Historically I was under the impression that the emerging Nazi party increasingly used violence to silence the opposition. This was do in part to my knowledge because the opposition banned much of the Nazi ideas from effectively being communicated.
No, that's not really true. Remember, speech was different then. There was no Twitter or Youtube or Stormfront or Breitbart. 1930 Berlin was considered a model for the free exchange of controversial ideas. Now, once Hitler started rising to power, then there was a great deal of suppression of speech, but not "controversial" speech. Just speech that went against Hitler's influence and ideas.
You just have to be careful in thinking that a corporation allowing certain types of speech on their platform is going to lessen violence. You could make a case that it only amplifies hate and violence.
It's only through discussion of controversial ideas that needless political violence is averted.
That's just not true. One of the places where "controversial ideas" were most freely and openly discussed was 1929 Weimar Germany. Spoiler alert: It didn't end well for them.
Sure it is, it's both their moral duty and their duty to their stockholders (since "controversial" is another word for "clickbait").
If "controversial" means "clickbait", then they shouldn't need YouTube. Use a different video hosting service.
Youtube is not a public utility. If you want to make an argument for the nationalization of Google (and resulting government regulation) or you want to talk about boycotting Youtube entirely, then we have something to discuss. You saying that Youtube has some "moral duty" to host videos with "controversial" themes, then we can talk about banks "moral duty" to have reasonable interest rates on credit cards or Sony's "moral duty" to lower their prices on Playstation 4s.
And stockholders are absolutely free to divest themselves of Google stock.
Upvotes determine visibility. New people with controversial opinions won't be "discoverable" on YouTube.
It's not YouTube's job to make controversial opinions "discoverable".
Also, the chilling effect can be seen in a lot of the non-political YT channels I watch. They're walking on eggshells, trying to guess what might get them banned.
For most of the world, that "walking on eggshells" you're talking about is known as "not being an asshole".
Sounds like a no true scotsman fallacy. Who decides what is 'abuse' of 'sacred' texts when the whole premise is based on faith and subjective interpretation?
Again, it's quite easy to interpret. To the extent that any sacred text preaches love, understanding and fellow-feeling, it's sacred. To the extent that it preaches hatred, bigotry or murder it's just full of shit.
Dawkins criticizes the whole religious 'stack', not just islam.
Dawkins is a dotty old fuckwit who is scared of dying and more scared of being inconsequential. I'll bet he asks to see a priest when his moment comes.
. At some point, the left will have to deal with this schizophrenic conflict between what used to be called 'liberal values' and islam.
It's not as hard as you think, and it's not a schizophrenic conflict. It's garden variety human hatred. There's Islam, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name. Just as there's Christianity, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name. Hateful atheists will just find other ways to justify themselves.
As a one-time seminarian, I know well the difference between a faith and the misuse of sacred texts. As one famous theologian put it, "haters gonna hate".
I like that - "Agnostic Atheist". It's someone who doesn't believe in God but doesn't want to be lumped in with douchenozzles like Richard Dawkins. Basically, it's "I don't know if there's a god, but prolly not, but just in case, you never know."
What about Kyle Kullinski, Darvid Pakman,
What about them? I don't see how these Google measures are going to affect them.
Physical security of the device may be a blessing - leaving it in a hotel room in a politically hostile place would not enable direct access to storage components as on a conventional portable system.
Is there anyplace left that's not "politically hostile"?
What kind of insane PE ratio did they pay for 'Whole Paycheck'?
When I saw the headline that Amazon spent $13.4 billion on Whole Foods, I just assumed that they bought a large guacamole, two fruit cups and a dozen eggs.
Anyone else read it as Paris? I thought it was going to be some bizarre statistical thing drawn from IMDB.
I read it correctly as "pairs", but I thought it meant that Justin Beiber had a twin that was wandering the Earth, waiting to emerge as the anti-christ.
Er, what? What's wrong with Kerbal? WTF is Chervil? How hard am I gonna facepalm if I google this myself?
