YouTube shutting down gun channels :-(

[Woobie]

DuckDuckGo.

Exactly

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kinda like telling a baker he must bake a cake for someone he wishes not to right?

Yes, exactly like that. Does one move their opinions of situations depending on who they agree with? That's called hypocrisy.

 

[jamil]

Yes, exactly like that. Does one move their opinions of situations depending on who they agree with? That's called hypocrisy.

The two arguments distill to the same thing. Yes. If you make the "public accommodation" argument that bakers should not discriminate against gays, then to be consistent, you have to argue that Youtube should not discriminate against gun channels, or conservatives, or sane people. The opposite is true then. If you don't want youtube to discriminate against sane people, you kinda gotta give in on gay cakes. This is the basis for the 1964 CRA, and it's flawed for that reason.

But there are nuances to that argument. If the argument is a pro-freedom argument, then it's a matter of priority. Who's freedom has priority? The gay couple/gun channel? Or, the baker/youtube? People don't have a right to the labor of other people. People do have a right to engage in a transaction of their choosing. In a case where both parties have veto power over the transaction, that means the baker/youtube get to veto that transaction. That much seems axiomatic. But here's the nuance case:

What if there are no other viable accommodations? I would say the CRA should be modified to make that distinction. If there is just one hotel in a town and it doesn't serve black people, the public accommodation argument starts to make more sense. If there's just one bakery in town... The public accommodation argument starts to make more sense when you're talking about free speech and the defacto platform for free speech denying people based on whims.

I think a company which uses its immense power of monopoly to protect itself from any serious competition against their defacto platform, should not get to use its veto power to change society. It's not theirs to change. Society belongs to individuals. Or it should.

In a free market, both sides have veto power over a transaction. It's not a free market when one company can wield its monopoly power to destroy political opposition. A single company should not have the power to prohibit black people from having any opportunities. I think that's a principled argument for saying that a monopolistic power shouldn't get to control the political discussion. That's not hypocrisy. When the gay couple has any number of venues which will gladly accept their transaction, and they pick on the one that won't, that's just wrong. If there were more than just youtube as a platform for free distribution of ideas, it'd be wrong to pick on Youtube. Or facebook. Or Twitter. All the social media are owned by ideological progressives. And they're using their platforms as a weapon against political opposition. That's morally wrong, and it's probably a justified use of government to stop that.

 

[Beau]

I apologize if someone posted this already. I did not go through every post. This platform is claiming to be completely censorship free.

https://d.tube/

 

[jamil]

But they don't have a right to self-direction? They must bow to my rights at the expense of their own? 2A only exists to protect us from government.

Rights do have limits. You can't claim your 2A rights to own firearms means you are free to harm people with firearms. You can't use your freedom of speech to cause riots. You can't use your freedom of religion to sacrifice people. Is it not the same principle here? I think you have every right to use your freedom to transact with people, to try to manipulate politics. But when you have a monopoly such that you're the only one with the veto power in the transaction, that changes the game. And that's where it becomes the same principle, where you can't use your rights as a protection to harm other people.

 

[SirLiftsALatte]

So the solution is use govt to force a business to engage in practices it does not wish to participate... because they are too successful? Sounds like government overreach to me. Govt should NOT be tell private entities what they should be doing, unless they are breaking the law.

I tend to agree with you, and I'd prefer a system where each company is free to do business how they see fit... However, there are anti-trust laws laws against monopolies, designed to protect the consumer. If those are the laws that this country has chosen to operate under, then I want them to be applied equally.

Time Warner and AT&T were blocked from merging, and I think that if google was trying to buy youtube today that they would probably not be allowed to either. Google is the largest search engine and youtube is the second largest. That size has the potential to be politicized/weaponized to silence views that oppose them, whatever those views might be. I think that they could fall under the heading of public utility due to their market share.

What if IPL decided that they no longer wanted to sell electricity to a church? Or an abortion clinic? Or a gun shop? Or to the guy who is running for public office against the CEO's buddy? Is it still their company their rules?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Yes, exactly like that. Does one move their opinions of situations depending on who they agree with? That's called hypocrisy.

The two arguments distill to the same thing. Yes. If you make the "public accommodation" argument that bakers should not discriminate against gays, then to be consistent, you have to argue that Youtube should not discriminate against gun channels, or conservatives, or sane people. The opposite is true then. If you don't want youtube to discriminate against sane people, you kinda gotta give in on gay cakes. This is the basis for the 1964 CRA, and it's flawed for that reason.

