I upvoted both you and the comment you replied to.
You are both correct, and I’m not sure which answer is better. I’m leaning towards the nuclear option (I.e. - never go to YouTube again) but both arguments have merit.
I upvoted all three of you, because you’re all here, freely discussing a topic, with dissenting opinions, and even maybe a bit of snark, and it’s all good ❤️🇺🇸
I side with “leave you tube now” #YouExit or #TubeExite or whatever.
Exodus from YouTube. Yes, “we’re ceding that ground.”
But,
It’s not Our ground anymore. If this is how they want it, let them have it. Their ground is restrictive and exclusive to a single opinion. Our ground is welcoming and free to all - because on our ground, ideas survive and thrive through intellectual battle and competition.
Crowder and the rest of us aren’t there to educate the left. And their ideas are rot anyway, we all know it. Let them get stuck in their own echo chamber and start tearing each other apart. YOU KNOW THEY WILL. If they have no one to hate, what will they do?! They’ll find someone to hate, on their “own ground” of YouTube.
Their censorship is their right.. It’s not a public area. What if they wanna make it “adult only”? Their right. “Kids only”? Their right. “Communists only”? Their right!
Yes, yes, they’re a platform. Worthless argument. Fight that without using YouTube - not using it at least gives this weak argument more weight because you’re saying “this free platform is no not free, I can’t even use it,” while staying on it sends the reverse message, if digging in shows something else (like gradual self censorship and narrowing of the acceptable speech over time).
We have alternate platforms, that aren’t Isenev by Alphabet or Amazon. Why not use those and promote them instead? What is the real problem is amazon and apple and YouTube and twitter coming together to ban people and apps, so that we can’t even build alternatives. So then we need to support services like Epik and build on those. I agree with Torba, and I’ve been saying it for years even before that, we need to build our own alternate economy. We’ve slowly let the left populate the economy with leftists shit, and support their tech and services, the profits of which they then use to promote and advance leftism.
Anyway, there’s a lot to discuss and explore on every point here. But I lean towards
leave YouTube
What’s the reverse? You’re trying to teach them a lesson? Trying to twist their arms? Trying to change their minds? Replace their C-level or more of their staff with real Americans? What’s the end goal of staying on there? Everyone knows it’s only going to get worse until it kills us or implodes. They can’t turn themselves around, I think.
If you leave youtube their market power will leave them. You are their market power. Move to Rumble or Odessy (spelled right I believe) .
People get caught by the "I'm only one person" fallacy. We're all only one person. We only make change one person at a time. Pretend that by making your choice, you're magically causing other people to make the same choice. That is how to think about all these mass movement type things. You can't see the effect you're having but it's there. So help yourself out by using your imagination.
Youtube is stupid and thinks advertisers will stay on the platform WRONG. Advertiser's entire goal is to get eye balls to see their ads and buy their products. If the viewers move to another platform well guess what? The advertisers follow because at the end of the day, eye balls seeing your ads = more sales.
Plus if all the interesting people with different opinions leave, their content becomes stale and boring just like the MSM, and things will take care of themselves.
Their censorship is their right.. It’s not a public area. What if they wanna make it “adult only”? Their right. “Kids only”? Their right. “Communists only”? Their right!
I reject this. The public square has always been a core part of a representative government, going back farther than our own constitution. We have multiple court decisions within our country for over a century supporting the idea that a privately owned public square is still a public square.
I reject the notion that there is no such thing as a digital public square. They exist and it is social media. All social media, including youtube. The public, communicating directly with each other, in a space owned by a private entity, is still a public square and receives the protections of same.
We don't go to youtube, facebook, or twitter to hear the opinions of their representatives or to buy product from them. We come to talk to each other, and they attempt to make money via billboards in these gathering places. They are built for, and constantly engaging in, classic public square activity and if we cede this ground then the precedent will absolutely destroy the concept of a digital public square. The consequences to our representative and democratic societies are, potentially, catastrophic.
The public, communicating directly with each other, in a space owned by a private entity, is still a public square and receives the protections of same.
