Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Removes Anti-Vaccine Movies After CNN Inquiry (cnn.com)
"Amazon has apparently started removing anti-vaccine documentaries from its Amazon Prime Video streaming service," reports CNN:
The move came days after a CNN Business report highlighted the anti-vaccine content available on the site, and hours after Rep. Adam Schiff wrote an open letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, saying he is concerned "that Amazon is surfacing and recommending" anti-vaccination books and movies....
Amazon did not respond to questions about why the films are no longer available on Prime Video.
However, while some anti-vaccine videos are gone from the Prime streaming service, a number of anti-vaccine books were still available for purchase on Amazon.com when CNN Business reviewed search results on Friday afternoon, and some were still being offered for free to Kindle Unlimited subscribers... Amazon also had not removed some anti-vaccine books that CNN Business had previously reported on, which users searching the site could mistake for offering neutral information accepted by the public health community.
Amazon did not respond to questions about why the films are no longer available on Prime Video.
However, while some anti-vaccine videos are gone from the Prime streaming service, a number of anti-vaccine books were still available for purchase on Amazon.com when CNN Business reviewed search results on Friday afternoon, and some were still being offered for free to Kindle Unlimited subscribers... Amazon also had not removed some anti-vaccine books that CNN Business had previously reported on, which users searching the site could mistake for offering neutral information accepted by the public health community.
While I don't agree with the anti-vaccine crowd, the last thing we need is for Amazon / Google / Facebook to become the arbiters as to what we think, see, and hear. Having everyone think in lockstep is far more dangerous than the anti-vaccine movement imho.
Looking forward to those liberal book burnings. Maybe we can resuming burning people at the stake.
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment. It protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other -- or in this case, Amazon.
As for burning at the stake -- the 17th century called, and they'd like to invite you to a barbecue.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
This type of thing never works, it just makes the people who already believe in this hunker down because now they believe it's an even bigger conspiracy. If you want to get people to stop believing in this, just make a pro-vaccine movie. Only you don't fill in full of scientists, reason and logic. Go film some of the anti-vaxxers whose children got sick with perfectly preventable diseases. Make sure to really capture the suffering of those poor children and the misery of the dumb-fuck parents. Go to the corners of the earth where polio still exists to show them the horrors of that. I think that will get their attention.
Sure, it's completely legal for Amazon to do so - however, in general we should be wary of restricting any speech or sharing of information - right or wrong. You want to ensure a virulent idea survives? Persecute it so that those who adhere to it have a cause to support.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Wow. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
Let's try information and education instead, hm'kay?
Sure, next up I'll try talking some fundamentalist christians out of the existence of god. Surely scientific methods and facts will sway their opinions.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Freedom of speech.
.... big g o v.
Freedom of the press.
The freedom to publish.
The freedom to watch a movie and review it.
The freedom to make a movie and have it sold?
After an open letter from
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
This is the most compelling argument for the anti-vaxxers I've ever heard, and I've been listening to their crap for years. There's nothing like heavy-handed censorship to make anyone wonder, what truth exactly are they trying to hide?
The truth that sending your un-vaxxed kid to the same school as mine puts everyone at risk. Herd immunity is effective, but it breaks down if too many individuals are not innoculated. Educate yourself on the debunked claim that vaccinations cause autism, and join the rest of us who want to protect ourselves as well as everyone else.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Sadly the only way to stop a cult is to remove all members from existence.
Wow. No more Mr. Nice Guy.
Let's try information and education instead, hm'kay?
Sure, next up I'll try talking some fundamentalist christians out of the existence of god. Surely scientific methods and facts will sway their opinions.
Great. Have at it. Rational persuasion is fair game. But at least you won't be trying to "remove all members from existence" as the OP darkly suggested.
And BTW, many christian denominations (and other religions) have reconciled science with belief.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment.
The poster you replied to didn't mention the 1st Amendment.
Just because corporate thought control is legal, that doesn't mean it is a good idea.
What content will congress like to restrict next AC?
Right to repair? The import of computer parts and how to repair?
Books on the math of DRM and crypto?
Tax information?
