What do you think about social media such as Youtube and the censorship those websites commit on their users?

>I mean, look at Jow Forums for instance, everytime the moderation of the site does something some part of the community doesn't like, new chans appear.
kek

>wanting a free market
>complaining about cartels
what did he mean by this?

Attached: jewface.jpg (900x1060, 157K)

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as communism, is in fact, Stalinism, or as I've recently taken to calling it, leftist totalitarianism. True communism is not state ownership of the means of production, but rather a stateless, classless, moneyless society as defined by Das Kapital.

I like Ice Poseidon and his scripted content more than Big Brother or Survivor.

KSI vs Logan Paul when. Fuck pewds

It's fucking terrible but it's where all the content is.
And the people who complain the most about YT fucking their videos by not allowing ads on it are also the ones who would never even dare to switch to another site because they wouldn't make any money.

Can't have a free market without a minimum amount of regulation.

Here's demonetization just based on cursing.
This doesn't include all of the other reasons you might be blacklisted.
Say for creating a video about how to deal with suicidal feelings and not to do it.
Youll be punished for that

Attached: DemonetizationForCursing.jpg (888x2772, 601K)

I use Jewtoob to download music. youtube-dl works nicely. IDGAF about the social shit.

there has to be some people somewhere talking about creating a decentralized video hosting platform with a completely unfiltered ad program that allows creators to deal directly with companies. it could even interface with and index existing videos hosted on youtube and allow easy media migration between services.

is it possible? scalable? maybe im retarded

Attached: 1493360065967.gif (320x320, 2.46M)

I think it can be disastrous and have huge social consequences. J.S. Mills greatly warns about the risk of peer censorship, and it is chillingly accurate in the modern age.
Anyone who confuses the principle of free speech with an American law is an idiot.
Anyone who argues it is okay because it is legal is an idiot.
I'm sure there are arguments to be made, but idiots running around with those two like a "gotcha" are fucking morons.

Might want to look up the meaning of censorship captain.

Basically this. Honestly they can do whatever the fuck they want. If its user's don't like it, they can make their own video hosting platform that loses them tens of millions of dollars every year to compete with youtube. There's no such thing as free speech or the first amendment when it comes to private companies hosting people's content. You're free to make and distribute your own content to your heart's extent, but you aren't entitled to do whatever the fuck you want on someone else's platform.

What they're doing is not illegal, but it's still retarded.

it wouldn't be a problem if these giants weren't so monopolistic
banned from YouTube? Good luck on the other 1000 platforms that have to share the remaining 2% of the video market

he made a great video explaining the algorithm based censorship
youtube.com/watch?v=n3H8D2LrLHc

All I know is I never had a reason to use Bitchute until now.

It's literally not. Refusing to provide resources to someone to say something because of what they have to say is not censorship. Actively preventing someone from saying something regardless of whose resources they use to say that thing, again because of what they have to say, is censorship.

When you grow up you'll figure out the difference.

If you want real complaints about youtube filtering content out of their platform, they need to be real arguments. A real argument is that because you get demonetized for doing certain things, but they don't tell you what those things are (even after the fact), it is impossible to know if dealing with them will be equitable. This isn't a legitimate censorship complaint, this is a business complaint.

I think it's great. They filter fake news sources.

Mein nignog.

Not knowing what censorship is really inexcusable user.
If you want to argue some censorship is justified or peer censorship is justified. Be my guest. But any suppression of content on the basis it is objectionable IS censorship. Stop trying to correct people on things you do not understand. 1A is based on the concept of free speech, not the other way around. Youtube removing videos because of what they say is censorship. Regardless of what they say or if they are "providing resources" if a publisher makes you cut chapters from a book because it is objevtionable it is censorship. Even if they provide the publishing resources. It can be good bad or other if you want. But it is censorship. It would not be censorship if the complaint was for example the book is boring or should be abridged.