How could you have free speech rights in a privately owned space if the owner can legally remove you? I mean, you can have them, but seems you can’t expect to be able to except use them more than once, if the owner wants it that way.
Say I own a small park. And you’re not allowed unless I say so. How could you expect to have free speech rights in my little park if the second you say something disagreeable to me, I simply ask you to leave (and you legally must oblige?
Are twitter or YouTube legally allowed to remove people without cause whatsoever, in your opinion? Because as faggot scum as I think the owners are, they are paying for server space and bandwidth, among other costs, to enable people on the platform to speak.
ow could you have free speech rights in a privately owned space if the owner can legally remove you? I mean, you can have them, but seems you can’t expect to be able to except use them more than once, if the owner wants it that way.
I ask this question but differently as well.
If the mailbox belongs to the post office and becomes federal property once I put it up and mount it why am I the one responsible for replacing it if someone smashes into it?
If someone slips and falls on the sidewalk and sues me I am responsible. However if I take a jackhammer to the same sidewalk I will receive a C&D and be billed to it to be fixed from the city. If I'm responsible for it its mine and I'm free to jack hammer it. If I'm not free to jackhammer it why should I be responsible for it?
How could you have free speech rights in a privately owned space if the owner can legally remove you? I mean, you can have them, but seems you can’t expect to be able to except use them more than once, if the owner wants it that way.
Because that space is serving as a public square. Company owned towns were a thing for quite awhile in this country, and this argument that the entire street and all the sidewalks were company property was used to argue this exact point, and they lost. The space was open to the general public, and was being used to share ideas, and thus was a public square with all the rights that go with it.
Youtube, twitter, facebook, are all doing what those towns did. Everybody can come in, unless we specifically decide that we don't like you specifically, based on the beliefs you are espousing on our terf. This exact fight for this exact argument has been litigated already, and we the people won. Marsh vs Alabama was the biggest one.
Say I own a small park. And you’re not allowed unless I say so. How could you expect to have free speech rights in my little park if the second you say something disagreeable to me, I simply ask you to leave (and you legally must oblige?
EDIT3 for clarity: Your tiny park with a small list of specific allowed people is fine. But that isn't analogous to social media. Instead, your park is letting everybody in by default. Then later you decide to say 'fuck mharmless, specifically, because he said stuff I hate. mharmless specifically can't come in now'. You would lose that case. You have made your park a public square and invited effectively the entire world, then tried to bar me specifically from it over constitutionally protected speech. My speech trumps your property rights if your property is a public square. Hence the central question in my mind is 'is there such a thing as a digital public square?', and if the answer is 'no', then a huge part of our democratic traditions are dead and buried going forward into this computerized future. If the answer is 'yes', then we need to do nothing more than identify what the digital version of that physical space is, and I think anybody looking at it honestly will be forced to conclude that social media is that digital analog. From there it is just a matter of applying the centuries of rules and precedent we already have.
EDIT: Adding a great analog here, parks inside of HOAs. Those parks don't belong to the government, they belong to the private HOA. And this is the exact reason they always say that the park is only open to HOA members and not the general public. As soon as such a park let the general public in, they would no longer be able to control it. That park would become a public space and the weight of legal history would make it impossible to kick out bums and drug dealers. They have to have a whitelist of allowed users, because blacklists don't cut it when trying to establish your space as a private one.
Are twitter or YouTube legally allowed to remove people without cause whatsoever, in your opinion? Because as faggot scum as I think the owners are, they are paying for server space and bandwidth, among other costs, to enable people on the platform to speak.
I think they are subject to the same kinds of limits a public square is. The edges of this would be tested in court, but basically if you could get away with it on a street corner you would get away with it here.
Regarding fines and such, both AOL and Compuserve were sued over this very topic RE public square status in the early 90s, and both cases sided with the companies because they charged fees to use the services. That was the argument the court went with, not the idea that they could deny whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted. Because they charged an entry fee, they were not a public square but rather a private club or service.
If facebook, youtube, or twitter started charging a small fee in order to open an account, that would be sufficient to make them not a public square. Same way that Costco has more power over their premises because they have made their store a non-public venue that charges a fee to be a member.