Books and movies on the lie detector tests?
Anti war movies and books?
Books by whistleblowers about the history of the mil/security services?
Movie reviews in books that are too political and that make a movie not sell?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
AC the gov is sending out open letters.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
In the same vein, SS actions and Jewish suppression were completely legal in Nazi Germany too.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment.
The poster you replied to didn't mention the 1st Amendment.
Fair point. But (s)he did mention "Freedom! Oh no" in the subject, implying it was an attack on the First Amendment.
Just because corporate thought control is legal, that doesn't mean it is a good idea.
I'm with you there. But I don't think that a company choosing which books to sell or not sell constitutes "thought control."
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Then your community needs to act, not the federal government because my community isn't (as) stupid.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
An open gov letter to help corporate control along?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
however, in general we should be wary of restricting any speech or sharing of information
Just as we should be wary of forcing people to publish others' speech.
You want to ensure a virulent idea survives? Persecute it so that those who adhere to it have a cause to support.
Apparently not
Then your community needs to act, not the federal government because my community isn't (as) stupid.
Translation: I've got mine, so piss off, Feds.
That works great, until someone from "my" community shows up in "yours" with measles. What then?
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Why shouldn't a bookstore be able to choose what they stock? Why should a bookstore be forced to carry a product they don't want to sell?
While I am not as extreme as the OP, It is obvious at this point information and education is not working.
and? everyone, including members of the government have a right to send out such letters.
The issue is they take out others too. not just themselves.
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment. It protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other -- or in this case, Amazon.
Yeah, legal or not, people who don't respect freedom of speech still suck. That's the 79th amendment.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
These conspiracy theories destroy lives.
An old friend of mine who had always been a bit gullible , when his father was sick from Melanoma, convinced his father to stop the chemo and radiotherapy and instead start on "miracle minerals", aka drinking bleach. The poor old guy died in incredible agony , and its not clear it was the cancer that got him in the end, as he died of liver failure, a common outcome of drinking bleach.
Last thing I heard he had nearly hospitalized his wife in a beating beause she had their todler vaccinated.
These beliefs can destroy peoples lifes. And we can pontificate all we want about these hypothetical scenarios , but the material circumstances in front of our eyes are people being convinced of dangerously stupid ideas leading to horrific outcomes.
Do yourself a favor and do a google image search on Black Salve injuries, then come back and tell me if you think civil society should not intervene
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Yet another person who fails to understand the First Amendment.
Who said anything about first amendment?
It does not protect you and me from each other -- or in this case, Amazon.
What is this in response to?
But I don't think that a company choosing which books to sell or not sell constitutes "thought control."
The books were not pulled because they weren't selling well, but because they contained thoughtcrimes.
The books/videos were pulled hours after they received a letter from a congressman, which was an implied threat of government retaliation.
It is easy to justify targeting of anti-vaxxers. But this sets a very dangerous precedent.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." -- H. L. Mencken
In a copororatist system, it does not matter who is censoring you. Corporations can buy whatever laws they want. America certainly has such a system. The real question is why are you on Slashdot defending the right of billionaires to suppress us from speaking, even if we're wrong? You work for a social media management company, don't you?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Oooh, ooh, I've got another idea for how you can get a virulent idea to survive beside persecuting it. Wanna hear?
You can get a virulent idea to survive by promoting it too!
So tell us, clever clogs: how do you get a virulent idea to die out? You can't argue against it, because its adherents see arguments as "persecution" even if you don't mean it that way. You can't choose not to stock books that promote it, even though you're a private company, because apparently that's also persecution. And if you do nothing, its adherents will continue to spread the message. So how *do* you get the idea to die out?
Adam Schiff isn't a member of the government. Christ, don't you know even basic civics?
Book burning is also completely legal under the First Amendment. You can burn books all you want.
So thank you for sharing that you support book burning.
So tell us, clever clogs: how do you get a virulent idea to die out? You can't argue against it, because its adherents see arguments as "persecution" even if you don't mean it that way. You can't choose not to stock books that promote it, even though you're a private company, because apparently that's also persecution. And if you do nothing, its adherents will continue to spread the message. So how *do* you get the idea to die out?