>Not knowing what censorship is really inexcusable user.
Don't worry, you're still excused.
>If you want to argue some censorship is justified or peer censorship is justified.
It is NOT censorship. It is NOT your toy to say whatever you want on. Other people can use their things for whatever they want, NOT you.
>But any suppression of content on the basis it is objectionable IS censorship.
Factually wrong. The rest of your post is the typical retardation of mentioning the first amendment in a situation not relevant to government.

By the way I hate censorship and am not defending it, unlike you I know what it is.

>I know what censorship is.
Imagine stating this after posting a factually wrong definition.
Censorship is the suppression of expression based on it being objectionable. Thats it. Notbing to do with what is in the content, who owns what resources. Simple as that. Not publishing Jones book because it is shit =/= censorship. Not publishing it because it has shit you disagree with =censorship. Based on the fact that youtube has no QC or problem with shit content. It is either willful ignorance or bad faith you are using to state their removal of content is not censorship.
Personally i support censoring Child Porn or anything of that nature. But you do you

>Refusing to cooperate with expression = suppression of expression
IT IS NOT YOUR TOY TO PLAY WITH

Youtube, or any other platform is NOT yours.

>It is either willful ignorance or bad faith you are using to state their removal of content is not censorship.

You'll figure it out when you grow up. The only possibility that you could think in such a way is if you are a child who has nothing to take responsibility for. You are not free to do whatever you want in any society period, and freedom of speech is a law meant to protect you from government authority and nothing more.

You're literally comparing government censorship with the fact that you can't watch what you want on youtube. What fucking faggot.

>youtube is not yours
Correct, YouTube is censoring jones not me. As they are legally allowed to do. This does not change that you do not understand is censorship is.
>you are q child
Ad hominem
>you are not free to do whatever you want
Strawman. I already advocated censorship of CP.
>is a law meant to protect you
1st ammendment =/= the principle of free speech which predates any legislation on the matter and is not confined to one legal implementation
>you are literally comparing government censorship with corporate censorship
No corporate censorship and government censorship have differences and it is coherent to argue in favour of one but not the other. While I disagree and take the J.S. Mills approach to peer censorship you are free to disagree. All that I was doing was pointing out you do not know what censorship is. Which you further highlight here.

It won’t be around for too much longer. YouTube never turned a profit, and eventually even venture capital loses their patience.

>Refusing to provide resources to someone to say something because of what they have to say is not censorship. Actively preventing someone from saying something regardless of whose resources they use to say that thing, again because of what they have to say, is censorship.
In the modern, internet-based world where Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Twitter represent 90%+ of communication, blocking or restricting certain speech on any of those platforms absolutely is censorship.

If we go by your line of thinking, an ISP blocking you from accessing the internet because you posted a right-wing opinion on your Facebook wall isn't censorship. "Just go use a different ISP", someone retorts. By all means, yes, go use a different ISP. But what if no other ISP serves your area, as is the case in 80-95% of the United States?

That's how it is on youtube, that's how it is with ISPs, and that's how it is in real life. Whether contraband topics are outright deleted or simply hidden from view, the result is the same. Censorship is censorship.

user. If you want to disagree with me online you should have to dig your own underwater trenches along to other countries. You dont own the internet.

It's unfortunate, but I think it has a chance of boosting the popularity of decentralized social media, such as the the fediverse.

Those are not the only options.

>mfw there are actually, literally people who believe that

Attached: 1532455369314.jpg (287x293, 16K)

>Correct, YouTube is censoring jones not me
Not an answer to "youtube is not yours".
>As they are legally allowed to do. This does not change that you do not understand is censorship is.
Irrelevant, you have still not substantiated this yet I have substantiated the fact that you don't understand what censorship is. You've also posted factual falsehoods like correlating the first amendment to youtube.
>Ad hominem
And? Ad hominem is valid argumentation, it just gets a bad reputation from shit ad hominem arguments like "ur a faget". Examples of legitimate ad hominem arguments include examples like telling a politician than giving government subsidies to a company he owns is a conflict of interest (also the one I made about you, that's also valid).
>Strawman. I already advocated censorship of CP.
Irrelevant, the conversation is youtube. Argue that youtube is censoring, you probably can't so you're trying to bring up CP.