EDIT2: But none of those companies are going to do that, because they need the vast majority of the general public on-board so they can make their money on our data and our content and our conversations. Effectively, they are trying to harvest all the benefits of the public square and the free exchange of ideas within it, while dodging all of the obligations that go with such a space. If they added even a tiny fee, they would lose too many users and the exchange of money would give their users a whole host of other legal rights they don't want to deal with.
I upvoted both you and the comment you replied to.
You are both correct, and I’m not sure which answer is better. I’m leaning towards the nuclear option (I.e. - never go to YouTube again) but both arguments have merit.
I upvoted all three of you, because you’re all here, freely discussing a topic, with dissenting opinions, and even maybe a bit of snark, and it’s all good ❤️🇺🇸
I side with “leave you tube now” #YouExit or #TubeExite or whatever.
Exodus from YouTube. Yes, “we’re ceding that ground.”
But,
It’s not Our ground anymore. If this is how they want it, let them have it. Their ground is restrictive and exclusive to a single opinion. Our ground is welcoming and free to all - because on our ground, ideas survive and thrive through intellectual battle and competition.
Crowder and the rest of us aren’t there to educate the left. And their ideas are rot anyway, we all know it. Let them get stuck in their own echo chamber and start tearing each other apart. YOU KNOW THEY WILL. If they have no one to hate, what will they do?! They’ll find someone to hate, on their “own ground” of YouTube.
Their censorship is their right.. It’s not a public area. What if they wanna make it “adult only”? Their right. “Kids only”? Their right. “Communists only”? Their right!
Yes, yes, they’re a platform. Worthless argument. Fight that without using YouTube - not using it at least gives this weak argument more weight because you’re saying “this free platform is no not free, I can’t even use it,” while staying on it sends the reverse message, if digging in shows something else (like gradual self censorship and narrowing of the acceptable speech over time).
We have alternate platforms, that aren’t Isenev by Alphabet or Amazon. Why not use those and promote them instead? What is the real problem is amazon and apple and YouTube and twitter coming together to ban people and apps, so that we can’t even build alternatives. So then we need to support services like Epik and build on those. I agree with Torba, and I’ve been saying it for years even before that, we need to build our own alternate economy. We’ve slowly let the left populate the economy with leftists shit, and support their tech and services, the profits of which they then use to promote and advance leftism.
Anyway, there’s a lot to discuss and explore on every point here. But I lean towards
leave YouTube
What’s the reverse? You’re trying to teach them a lesson? Trying to twist their arms? Trying to change their minds? Replace their C-level or more of their staff with real Americans? What’s the end goal of staying on there? Everyone knows it’s only going to get worse until it kills us or implodes. They can’t turn themselves around, I think.
I think youtube is over. So, why delay?
leave YouTube
If you leave youtube their market power will leave them. You are their market power. Move to Rumble or Odessy (spelled right I believe) .
People get caught by the "I'm only one person" fallacy. We're all only one person. We only make change one person at a time. Pretend that by making your choice, you're magically causing other people to make the same choice. That is how to think about all these mass movement type things. You can't see the effect you're having but it's there. So help yourself out by using your imagination.
Amen.
*Odysee
https://odysee.com/$/invite/@Trump_Won_2020:b
💯 This
Youtube is stupid and thinks advertisers will stay on the platform WRONG. Advertiser's entire goal is to get eye balls to see their ads and buy their products. If the viewers move to another platform well guess what? The advertisers follow because at the end of the day, eye balls seeing your ads = more sales.
Plus if all the interesting people with different opinions leave, their content becomes stale and boring just like the MSM, and things will take care of themselves.
I reject this. The public square has always been a core part of a representative government, going back farther than our own constitution. We have multiple court decisions within our country for over a century supporting the idea that a privately owned public square is still a public square.
I reject the notion that there is no such thing as a digital public square. They exist and it is social media. All social media, including youtube. The public, communicating directly with each other, in a space owned by a private entity, is still a public square and receives the protections of same.