Invent something more ridiculous to replace it?
Personally I have little sympathy for those pissed off about all those suspicious of vaccination. There is more blame to be placed than just on the shoulders of crackpots.
There is way too much regulatory capture / corruption / lobbying / scope creep from drug industry spending big to try and make shit mandatory coupled with widespread culture of dismissiveness when it comes to filing of adverse reaction reports.
The government has only itself to blame for failing to act beyond reproach with resulting loss of legitimacy / confidence being entirely predictable consequence.
I mean WTF does anyone expect people to believe in an era where regulatory capture is pervasive? The FDA was bad enough... today we live in crazy land where even TLAs like the motherfucking DEA have been corrupted by industry from the top down.
It was there because it was low cost. Whomever made it sold it for very cheap to get out their message. Just like all the UFO documentaries. People are choosing to watch it so amazon was showing it.
While Amazon doesn't have to sell anything they don't want to I think it's wrong of them. To editorialize means you are biased which in turn gives reason for people to distrust you. If you sensor some things and not others it henceforth means you endorse them. It's a huge can of worms. And just like banned books it lends them credibility deservedly so or not. If Bezos' really disagreed enough to do something than then it would have been better to do a counter documentary himself rather than shutting them down or simply posted a ghosted editorial.
As far as the subject matter itself.... there is a modicum of credibility to the issue. There are diminishing returns vs risk. Some people will die in the lottery of rare reactions. Who gets to decide what reasonable risk is? You can document the numerous people dying from the disease on one end and on the other you have the few children that die or other are supposedly otherwise harmed from a bad reaction to a vaccine. You have parents on both ends questioning their decisions in 20/20 hindsight. Beyond that there are people that choose to live a more natural/primitive way of life.
The books were not pulled because they weren't selling well, but because they contained thoughtcrimes.
Oh get over your self. Using hysterical emotional, laden language like "thoughtcrime" just indicates you're not engaging your brain and actually thinking.
Crank movements existed long before the internet and the ability that gives to reach a huge audience with little effort. They still had their free speech then and they still have it now. They can still self-publish pamphlets, speak in the town square promoting their crankery. They can even set up a website and there are even webhosts dedicated to hosting literally anything protected under the first amendment (such as Dreamhost, no affiliation except being a happy customer).
What you are demanding is that people have the right for othes to provide them services whereby they can monetize whatever they say.
That's the most ludicrously over-entitled reading I think I've ever heard of free speech. No, you don't have the right to force others to help you monetize your cranky views.
It is easy to justify targeting of anti-vaxxers. But this sets a very dangerous precedent.
No it doesn't. There has never been a time when private vendors have ever stocked all books regardless of their content. To claim it "sets a precedent" is to ignore all of history.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Why shouldn't a bookstore be able to choose what they stock? Why should a bookstore be forced to carry a product they don't want to sell?
Because if you don't have the right to sell your free speech works for money then you don't have any kind of free speech at all. /s
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Right. That clearly follows because the word, - nay, the very concept - didn't exist prior to 1776.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Specifically, Christofascists are much more common in the US than any of the people you try and whattabout.
You do know that's all the same Old Testament bullshit, yes? Fundamentalist jews, too.
You're a whiney, butthurt Christianist.
Because Amazon Marketplace has become the dominant player in the book selling universe. Not a monopoly, but certainly the largest single player.
You don't have to be a monopoly to be regulated as such by the government. Microsoft wasn't a monopoly when the government forced them to decouple IE from Windows.
Similarly, the inability to being able to sell your book on Amazon Marketplace (not Amazon) would curtail any book seller.
Listen to the Planet Money podcast exactly about this sort of thing: https://www.npr.org/sections/m...
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Invent something more ridiculous to replace it?
This is obviously immoral if the ideas are not only ridiculous but dangerous as well, and there's zero evidence it will look, and good reason to think it wouldn't. So no.
As for the rest of what you say... the focus of such sympathy as you are able to muster should not be with "those suspicious of vaccination". It should be with those harmed by people not vaccinating. That would be babies, old people, the immunocompromised, etc.
