Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

[AlmightyBender]

I would also like to point out some inconsistency in your position.

You say you are for free speech, individual freedom, free markets, deregulation etc.

So even if Google were acting exactly as you think they are, what exactly is the problem to you? Surely you should have zero problem with them because they have the freedom to run the company how they want? Are they not upholding your values?

If you don't like it, vote with your wallet aka free market. If it is unfair, so what because regulation is bad.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

As I said, your supposition. Based on an article from the far left Daily Caller. Which provides no evidence

Try to keep your trolling straight.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

I would also like to point out some inconsistency in your position.

You say you are for free speech, individual freedom, free markets, deregulation etc.

Do me a favour and quote it.

So even if Google were acting exactly as you think they are, what exactly is the problem to you? Surely you should have zero problem with them because they have the freedom to run the company how they want? Are they not upholding your values?

I actually have a major problem with tech companies acting like monopolies and think they should be broken up and prevented from colluding with one another. Social media platforms need to be treated like public utilities or social media companies need to be held legally accountable for all the content on their platforms.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Try to keep your trolling straight.

That's the way to go. Provide a weak argument, and accuse someone who points it out of trolling.

 

[AlmightyBender]

I don't need to find actual examples to prove that Youtube's content policy collaborates with hopelessly biased organisations to police their platform, and frankly that standard you propose ludicrous because the only way to prove a leftist bias along those lines would be for Youtube to come out and say "we're flagging this video because we don't like conservatives".


You mean besides the fact that the SPLC is hopelessly hyperpartisan?

Maybe it is because a lot of what conservatives say nowadays is actually hate speech?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

That's the way to go. Provide a weak argument, and accuse someone who points it out of trolling.

Yes, because your sophistry is really worth the effort.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Maybe it is because a lot of what conservatives say nowadays is actually hate speech?

Or maybe it's because the SPLC no longer has any idea of what properly constitutes hate speech?

Just a guess, you know, based on how many times the SPLC had to eat crow and backtrack their accusations in a spectacular fashion recently.

Just one example:
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018...egarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Yes, because your sophistry is really worth the effort.

If you want to call it that. And it must be, because you keep responding.

 

[AlmightyBender]

Do me a favour and quote it.


I actually have a major problem with tech companies acting like monopolies and think they should be broken up and prevented from colluding with one another. Social media platforms need to be treated like public utilities or social media companies need to be held legally accountable for all the content on their platforms.

Fair points I concede. I did a straw man.

I guess I'm too eager to have this debate with the Nick and Brenden types who I would be able to quote those values. My bad

However you are arguing an Ad Hominem here. Your argument is on what the organisation is, and not what they have actually done.

Also since when was partisanship a requirement for identifying content that breaches YouTube's terms and conditions?

 

[Gingerbeardman]

If you want to call it that. And it must be, because you keep responding.

Nah, I just wanted the ostrich to keep doing its ostrich routine because it's entertaining.

P.S. The daily caller mentioned thinkprogress as a source, if you bothered to read.

https://thinkprogress.org/splc-youtube-b4935309ba43/

UPDATE: The SPLC has confirmed to ThinkProgress that it is, as reported, a member of YouTube’s “Trusted Flagger” program.

Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, said in a statement: “The Southern Poverty Law Center is greatly concerned about the spread of white supremacist propaganda online and believe that tech companies should enforce their own terms and service agreements.”

But thanks for showing everyone how you act in bad faith.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Fair points I concede. I did a straw man.

I guess I'm too eager to have this debate with the Nick and Brenden types who I would be able to quote those values. My bad

However you are arguing an Ad Hominem here. Your argument is on what the organisation is, and not what they have actually done.

What the organisation has done proves what the organisation is, namely hopelessly biased.

Edit: Just take a look at the Majid Nawaz situation. If even one vaguely sane person had been involved with the decision to flag him, it would never have happened. And when the SPLC was called on it, they tried to double down. And that's why they ended up coughing up millions for defamation.

