member
FedUp

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

T_ump
Member
T_ump

Ummm . . . there was a poster here named Little Oral Annie?

trytothink
Member
Noble Member
trytothink

Could be. T_ump more reminds me of Superba, though.

Squirrelly
Member
Noble Member
Squirrelly

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

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

Superba was one of the very first people I blocked on Disqus.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

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

Why, that would be GOOGLE.

Squirrelly
Member
Noble Member
Squirrelly

That’s right.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

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]… Read more »

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

Nope cool

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Derp.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

Do you really not understand what TracyTracy 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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

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”

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.… Read more »

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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?

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

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

It’s boggling how You Don’t Get That.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

It’s boggling how you don’t get how utterly irrelevant that is.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

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

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

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.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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.

Tracy
Member
Noble Member
Tracy

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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

T_ump
Member
T_ump

there is no “free speech” at issue.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

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

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

I just detached a retina because I rolled my eyes so hard.

FFS.

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

Take it up with Webster!

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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?

Abe Lincoln
Member
Noble Member
Abe Lincoln

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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

It’s your own fault. That’s what happens when reality tramples your fantasyland.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

We’re so far away from reality that I’m considering gender transitioning.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

You mean transitioning back or into something else?

Hidyho
Member
Noble Member
Hidyho

LOL! lol

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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

Hidyho
Member
Noble Member
Hidyho

Maybe you could get a discount, being the ‘special’ month and all…. hmm

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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 TracyTracy , but you haven’t stopped to look at the actual definition of the terms you’re misusing.

FedUp
Member
Active Member
FedUp

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

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

None of that is applicable to this situation.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

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?

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Then that’s a problem with government, not with Youtube.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

Sorry, but the consensus here is that YOU are the irrational one.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

Or you’re just a dumbass. Occam’s Razor applies here.

T_ump
Member
T_ump

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

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

Nor did I write that.

@AT has been attacking TracyTracy 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.

T_ump
Member
T_ump

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

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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?

Squirrelly
Member
Noble Member
Squirrelly

Yes! Exactly what I thought of too, AT.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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

If TracyTracy ‘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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

Meanwhile you’re repeating “Dead men DO bleed!”.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

Feel free to explain how their rights were deprived.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

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

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

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.

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

So you’re blaming the gun then. Got it.

Finrod Felagund
Member
Noble Member
Finrod Felagund

I’m blaming the people wielding the gun.

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

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

Back to Top of Comments