You can talk as much bollocks as you like about TLAs being bought etc etc, but I'd bet a large amount of money that if you or a loved one were in an ICU, you'd be perfectly happy to have the adenosine you're prescribed, be intubated as needed, have a central line in place, etc, without feeling the need to mutter darkly about your suspicions about the science all being faked because drug companies and med device companies are prone to evil and corrupt acts.
Should say "work", not "look"
Most of the great crimes against humanity in the 20th century were fully lawful. Many of them were indeed mandatory under the law.
Da, comrade we do.
You have been a good little slodier, so go and collect your rubles from uncle Vlad.
Proshchay!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
That reasoning only works if these so called documentaries actually contained valid questions but the truth is that they are nothing more than pure slander and misinformation that cause actual harm to people (mostly children).
Why shouldn't a bookstore be able to choose what they stock? Why should a bookstore be forced to carry a product they don't want to sell?
Conversely, why shouldn't a bookstore be able to choose what they stock? Why should a bookstore be forced not to carry a product they want to sell?
Imagine a small country town in the south. There's a small bookstore, and it sells books that are pro-abortion. The local newspaper calls them out on this. The mayor strolls by and tells the owner he's disappointed in them. Pastors tell their congregations that they shouldn't support businesses that promote abortion. The store stops carrying the books. Everyone is "happy".
Do you not see the problem here? This is a two way street. Just because Amazon is huge doesn't mean they are immune. Major news outlets and the dissemination of information over the internet easily exert as much pressure on the likes of Amazon and Walmart as my example above at a smaller scale.
Better known as 318230.
I know that the threat of violence makes me automatically loose the argument but as the father of a autistic son, if I where ever to share say an elevator with one of the MMS (Miracle Mineral Solution) peddlers then only one of us would be leaving that elevator. Those people are beyond horrible.
There exists exactly 0% legitimate anti-vaccine content in these movies and/or books. The information that there are people that are allergic to certain vaccines or that there exists health conditions that may prevent some people from safely receiving vaccines will be given to you by your real doctor when you talk to him/her about vaccinating your child. That information is not hidden.
Actually I do think that hindering the spread of these "documentaries" will have an affect since the anti-vaxxers are fortunately still such a small group that need platforms such as Amazon and Youtube in order to spread their message. It's when their shit is displayed on Amazon and Youtube that some people start to believe that their claims are believable.
"it just makes the people who already believe in this hunker down "
Right, and you realize how crazy hunkered down people act and sound? The crazier they look, the less likely people are to listen to them and the more they will see them for what they are... Crazy evangelists.
Not sure where the attribution should go to, maybe Mencken. "Freedom of the press only belongs to those who can afford one." And although it may not exactly apply in this instance, it's always a good idea not to confuse the First Amendment rights with censorship. While Amazon may not be committing a First Amendment offense, it is clearly censorship, for good or evil.
That's an argument for a different time. Nobody's arguing that Amazon should be forced not to stock something.
Your comment comparing this to a small bookstore in the south is dubious at best and then handwaving the obvious problem by writing " Just because Amazon is huge doesn't mean they are immune". First, Amazon is actually more protected from such situations, there's no risk of violence for example against them and they wouldn't lose most of their sales as a result of a church run boycott. Secondly, there's a world of difference between criticizing a company for spreading misinformation, and boycotting a company to the point of likely bankruptcy in support of preventing women from getting information about potentially live saving medical care.
Either way, nobody has forced Amazon to do this. People have raised the issue, Amazon has made the entirely reasonable position of agreeing it doesn't want to spread lies and misinformation that'll put people's health at risk. Your segue is misleadingly off-topic.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
But, when we have limited outlets for speech the way youtube controls the majority of online video expression and amazon controls online retail/book distribution then the waters get murky.
I respectfully disagree with this action. It is not the place of governments, libraries, or bookstores (including Amazon) to police content. The slippery slope argument is very appropriate here.