It does not actually change anything regardless of what either of us thinks of CP in this conversation.
>1st ammendment =/= the principle of free speech which predates any legislation on the matter and is not confined to one legal implementation
Then why'd you bring the first amendment up?
>you are literally comparing government censorship with corporate censorship
I'm quoting this because your black text below that is also irrelevant, you're trying to change greentext to stuff words in my mouth. You've still yet to validate this "corporate censorship" bullshit when all Google did was not let you use youtube, a for-profit site that exists for its purposes and not yours.

You're assuming you have a right to an audience. Nobody is required to offer you a soap box so you can have an audience. Myth busted.
>ISP
ISPs offer legally binding two way access to the internet and nothing more, again, not a free speech issue. They are not a distribution platform.

Google commits far worse crimes against its useds than merely dictating what can and can't be said on their platform.

>in a world where Bing can make almost a billion in profits, the world's second largest site loses billions
to be fair they really do everything in their power to not make money

>the biggest face of our platform screams racial slurls left and right? Nah, don't do anything
>a large presence shows a suicide corpse and makes fun of it? Nah, just remove the video and the ads for a week or two
>what? advertisers are jumping off? well, it has to do with our loose policies!
>let's just demonetize everything that is remote, in any shape or form provocative (that means anything above PG 0)
>these people are disabling ads completely and now rely on direct sponsoring and donations and we don't see a single penny from it? strange..
right now they are desperately trying to make a Premium subscription, only offering a few app features and "Original content" which hasn't been really built up upon since 2014

Stop censoring me by not allowing me to preach the glory of liberalism in your kitchen 12 hours a day!

user.
Your argument is basically as follows.
2nd degree murder does not follow the legal definition of first degree murder. Thusfore it is not murder. Thusfore it is not q criminal act. Thusfore it is q good thing.
If you want sources
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-censorship
google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/mill/liberty.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwizyrKH79ncAhX9CDQIHV3JCDMQFjAQegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw3LBxDmPULyMdngQXpYvQWF
Lots of reading to do my man.
Also dont know what an ad hominem is. So get to reading on that after.
>then whyd you being the 1A up
Becaude you falsely believe it dictates whay censorship is. It does not even attempt to do so. Merely provide legal protection from a single form of censorship.

user. You are allowed to write what you want from your jail cell. And I am allowed to burn it immediately. You are not entitled to an audience! Besides this is a private prison.

and when people can't even say the word "retard" in *any* conext or show *any* violence or *anything* controversial they will turn somwhere else. Many creative filmmakers started out on YouTube but today really any type of film could be considered not ad friendly

YouTube will turn into a Wrestling Show. Prime Time. An audience of millions. But no advertisers who want to associate their brand with this, most of the time, trash.
Who would pay more than a $1 CPM for a prank video or a 1000 degree knife trend or whatever the next fad will be?

Attached: 1518327126766.gif (128x128, 10K)

>wants the state to control everything

THIS. I don't want the government to control the internet either. I'm so glad net neutrality is dead.

>Your argument is basically as follows.
>2nd degree murder does not follow the legal definition of first degree murder.

No, user, my argument is that you don't own youtube, which is a platform actually owned by people for their purposes, and you're complaining that they own it and are using for their purposes, falsing equating it to censorship.

I've read a lot more about censorship than you have, and have talked to people who lived in Soviet and modern Chinese big brother situations.

You have a laughable, weak, stupid complaint where the best you could possibly claim is that Google doesn't agree with someone. In a world where you aren't guaranteed any listeners, you demand equal footing to just anyone while casually tossing out the first amendment as justification. That is not freedom of speech, that is a child demanding that mom watch and listen to him say the thought he just had which is not the same thing.