Also since when was partisanship a requirement for identifying content that breaches YouTube's terms and conditions?

If you have a lot of activists with a political viewpoint working with a company to filter out all the objectionable content, which side feels the hammer? The side that the activists agree with, or the side that the activists disagree with?

 

[theratman]

Lag if you guys could peek your head out of your eco chambers for a minute you would discover that YouTube's new ad policies affected almost all types of content negatively.

Examples:
I love Star Wars content, guys I followed all complained that they got demonetized whenever they mentioned things like Death Trooper.

Woodworking channels I watched got demonetized for mentioning to much the brands they were reviewing.

It would be irrational to conclude that Google is anti-star Wars and anti woodworking based on these outcomes

In terms of politics if your views are essentially hate speech (from left or right) then no surprise it gets demonetized. If you not happy with that then you are welcome to take your content elsewhere. Google can set whatever policies they like.

Completely off topic but how hectic was that Darth Vader Fan film drama!? Really petty from Disney and Co, glad Lucasfilm stepped in to sort it out.

 

[AlmightyBender]

Completely off topic but how hectic was that Darth Vader Fan film drama!? Really petty from Disney and Co, glad Lucasfilm stepped in to sort it out.

Exacto! Really silly.

Pretty good evidence that these policies are enforced with robotic non-discrimination and without any real common sense.

 

[theratman]

Exacto! Really silly.

Pretty good evidence that these policies are enforced with robotic non-discrimination and without any real common sense.

Yeah but in that case it was manually flagged for use of star wars music ip, even though the guy had paid a composer for unique music. Hate these big media companies. Anyway glad it's sorted, as the Star Trek Annaxar problem was too. /back on topic

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Exacto! Really silly.

Pretty good evidence that these policies are enforced with robotic non-discrimination and without any real common sense.

There's undoubtedly AI algorithms in place to check for copyrighted content and so forth, but I don't think that excludes the possibility of other kinds of platform moderation.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

Nah, I just wanted the ostrich to keep doing its ostrich routine because it's entertaining.

P.S. The daily caller mentioned thinkprogress as a source, if you bothered to read.

https://thinkprogress.org/splc-youtube-b4935309ba43/




But thanks for showing everyone how you act in bad faith.

Act in bad faith, how exactly? I assumed you read the article you posted.....because you posted it.b And so there was a simple response to my post. But it seems you hadn't, or are a bit slow

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Act in bad faith, how exactly? I assumed you read the article you posted.....because you posted it.b And so there was a simple response to my post. But it seems you hadn't, or are a bit slow

As I said, your supposition. Based on an article from the far left Daily Caller. Which provides no evidence

I bolded the lie.

 

[Hamish McPanji]

I bolded the lie.

It's not a lie. They provided no evidence.

I clicked on the link they provided , and it went to....

...Daily Caller

 

[Gingerbeardman]

It's not a lie. They provided no evidence.

I clicked on the link they provided , and it went to....
...Daily Caller

That doesn't mean there was no evidence. Try again. Maybe you meant "proof". The claim that the SPLC spoke to Thinkprogress is the evidence, and can be freely double checked online.

Next thing you'll be telling me print media never has any evidence for their claims they publish cuz it isn't hotlinked.

 

[cerebus]

Oh Guley Guley Guley... The gift that keeps on giving.

interviewer Isaac Chotiner asked the former New York City mayor if he was concerned his legacy would center on “saying things for Trump” that were often false. Giuliani responded jokingly:

Absolutely. I am afraid it will be on my gravestone. “Rudy Giuliani: He lied for Trump.” Somehow, I don’t think that will be it. But, if it is, so what do I care? I’ll be dead. I figure I can explain it to St. Peter. He will be on my side, because I am, so far … I don’t think, as a lawyer, I ever said anything that’s untruthful.

[E]ven if there were such conversations, which there weren’t, they would be completely innocent. … f he had those conversations, they would not be criminal.