Netflix removed "Root Cause", which blames root canals for a host of medical problems, due to complaints from dentist groups. I saw it before that happened, and while I found it irritating and often flaky, it definitely made me think. Then I found a rebuttal, and I decided there is real reason for concern.
https://www.todaysrdh.com/root...
Should the anti-vaxxing pieces have been removed? Tough call.
Any time you run across anti-vaxxers, show them how preventable diseases affected the life of people who did not get vaccinated.
I grew up before vaccination for polio was common, and saw many kids and colleagues who were disabled, ranging from simple limping to having totally non-functional limbs. And those are the lucky ones, who survived the disease. Others died.
Show them examples of that: how Itzhak Perlman walks on stage, because he was disabled by polio when he was a child. Tell them that when he travels he has to get assistance with having his violin and bag carried, because he cannot do so while walking with his crutches.
Go on Google images, and search for "smallpox scars" and show them how their boy or girl will look like if they ever get infected and survive the infection.
If someone makes a video from old footage of all these diseases, it may sway some who are willing to follow the evidence.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Worse: It'll fuel all the anti-vax conspiracy theories.
What you are demanding is that people have the right for othes to provide them services whereby they can monetize whatever they say.
No I am not. What I am demanding is that congressmen stop threatening bookstores, and that people stop voting for them when they do.
If you believe big pharma doesn't measure human life in profits and will knowingly allow people to DIE if the lawsuits and coverups are far cheaper then you are as gullible as the anti-vaccine crowd.
1) You setup a pattern of acceptable censorship under the guise "think of the children" and it's no different than tyrants use fear and demonization to cover their power grabs.
2) Creating dark areas will attract evil people where they have little risk of exposure. Like gay pedophiles are attracted to highly trusted positions at religious institutions... Improperly dealing with a legit issue (or not) CREATES future problems.
3) people who do not get vaccinated get sick. maybe die. their choice. you don't have to worry, you got the shot and you lucked out on not having side effects that may exist.
4) Yes their children might die. Their bad luck. Their children are more likely to die in a car accident from a cell phone driver... don't see you campaigning on that issue as extremely...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Not sure where the attribution should go to, maybe Mencken. "Freedom of the press only belongs to those who can afford one."
Well said. However, today we have the internet. That levels the playing field quite a bit.
And although it may not exactly apply in this instance, it's always a good idea not to confuse the First Amendment rights with censorship. While Amazon may not be committing a First Amendment offense, it is clearly censorship, for good or evil.
If you were to walk into a Christian bookstore, I doubt you would find any books on Satanism. Is that censorship?
And before someone responds with the inevitable gambit about cakes for gay weddings, I find it distasteful when a baker refuses to make one. However, sexual orientation is not a protected class. Not yet, anyway.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
This is obviously immoral if the ideas are not only ridiculous but dangerous as well, and there's zero evidence it will look, and good reason to think it wouldn't. So no.
Your loss. Personally I've found pushing the ridiculous to the max is a good way to get people to discover their own errors in judgment and quite amusing to boot.
As for the rest of what you say... the focus of such sympathy as you are able to muster should not be with "those suspicious of vaccination". It should be with those harmed by people not vaccinating. That would be babies, old people, the immunocompromised, etc.
I have no interest in addressing symptoms. I only care about problems. Emotional reactions to suffering doesn't help anyone suffer less. Only sane rational policy does that.
You can talk as much bollocks as you like about TLAs being bought etc etc,
When bollocks = documented reality Houston we have a problem. Dismissing reality is the very thing anti-vaxxers are derided for and unsurprising here you are trying your hand at the same thing.
but I'd bet a large amount of money that if you or a loved one were in an ICU, you'd be perfectly happy to have the adenosine you're prescribed, be intubated as needed, have a central line in place, etc, without feeling the need to mutter darkly about your suspicions about the science all being faked because drug companies and med device companies are prone to evil and corrupt acts.
What I care about is correcting institutional failures having lead to unnecessary suffering. Loss of legitimacy often translates into human suffering.
No I am not. What I am demanding is that congressmen stop threatening bookstores, and that people stop voting for them when they do.