I hate to have to explain my jokes to you monolingual types, but here goes: "Kerbel" is the German word for "Chervil", which is a delicate, parsley-like herb used in French cooking.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not believing it until it's on Infowars and the fillings in my teeth.
You were responsible for grunge, and this is your punishment.
Sex offenders on social media will make them easier to track.
No, that's not really true. Remember, speech was different then. There was no Twitter or Youtube or Stormfront or Breitbart. 1930 Berlin was considered a model for the free exchange of controversial ideas. Now, once Hitler started rising to power, then there was a great deal of suppression of speech, but not "controversial" speech. Just speech that went against Hitler's influence and ideas.
You just have to be careful in thinking that a corporation allowing certain types of speech on their platform is going to lessen violence. You could make a case that it only amplifies hate and violence.
That's just not true. One of the places where "controversial ideas" were most freely and openly discussed was 1929 Weimar Germany. Spoiler alert: It didn't end well for them.
If "controversial" means "clickbait", then they shouldn't need YouTube. Use a different video hosting service.
Youtube is not a public utility. If you want to make an argument for the nationalization of Google (and resulting government regulation) or you want to talk about boycotting Youtube entirely, then we have something to discuss. You saying that Youtube has some "moral duty" to host videos with "controversial" themes, then we can talk about banks "moral duty" to have reasonable interest rates on credit cards or Sony's "moral duty" to lower their prices on Playstation 4s.
And stockholders are absolutely free to divest themselves of Google stock.
It's not YouTube's job to make controversial opinions "discoverable".
For most of the world, that "walking on eggshells" you're talking about is known as "not being an asshole".
Youtube owes you fuck all.
Again, it's quite easy to interpret. To the extent that any sacred text preaches love, understanding and fellow-feeling, it's sacred. To the extent that it preaches hatred, bigotry or murder it's just full of shit.
Dawkins is a dotty old fuckwit who is scared of dying and more scared of being inconsequential. I'll bet he asks to see a priest when his moment comes.
It's not as hard as you think, and it's not a schizophrenic conflict. It's garden variety human hatred. There's Islam, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name. Just as there's Christianity, and then there's the hateful cult that justifies itself in its name. Hateful atheists will just find other ways to justify themselves.
As a one-time seminarian, I know well the difference between a faith and the misuse of sacred texts. As one famous theologian put it, "haters gonna hate".
Oh, the humanity! Not the upvotes!
I like that - "Agnostic Atheist". It's someone who doesn't believe in God but doesn't want to be lumped in with douchenozzles like Richard Dawkins. Basically, it's "I don't know if there's a god, but prolly not, but just in case, you never know."
What about them? I don't see how these Google measures are going to affect them.
I want to be able to watch television with all the bad dialogue, stupid plots and idiotic characters filtered out.
I think what you're trying to say is, "(((Bloomberg)))"
This sounds like a perfect time for more deregulation. And maybe another round of bailouts.
Are you triggered?
Is there anyplace left that's not "politically hostile"?
No, it's that SJWs are more likely to eat parsley whereas real men who play video games have never seen a "parsley".
When I saw the headline that Amazon spent $13.4 billion on Whole Foods, I just assumed that they bought a large guacamole, two fruit cups and a dozen eggs.
I read it correctly as "pairs", but I thought it meant that Justin Beiber had a twin that was wandering the Earth, waiting to emerge as the anti-christ.
More cocaine needed, I think.
I hate to have to explain my jokes to you monolingual types, but here goes: "Kerbel" is the German word for "Chervil", which is a delicate, parsley-like herb used in French cooking.
"No Nazi. Not a Nazi. You're the Nazi, for pointing out my goddamn swastika flag."
"I got ice out of the pop machine at 7-11, so there can't be global warming. Boom, you alarmist libtards!"
Or, as the SJW's refer to it, "Chervil Space Program".
Proof that video games lead to violent fantasies - Exhibit A
No, you don't. Read your utilities bill someday.