Google has absolutely no moral, idealistic, or practical reason to do any of the things you've said.

anyone interested should look at Sealows study showing just how severe the situation is how are you supposed to make anything of artistic or cultural value on such a platform?

Attached: chrome_2018-08-07_04-26-45.png (1132x625, 116K)

yeah that picture is from his .pdf from his results

.
>No, user, my argument is that you don't own youtube, which is a platform actually owned by people for their purposes, and you're complaining that they own it and are using for their purposes, falsing equating it to censorship.
No. I am merely pointing out what censorship is. Your argument is confusing one form of censorship with the entirety of it. To make a legal and moral appeal that is nonsensical. There are valid arguments of defending youtube. However they are contigent in accepting fact not spinning it to willfully mininterpret it. Nobody is arguing what youtube is doing is illegap. Nobody is arguing it is identical to Police coming in and arresting him. However this in and of itself is not an argument. Merely an obfuscation if fact and redirection.
>I've read a lot more about censorship than you have, and have talked to people who lived in Soviet and modern Chinese big brother situations.
Evidently you do not. You do not even know what the word means and have clearly never read much phil on the topic.
>You have a laughable, weak, stupid complaint where the best you could possibly claim is that Google doesn't agree with someone. In a world where you aren't guaranteed any listeners, you demand equal footing to just anyone while casually tossing out the first amendment as justification. That is not freedom of speech, that is a child demanding that mom watch and listen to him say the thought he just had which is not the same thing.
That it is not at all what I am doing.
>Google has absolutely no moral, idealistic, or practical reason to do any of the things you've said.
You have failed to list any.
You simply narrowed in on a single form of censorship. Stated it is not that. (Agreed it is not government censorship) then stated it can not he censorship (it is clearly corporate censorship, your definition of what is happening clearly matches a basic wikipedia entry) and then obfuscate this as it justification of it being okay.

>No. I am merely pointing out what censorship is.
You've failed miserably to address any point I've made, resorting repeatedly to absurd argument without being able to argue the point even once.
>IT'S LIKE MURDER

As for the rest of your post, I clearly know much more about this topic than you and I'm satisfied with that.

Oh, one last thing:
>You have failed to list any.
Everything you've said. That was obvious when I said "any of the things you've said."

question: are there actually people out there that unironically think alex jones isn't a complete retard

also, alex jones is still very famous, and I'm sure his droves of braindead followers will still find ways to eat up whatever fecal matter he spews out of his mouth...on whatever platform it may be

this isn't really censorship as much as jewtube is just telling him to fuck off imo, you geniuses act like he now has no way of communicating his "theories" to the outside world now

Imagine being so lacking in morals you think censorship is just a legal concept and that outside of the government doing it it does not exist.
Imagine being against free speech on Jow Forums.
Imagine arguing with a communist who sees free speech as only okay when his side uses it for hours instead of calling him a faggot and hoping he gets hit by a bus like he deserves.

My point is just let it go my man. His type are killing themselves off as it is.

I.e.
Whether you like it or not.
>first degree murder means premeditation
>youtube killed him in a fit of rage
>thusfore it is not murder
>thusfore it is legal (i mean its not but corporate censorship is in the US, so lets pretend it is here)
>thusfore it is a good thing and you can not oppose it.
This is flawed as follows.
Government censorship is not the only form of censorship.
Because something is legal does not mean it should be legal.
Because something should be legal, does not mean it is a good thing or justified.
Because A is not B. Does not mean B is okay.
This is common sense.
I will not engage you further if you are going to misinterpret me, basic philosophy, the meaning of words. Or further strawman to prove your point.
Really. You know more? Read Locke? Mill Toqueville? Socrates? Milton? The fucking wikipedia page at least?
No than shut up. Even if you are an expert on government censorship this does not extend to you somehow knowing about the other. As I said. Expertise on 1dt degree murder does not imply expertise on 2nd degree. I will doubt your credentials on the former if you deny the second is murder. But that is here nor there.
No. He is a complete and utter retard. Everyone agrees.
Im sure this will help him. That was never the point.