But there are nuances to that argument. If the argument is a pro-freedom argument, then it's a matter of priority. Who's freedom has priority? The gay couple/gun channel? Or, the baker/youtube? People don't have a right to the labor of other people. People do have a right to engage in a transaction of their choosing. In a case where both parties have veto power over the transaction, that means the baker/youtube get to veto that transaction. That much seems axiomatic. But here's the nuance case:

What if there are no other viable accommodations? I would say the CRA should be modified to make that distinction. If there is just one hotel in a town and it doesn't serve black people, the public accommodation argument starts to make more sense. If there's just one bakery in town... The public accommodation argument starts to make more sense when you're talking about free speech and the defacto platform for free speech denying people based on whims.

I think a company which uses its immense power of monopoly to protect itself from any serious competition against their defacto platform, should not get to use its veto power to change society. It's not theirs to change. Society belongs to individuals. Or it should.

In a free market, both sides have veto power over a transaction. It's not a free market when one company can wield its monopoly power to destroy political opposition. A single company should not have the power to prohibit black people from having any opportunities. I think that's a principled argument for saying that a monopolistic power shouldn't get to control the political discussion. That's not hypocrisy. When the gay couple has any number of venues which will gladly accept their transaction, and they pick on the one that won't, that's just wrong. If there were more than just youtube as a platform for free distribution of ideas, it'd be wrong to pick on Youtube. Or facebook. Or Twitter. All the social media are owned by ideological progressives. And they're using their platforms as a weapon against political opposition. That's morally wrong, and it's probably a justified use of government to stop that.

There's a part of me that agrees with the argument that we should not turn to the .gov to solve this problem. And in the long run, this is probably the correct avenue. These actions by the progressives might well be the catalyst needed to spark another entrepreneur to start up a new, better, freer platform for more content instead of less.

On the other hand, there's a part of me that dearly would love to bring the full weight of the government these people love to sic on others against them. Declare them to be utilities and regulate the ever loving crap out of them. That would be delicious.

My better side knows that this would be counter productive in the long run and probably only serve to cement Youtube, Facebook, et al in place as the monopolies they dream to be now. But sometimes we crave the things not in our best interests.........

 

[jamil]

I apologize if someone posted this already. I did not go through every post. This platform is claiming to be completely censorship free.

https://d.tube/

I'd like to see viable cross-the-board alternatives to youtube. The problem I see with the alt-youtube, is that it's going to further political bubbles. So if Google doesn't just smack down d-tube, or buy it outright for a ridiculously absurd sum--because they can and everyone has their price--and say, d-tube actually makes a go of it, then it will become the moderate-to-right video platform, and youtube will become the moderate-to-left video platform.

In other words. Youtube will become Denver.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I'd like to see viable cross-the-board alternatives to youtube. The problem I see with the alt-youtube, is that it's going to further political bubbles. So if Google doesn't just smack down d-tube, or buy it outright for a ridiculously absurd sum--because they can and everyone has their price--and say, d-tube actually makes a go of it, then it will become the moderate-to-right video platform, and youtube will become the moderate-to-left video platform.

In other words. Youtube will become Denver.

I've never heard of this site before today. And with a quick glance at their page, should I see something there that would indicate this to be a alt/moderate-to-right oriented and constrained website?

I don't get your reference about Youtube becoming Denver either.

 

[jamil]

There's a part of me that agrees with the argument that we should not turn to the .gov to solve this problem. And in the long run, this is probably the correct avenue. These actions by the progressives might well be the catalyst needed to spark another entrepreneur to start up a new, better, freer platform for more content instead of less.

On the other hand, there's a part of me that dearly would love to bring the full weight of the government these people love to sic on others against them. Declare them to be utilities and regulate the ever loving crap out of them. That would be delicious.

My better side knows that this would be counter productive in the long run and probably only serve to cement Youtube, Facebook, et al in place as the monopolies they dream to be now. But sometimes we crave the things not in our best interests.........

I just don't see Google allowing that to happen. I mean, it could happen if the stars aligned properly. But Google has more money than god. The catalyst for alt-tube isn't going to be gun channels. I could see it possibly being free speech. And if Google has a heavy hand in stifling completion, that could play against them in public opinion. But they have so much awful power to control the news that I just don't see them allowing any serous challenge to Youtube.

And as I said in the other post, I think youtube, given its obvious political motivations, may not care if they purge non-conformists from their platform and chase them to d-tube. If d-tube gets too big, they can always offer them a bizzillion dollars and take it over. That's what monopolistic power can do.

 

[jamil]

I've never heard of this site before today. And with a quick glance at their page, should I see something there that would indicate this to be a alt/moderate-to-right oriented and constrained website?

I don't get your reference about Youtube becoming Denver either.

My inlaws live in Denver. That whole ****ing place has become a leftist bubble. Much like Portland. I really, really, really feel sorry for the poor sane schmucks who live there.