No, you're really not. Because it didn't go down anything like what you're saying. What's happening in practice is that as soon as someone uses their constitutionally-granted free speech to criticise, you lose your shit, your brain shuts down and you start squawking mindlessly about censorship.
What actually happened was this:
A representative wrote an open letter to amazon.
OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING USING FREE SPEECH WILL END FREE SPEECH EVERYBODY PANIC!!!
Oh and drop your "bookstore" narrative. Amazon is accepting money to advertise which puts them in a whole different category and is actively recommending these anti-vax books. A congresscritter has an absolute right to question a company that is doing something demonstrably harmful.
And we don't need pro censorship people trying to fear-silence people into not using their free speech simply because you don't like what you believe they said, not that you could be arsed to even read TFA to find out.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What a shit attempt at trolling. 1/10.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
What a shit attempt at trolling. 1/10.
I'm atheist and I agree with GP - the majority of the worlds muslims are further to the right than the KKK. Why call out the less-extreme forms of religion, but not the extreme ones?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Why shouldn't a bookstore be able to choose what they stock? Why should a bookstore be forced to carry a product they don't want to sell?
Damn right. In fact, they should simply pile all of the subversive material in the town square and burn them. Book burning is the mark of an enlightened culture, is it not?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
The issue is they take out others too. not just themselves.
That only matters if they take out others at a higher rate than they take out themselves. If they are taking out themselves at a higher rate than they are taking out others, then it's a self-solving problem.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Your loss. Personally I've found pushing the ridiculous to the max is a good way to get people to discover their own errors in judgment and quite amusing to boot.
What does "your loss" even mean in this context? It's not about my loss or your gain. It's about an effective means to counter virulent ideas and specifically counter their spread. Which your proposed solution of reductio ad absurdum patently is not, even though you think it's worked for you.
I have no interest in addressing symptoms. I only care about problems. Emotional reactions to suffering doesn't help anyone suffer less. Only sane rational policy does that.
Sane rational policy is "pushing the ridiculous to the max", is it? And people dying from exposure to viruses are symptoms and not a problem? Keeping it classy and stupid. Congrats!
When bollocks = documented reality Houston we have a problem. Dismissing reality is the very thing anti-vaxxers are derided for and unsurprising here you are trying your hand at the same thing.
Unsurprisingly, you misunderstood. Never mind. What is bollocks is not the idea that TLAs have been bought. What is bollocks is the idea that because some TLAs have sometimes been bought, there is some logical chain that means Amazon should be obliged to sell crocks of shit written by anti-vaxxers. The implication of your raising the fact that TLAs have sometimes been bought is that we shouldn't trust anything they touch. If we don't trust them on vaccines, why trust them on central lines, on whether adenosine is safe and effective, on infection control safeguards, etc etc?
When it comes to speech, piss off Feds should be pretty much your standard response. We're not talking about quarantining antivaccers, that would be, under certain circumstances, be acceptable and in many places (like mine) you can't go with your kids to school or daycare without a vaccine or a doctors reason not to have one.
But as far as education, that's your and your community's primary responsibility. If anti vaccination in your community is reaching deadly numbers a Federal law won't help.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I love it when facts are trolls... SJWs at work, safe space invaded by reality and thus reality must be damned!
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
most YouTube videos are artificially long to meet the 10 minute minimum for advertiser dollars and ranking (it's not a hard minimum, but you're less likely to get monetized if you're under 10). It's actually annoying, since videos often take 10 minutes to say 3 minutes worth of content.
Cut a video down to the punchy, important stuff and with modern compression you can fit it into a few megabytes and email to anyone who asks. Hell, you could host it yourself on a free hosting service as long as you either didn't have too big an audience or you rotated the videos out.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
they just won't give you a free mega phone.
And I'd like to see folks complaining a bit more about this when it comes to thought control. Pushing propaganda messages by buying up all the media is a lot more like thought control then not platforming somebody's dangerous nonsense.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
1st Amendment is just a particular implementation of much broader and much more important concept of freedom of speech, stop using it as a bloody reference and shove it up your American ass with your "founding fathers"
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
You realize that using obscure Russian slang makes you sound like a Russian, right?