We don't go to youtube, facebook, or twitter to hear the opinions of their representatives or to buy product from them. We come to talk to each other, and they attempt to make money via billboards in these gathering places. They are built for, and constantly engaging in, classic public square activity and if we cede this ground then the precedent will absolutely destroy the concept of a digital public square. The consequences to our representative and democratic societies are, potentially, catastrophic.
I don’t understand this argument, namely
How could you have free speech rights in a privately owned space if the owner can legally remove you? I mean, you can have them, but seems you can’t expect to be able to except use them more than once, if the owner wants it that way.
Say I own a small park. And you’re not allowed unless I say so. How could you expect to have free speech rights in my little park if the second you say something disagreeable to me, I simply ask you to leave (and you legally must oblige?
Are twitter or YouTube legally allowed to remove people without cause whatsoever, in your opinion? Because as faggot scum as I think the owners are, they are paying for server space and bandwidth, among other costs, to enable people on the platform to speak.
Can they kick people out, legally, without cause?
I ask this question but differently as well.
If the mailbox belongs to the post office and becomes federal property once I put it up and mount it why am I the one responsible for replacing it if someone smashes into it?
If someone slips and falls on the sidewalk and sues me I am responsible. However if I take a jackhammer to the same sidewalk I will receive a C&D and be billed to it to be fixed from the city. If I'm responsible for it its mine and I'm free to jack hammer it. If I'm not free to jackhammer it why should I be responsible for it?
Because that space is serving as a public square. Company owned towns were a thing for quite awhile in this country, and this argument that the entire street and all the sidewalks were company property was used to argue this exact point, and they lost. The space was open to the general public, and was being used to share ideas, and thus was a public square with all the rights that go with it.
Youtube, twitter, facebook, are all doing what those towns did. Everybody can come in, unless we specifically decide that we don't like you specifically, based on the beliefs you are espousing on our terf. This exact fight for this exact argument has been litigated already, and we the people won. Marsh vs Alabama was the biggest one.
EDIT3 for clarity: Your tiny park with a small list of specific allowed people is fine. But that isn't analogous to social media. Instead, your park is letting everybody in by default. Then later you decide to say 'fuck mharmless, specifically, because he said stuff I hate. mharmless specifically can't come in now'. You would lose that case. You have made your park a public square and invited effectively the entire world, then tried to bar me specifically from it over constitutionally protected speech. My speech trumps your property rights if your property is a public square. Hence the central question in my mind is 'is there such a thing as a digital public square?', and if the answer is 'no', then a huge part of our democratic traditions are dead and buried going forward into this computerized future. If the answer is 'yes', then we need to do nothing more than identify what the digital version of that physical space is, and I think anybody looking at it honestly will be forced to conclude that social media is that digital analog. From there it is just a matter of applying the centuries of rules and precedent we already have.
EDIT: Adding a great analog here, parks inside of HOAs. Those parks don't belong to the government, they belong to the private HOA. And this is the exact reason they always say that the park is only open to HOA members and not the general public. As soon as such a park let the general public in, they would no longer be able to control it. That park would become a public space and the weight of legal history would make it impossible to kick out bums and drug dealers. They have to have a whitelist of allowed users, because blacklists don't cut it when trying to establish your space as a private one.
I think they are subject to the same kinds of limits a public square is. The edges of this would be tested in court, but basically if you could get away with it on a street corner you would get away with it here.
Regarding fines and such, both AOL and Compuserve were sued over this very topic RE public square status in the early 90s, and both cases sided with the companies because they charged fees to use the services. That was the argument the court went with, not the idea that they could deny whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted. Because they charged an entry fee, they were not a public square but rather a private club or service.
If facebook, youtube, or twitter started charging a small fee in order to open an account, that would be sufficient to make them not a public square. Same way that Costco has more power over their premises because they have made their store a non-public venue that charges a fee to be a member.
EDIT2: But none of those companies are going to do that, because they need the vast majority of the general public on-board so they can make their money on our data and our content and our conversations. Effectively, they are trying to harvest all the benefits of the public square and the free exchange of ideas within it, while dodging all of the obligations that go with such a space. If they added even a tiny fee, they would lose too many users and the exchange of money would give their users a whole host of other legal rights they don't want to deal with.