When I use the term "alt", I just mean a viable alternative to youtube. Or actually any of the social media. I'm just saying that whatever alternatives grow from this, unless they can get mainstream acceptance, it'll just be considered the Breitbart of social media to the mainstream. And if any of the social media alternatives start to gain mainstream acceptance, the giants will squash them like bugs.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I just don't see Google allowing that to happen. I mean, it could happen if the stars aligned properly. But Google has more money than god. The catalyst for alt-tube isn't going to be gun channels. I could see it possibly being free speech. And if Google has a heavy hand in stifling completion, that could play against them in public opinion. But they have so much awful power to control the news that I just don't see them allowing any serous challenge to Youtube.

And as I said in the other post, I think youtube, given its obvious political motivations, may not care if they purge non-conformists from their platform and chase them to d-tube. If d-tube gets too big, they can always offer them a bizzillion dollars and take it over. That's what monopolistic power can do.

I see where you're coming from. And it's the sort of distortion of free markets that monopolies do that results in anti-trust actions. It is into this area where my desire to see a less intrusive, less powerful government collides with realization that without those powers, outfits like ATT would have never been broken up and (I've seen it argued) that cell phones and wireless internet might never have been developed.

 

[jamil]

I see where you're coming from. And it's the sort of distortion of free markets that monopolies do that results in anti-trust actions. It is into this area where my desire to see a less intrusive, less powerful government collides with realization that without those powers, outfits like ATT would have never been broken up and (I've seen it argued) that cell phones and wireless internet might never have been developed.

An aside about ATT. They're BAAAA-AAACK.

So you had AT&T, which included long distance service, equipment mfg (Western Electric), bell labs (design and engineering), and all the baby bells. For the divestiture, AT&T kept the long distance service, Western Electric, and Bell Labs. All the regional operating companies (baby bells) broke off as there own independent corporations.

AT&T ended up spinning off Bell Labs into Lucent Technologies which was later bought out by Alcatel (I think), which eventually was bought out by one of the baby bells. So the original Bell Labs got absorbed back into one of the original local operating companies. Over the years the baby bells start merging, buying out other baby bells, until they're pretty much all back together. And then the one sibling left standing bought out papa AT&T, and now calls itself ATT. So with a few exceptions, it's kinda the same company that was divested back in the early 80s. Except the game has changed to an emphasis on wireless. How hilarious is that?

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Sounds like government overreach to me. Govt should NOT be tell private entities what they should be doing, unless they are breaking the law.

Agreed; however, since the courts have already weighed in and the cake must be baked, we (the public) are stuck with the ruling. And the best way to get rid of a bad law or bad ruling is to have it equally and fully enforced. That creates outcry that will eventually get the underlying problem fixed. I believe HughMade has commented on this exact tactic much more eloquently in the past.

 

[worddoer]

Then we can switch to Bing

Or...better yet...switch to the Brave browser. Karl form InRangeTV turned me on to this with one of his Facebook posts. Using this browser and DuckDuckGo as my search engine helps a great deal in giving Google the proverbial middle finger.

Browser link here: https://brave.com/

Search engine link here: https://start.duckduckgo.com/

 

[jamil]

Agreed; however, since the courts have already weighed in and the cake must be baked, we (the public) are stuck with the ruling. And the best way to get rid of a bad law or bad ruling is to have it equally and fully enforced. That creates outcry that will eventually get the underlying problem fixed. I believe HughMade has commented on this exact tactic much more eloquently in the past.

I don't really see how the courts couldn't have ruled the way they did in that case, because that state includes sexual orientation in its protected class definitions.

 

[dung]

Yeah, I am not happy with Reddit right now. It may be better for my wallet, but it is complete BS. There are many illegal things going on that reddit facilitates, but they haven't received the ban hammer.

I would love to watch everything on full clip, but I usually watch from my ps4 and that website just doesnt work well compared to the youtube app.

 

[Smith& W]

Hate to see it. I have repaired many different firearms by watching step by step videos on you tube.

 

[AmmoManAaron]

Hate to see it. I have repaired many different firearms by watching step by step videos on you tube.

Same here.

Does anyone know of a simple tool to use to download YouTube videos? I have some bookmarked and would like to download them for personal use before they get purged. A lot of knowledge has the potential to be lost or at least inaccessible and that really pisses me off.

 

[bgcatty]

Left wing libtards like Zuckerberg are being this. What we need are class action lawsuits to start bleeding libtards like Zuckerberg dry. Same goes for the idiots at Citibanks who announced more firearms related restrictions on merchants who sell firearms. All of this BS is making my head implode! I just can’t stand libtard snowflakes! Period!