Now here I was thinking you were just another pompous, self-satisfied nazi twat... But maaaaaybe you're actually one of Putin's troll army, just _pretending_ to be a nazi twat!!
Are you sure Trump hasn't "spied on them"?
How the Justice Department's Seizure of a Reporter's Email Records Subverts the Free Press
And can you explain to me why you think anything Trump does can be excused with a "But Obama"?
Some of us voted against both of them.
It emerged late Thursday that the Justice Department had secretly seized years of email and phone records of a New York Times reporter in connection with a leak investigation. This marks a clear escalation of the Trump administration’s attempts to intimidate journalists and their sources. In doing so, it seems that the Justice Department may have violated its own policies for obtaining reporters’ communications — strict standards that are in place because of the importance the Constitution places on freedom of the press.
Yeah, but those cranks aren't going to risk killing anyone with their crankery. Flat earthers, lunar conspiracy theorists, anti-fluoride nutjobs, Russiagaters....none of them are going to possibly kill someone as a side effect of engaging in their conspiracy theory. As opposed to anti-vaxxers, who can kill people with measles, or render them deaf or blind.
Uh huh. And when Amazon refuses to sell you a printer, and has bought all the town squares? They have been getting into real estate. It's too flippant to say "just go somewhere else" if "somewhere else" will give you 3% of the audience you had before, in the age where tech companies have established effective monopolies in their market segments.
Speaking of Amazon, it has contracts with the government worth hundreds of millions of dollars, and Bezos sits on a board at the Pentagon. And Amazon was told about these videos by a high ranking Democratic official, in a chamber that was just taken back by the party. So, yeah, this is a free speech issue. And I say that as someone who has complete contempt for antivaxxers.
See above on monopolies. As for antivaxxers, suppressing their speech risks a slippery slope and establishes a bad precedent. So maybe we could tax them. You can smoke cigarettes if you want to, but in most places you will be paying a hefty sin tax that will mitigate some of their costs. So if you don't want to vaccinate your kids, you pay a tax - one that scales with income or assets. You're a single mom in a double-wide? $500 per unvaccinated kid. You're Jenny McCarthy and you want to adopt some kids? $1,000,000 for each one you don't vaccinate.
It may not make it die out, but I don't care if a small subset of people feel they're being "persecuted".
We certainly have the right of free speech to criticize them and their ideas. We can't give in to ideas just because someone plays the victim. At the same time, let's try to be fair about it so they don't have any credible reason to play the victim.
I don't think not selling certain things makes anyone persecuted. Perhaps the poor authors? No, not even them.
Wouldn't convincing them through "information and education" have the end result of "removing all members from existence"?
Or did the AC mean something more like a "final solution"?
So you are arguing for book burning. I literally had no other arguments, and your desperate deflections into irrelevant topics of "but can you start a bonfire in your backyard" demonstrate that you understand very well why your stance on book burning is utterly unacceptable by modern standards of liberty.
What a shit attempt at trolling. 1/10.
I'm atheist and I agree with GP - the majority of the worlds muslims are further to the right than the KKK. Why call out the less-extreme forms of religion, but not the extreme ones?
Because the less-extreme ones will do nothing but call you out on it and complain a bit, but the extreme ones will kill you. Dead. Blown to bits, head cut off, burned alive, whatever occurs to them at the moment they get their hands on you.
So they pat themselves on the back for being "free-thinkers" while in perfect safety attacking the mostly harmless not so extreme, while denouncing as "phobic" anyone who says anything bad about the really extreme ones.
Uh huh. And when Amazon refuses to sell you a printer,
Then buy it from somewhere else like staples or walmart, or the manufacturer directly.
and has bought all the town squares?
If your elected representatives sell off the town squares, democracy is already dead, and you'd be screwed with or without Amazon.
else" if "somewhere else" will give you 3% of the audience you had before
You don't have a right to an audience. You have a right to speak, and people have a right to listen but you have never, ever had the right to force others to listen or to carry your speech.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Oh get over your self. Using hysterical emotional, laden language like "Crank movements" just indicates you're not engaging your brain and actually thinking.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.