Yes there are people who think Jones is right, that's why that guy took a gun to that pizza place.

>how severe the situation is
They have no fucking idea.
This was a person who got a strike for having some bugs in a jar that do nothing more than stand on top of each other and multiple people at youtube define this as excessive gratuitous violence like posting gore and execution videos.

Sealow said people are being censored for positive stories talking about how they dealt with being gay in a muslim country or videos encouraging kids not to commit suicide.

Youtube is actively censoring videos telling suicidal children not to kill themselves.

While hosting users who show tens of millions of kids a corpse in a suicide forest while not punishing them at all, but punishing someone who has bugs in a jar that do nothing.

Also all the fucked up pedo shit cartoons they show kids and the 24/7 streams of copyrighted content which is perfectly okay.

Its grossly corrupt and disgusting.
Its hardcore censorship and wreckless abandonment and harsh nonsensical punishment for legit innocent users.

Attached: 1427670313215.jpg (1596x2213, 1.09M)

We told to you to share the eggs in different baskets.

need GW to filter all the trash content like jake paul/KSI/Chinkgum/etc

Attached: 19Colonels.jpg (339x449, 29K)

It's called freedom of speech. You have no right to force others to host your speech.

The public space as been has been outsourced to privately owned entity's

Mass conclusion and astroturfing campaigns have the ability to harm the nation and willingness and ability to do so by some has been seen

Im not a libertarian. A factory should not be able to pump chemical waste into a river no more then a small amount of tech giants owning the overwhelming majority of global social media be able to coordinate to mislead millions.
A company should not (like in every other instance) be able to perform or risk great public harm and hide behind being privately owned.

If you dont think the current status quo is at the point of intervention being needed. Can we all agree it could get to that point?

What is the level of societal harm a nation will allow private company with the eyes and ears if billions to cause?
Does facebook have to directly start shilling for candidates and parties for elections for people to care?
Do we have to wait for them to intentionally start becoming bad actors to care?

And whats worse? allowing mass manipulation of the population? Breaking up corporations because they have so many user? Imposing restrictions on social media platforms to curate its own content?

>going right for the kiddo argument
You could just say you had no argument.

Inmediately, you're right, but YT is a monopoly and that changes things. When you're factually the ONLY relevant provider of a particular media and you decide to remove some of that media according to your political bias, it's a problem. Specially when that media is personally, independently produced, not corporately. You're silencing and opressing the common person in favor of big money (yourself), while claiming to defend the common person. It's pretty much the definition of tyranny. And no I'm not talking about Alex Jones alone, he is pretty much a puppet for particular groups of interst, I'm talking about the thousands of small youtubers getting the axe because of MUH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. We need neutral ground to discuss all ideas. ALL ideas, no matter what. It's the only way to really know what's in the majority's interest.

Attached: 1516846317165.jpg (847x2086, 891K)

I agree. But government intervention is tricky.these sites all admit to censorship now, because it looks good and "objectionable content" is frowned upon. But what happens when they just go the publisher route and establish quality standards? This statement is no longer offensive, it simply didn't make our QC. How can you disprove that? You gonna make publishers publish every shitty book just incase? I think it would be easier with social media but not easy in general. Nor do I trust any government to be anything but strategic in implementation.

What was he supposed to do? His argument was not only entirely semantic. But not even an accurate semantic argument.

>newfags think Jow Forums is uncensored
I bet you didn't even know this page existed.
Jow Forums.org/rules

I feel the problem of government intervention is inevitable.

Eventually the backlash is going to happen. And these things tends to happen after things have gotten really bad and the response is hamfisted and extreme.

Neither the current winning crowd authoritarian control freaks or the "muh private company" crowd will be happy.

i takes a special type of retardation to write comments like yours.

I get you user.

But I stand saying that Youtube should have the right to do whatever they want, it's their business. And each one of those small youtubers now being sad because they are not getting exposure just didn't get the rules of the game.

Youtube sell convience. Youtubers don't have to pay shit for hosting videos, for promoting their content, for notifying their users via email after a new upload, they even hook them up with advertisers!

All of that for FREE. But that doesn't make sense, so what is Youtube getting out of them?

Their freedom.

So they end with no control over: the ads that monetize your video, how they promote their content, the video quality of the videos. Youtube might even just stop notifying their subscribers about new content.

But they agreed to all of that. And the only thing they do is cry about it.

> actually feeding lord autismo
guy probably barely knows how to write his name, give up

It's disgusting that they push their views on users, especially because their views are tainted by Murican idiocy a la violence being more acceptable than nipple ... but in the end, people are free to use and not to use them.

Youtube servers aren't a public space, faggot. And if Zuck decides to shill for his presidency on FB, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. His platform, his rules. Your fault for making the crap so important to your life.

>allowing mass manipulation of the population?
Is always going to happen. Societal norms are mass manipulation and the reason why shit, well doesn't go to shit.

>Breaking up corporations because they have so many user?
That's beyond insane.

>Imposing restrictions on social media platforms to curate its own content?
You do realise that the companies operate in different countries with different fucking laws, making anything but bare minimum curation a huge pain, right?

muh private companies

This.
Jow Forums is the perfect example or at least the old Jow Forums.

Everyone could pretty much say whatever they wanted and if it was fucking stupid you got called a retarded fucking faggot and everyone laughed at you.

Now we have the opposite with censorship.
People are concerned with boogeymen and harass everyone into a narrow frame with entirely made up bullshit and if you dont conform youre harassed.

We have antifa hurling bricks at people and you have people in the UK giving out life bans for telling someone that a made up god loves you and women and children are being fucking raped and nobody is doing anything about it and nobody cares because they dont want to get in trouble for being racist.

So everyone is a fucking android now with plastic fucking faces.

15 years ago if you said children were being raped, a fucking army would march in and murder fucking everyone involved.

If someone commited a hate crime and beat someone with a brick like antifa, koreans would be lined up in the fucking street with uzis.

If there isnt freedom of speech, its just all manipulated data for anyone and everyone to be filtered into and lies and propaganda.

Radicals are given a voice and treated with respect instead of being lynched.
Youre now harassed at college and kicked out for DEBATING.
People make up fucking genders as if they have an intersex condition and harass people.

People at nickeledon wont even open their mouths while kids are molested.

How many dead fucking kids is enough for you people to realize that freedom of speech trumps all fucking rights and it is your civic duty as a citizen to defend it and destroy every fucking stupid thing said not to hide it and radicalize it and glorify being offended?

I hope you get offended. Fuck you if you get offended. You should be offended.
If you can't be offended, then you dont know what is right and what is wrong.
You're allowing a machine algorithm to dictate what you think and what you believe in.

tldr

It's disgusting and it's why I don't support the free market anymore. At this point I'm fully in favor of government preventing these companies at gunpoint from raping people's first amendment rights.

Facebook censors Bangladeshi protesters.

>Everyone could pretty much say whatever they wanted
That's not how the Internet nor society works, faggot. Spammers and memers tend to fuck up any somewhat controversial topic, so it's just censorship by overshooting. Kinda what you'd get if you try to discuss the merits of BLM on Stormfront. Plus obviously there is always censorship based on laws and social norms.

>15 years ago if you said children were being raped
Tons of children were raped 15 years ago. Even more before and so on. Fuck off with your "good ol' times" shit. You live in the most safe time for women and children.

>its just all manipulated data for anyone and everyone to be filtered into and lies and propaganda
Welcome in reality, kiddo. This was always the case. That's how information works. Everything you ever learned was already pre-chewed for you and has an ideological purpose, usually while pretending to be the objective truth.

>Radicals are given a voice and treated with respect instead of being lynched.
Woah, what happened to freeze peach? Didn't you bitch about censorship at the start of the wall of text? Now you oppose people getting a voice?

>Youre now harassed at college and kicked out for DEBATING.
Now? Niggers weren't even allowed into college to debate shit not too long ago. Your idea of the past has no connection to reality. You're living in the literally most free time of mankind, a couple people getting outraged over stupid shit doesn't change it.

Youtube is just a platform that stores data. Makes no sense to view them as a monopoly at anything. Cinemas won't show your shit either, and I doubt any book publisher is looking to publish your Sonic fanfiction. Such censorship. Much tyrany.

Everyone with tools to make a video can easy share it with others just by having access to the Internet. You got the right to. Why the fuckety fuck should anyone be forced to host your shit if they don't like it?

So pedos should have the right to upload their CP collection on YT?

You could just have multiple accounts and upload videos of the same quality. Just tweak the script to fit the alleged appoved narative. Do this 100s of times to gather evidence to prove they are discriminating against certain views.

If it doesn't fit the alleged narrative it fails at quality. Say the narrative is that the earth is round, and you suggest that it isn't. No matter how good your argument or presentation is, you can't claim that it isn't round to hit quality standards.

user, you have no fucking clue what net neutrality is/was.

That totally happened to me years ago where I made some stupid video for some game and talked about a gun in the game being bad compared to my favorite gun. I showed frame by frame comparisons, ms bullet travel time, all the stats and information with video evidence of all of my arguments so that there was no possible argument against it because I had solid proven facts.

But then some popular youtuber did a video about it and said the complete opposite and in filming my video, he was even in my video being a shitter getting shit on while he was filming his video. But since he was popular, everyone came to my video and attacked me and sent me nonstop hate mail for months and claimed the popular person was correct even when he wasnt. They also massively downvoted my video because popular youtuber was right and I wasnt.

So his numbers pushed my video out of existence and so did all the negativity and everyone adopted the group think even though it was factually wrong and they had all the evidence in the world to see that it was and the algorithm deemed my correct video valueless and booted me out because I didnt meet its quality standard.

Git gud shitter

Its a dumb anecdote but its rapidly becoming serious.
Remember when the normative answer was to not give people aids?
When it was illegal to go around giving people aids?
Soon it will be other stuff like videos or whatever content filtering out cancer treatment and normalizing some crazy behavior like praying the cancer away.

Youtube isn't a monopoly though, there are plenty of video hosting services, Dailymotion of course, but even Facebook or the ones used by streaming websites ( although nobody really uses the last ones for that ). Youtube is therefore not censorshiping anyone because ultimately you can always host your videos somewhere else, youtube cannot stop that.

What censorship?

They can host their own shit on sites they own themselves, you're talking about independency yourself. They still have their voice, businesses like YouTube don't want to be accountable for real life harm because they provide a platform for those that do said harm.

tl;dr "it's their platform" is no longer an excuse. All censorship is wrong and they should be forced to accept all views, even if it's their website or their platform. They're gonna have freedom of speech shoved down their necks whether they like it or not. Censorship on any level is disgusting and should never be tolerated. It's a slippery slope that leads to worse things, as every single society in the history of civilization will attest.

I'm not bothered by it.

So collusion IS illegal?

Care to store my porn and vidya backup on your servers or at least PC? Wouldn't want to infringe my freedom of speech, would you?

Why are lolbertarians so easy to spot?

Did you even read the post you replied to?

>when quasi monopolies doing the censoring for the government/ pressure groups/ activist/ twitter mobs then it's awesome because it's le free market
imagine being this kind of a bootlicking retard missing the whole point

Attached: 1530044623338.jpg (420x466, 16K)

How is it called a free market and "private Company" when the EU and other countries force these sites to comply to local law?
How is it Free market when even objective straight fact reporting is being closed down or censored in the EU

>muh private private private
Some companies, like Twitter, are public.

True free market is dangerous, and doesn't work.