Message from @m.miller
Discord ID: 756227576854479091
graham linehan is a comedic genius
Yes!
And so brave.
black books is the funniest show
No Father Ted is. Black Books is second but Dylan Moran is a genius in his own right!
i've never seen father ted
"was ranked second to fawlty towers in greatest british sitcoms," wow
There was a table quiz, pub quiz, (you may use different terms for them?) last year where the question was about Father Ted and the organisers cancelled Linehan from the answer so that the correct reply was that only his co-creator Arthur Matthew's had written it. And all the woke people cheered. The idea is much like the statue removals, ie we are unilaterally rewriting history ....Orwellian much?
I think Father Ted is bizarre the first time you see it, and then suddenly you get it and it's too good to describe and becomes ingrained in life. Incidentally, Fawlty Towers was badly received on its first showing, people didn't get it at first.
But in my opinion, Father Ted was a contributor to the break away from Catholic control Ireland managed to start.
Which makes it culturally important even if you dont find it funny.
@ThePangburn Is this YouTube BS possibly a first shot being fired by that guy who looks like Steve Urkel if he were one of those preachers who always seem to show up for the first week of the semester at colleges to yell at everyone about hell and the evils of buttsex?
@everyone every little bit helps. I appreciate any level of support. https://gf.me/u/yzgw89
Do you rely on YouTube for a stable or any real source of income?
Youtube revenue is a big part of the company income.
Youtube provides the best platform for the war of ideas. The variety of people you can reach is unmatched.
I don’t think that’s the platform they want.
Perhaps
Google used to have a company slogan, "Don't Be Evil".
When they did the Alphabet parent restructuring, that mysteriously disappeared.
While Google has done far more projects to advance knowledge than many large companies, the whole cross domain tracking and privacy abuse scams they've pulled should get lots of IT, marketing, and C-suite into prison (but it won't).
Of course that pales compared to the arrogant shit Jewboy scammers at Facebook, whose business model started with IP thefts, and expanded into privacy criminal frauds and massive lies to tell users they weren't being scammed as they were. Z should be live streamed being slowly lowered into hot tar.
But then, if one looks too closely, the major stock markets, most large banks, and every telecom that's taken dirty money for FISA and worse scams, also is overdue to be shut down, along with the political conspirators involved. We lack systems to do that, and it would upend major infrastructure to play honestly over that maze of complex crimes.
YouTube et al should be boycotted, regardless of how useful they are. Vimeo is a weak alternative, and maybe less so with them, Barry Diller and Sammy Yagan have quite dirty hands for other IAC/I activities.
That doesn't leave a lot of good options.
<div class="gfm-embed" data-url="https://www.gofundme.com/f/youtube-demonetizing-pangburn/widget/large/"></div><script defer src="https://www.gofundme.com/static/js/embed.js"></script>
Speaking of arbitrary and capricious ToS abuses, does something like the sidearm and ammo image to promo yesterday's Live event topic get considered or invite secret passive-aggressive "report" process, to trigger other adverse actions against the overall channel?
@everyone help a brotha out if you can :)
Google the browser is a web browser that promoted everything. YouTube on the other hand has its own more strict standards and is appealing to a general audience. And “boycott” YouTube, who the minority of people that watch YouTube for a war of ideas because the majority of people watch YouTube for videos of cats playing the piano.
I never liked when people who uploaded to YouTube complain when a video gets taken down when it’s clearly not in the best interests of the YouTube brand. Im not saying @ThePangburn is going this because he is not. But it’s down to YouTube’s discretion as a private company to take down videos they don’t feel is in there brands best interest.
Sure - but they seem to apply these standards selectively. They are also intentionally unclear about what the standards are.
I would say they’re a private company and they have every right to do that but then again people’s income rely on there company. So in come cases I can see your point. But in cases where people are clearly trying to provoke I don’t have any sympathy for when they complain about getting shut down when they know very well YouTube isn’t interested in that content on there platform
@T2the2ndpowr If YouTube takes down whatever they want, then they become liable for every single video promoting something illegal on their site and it ought to bankrupt them in the span of 1 day.
For example, you cannot sue the phone company if two people make a terrorist plot over the phone because the phone company does not actively censor people’s conversations. If they did, they would be immediately liable for millions of conversations. YouTube needs to make up their mind as to what they are.
Either they take financial and legal responsibility for everything on there or they take zero
I don’t agree with you on your first point and I don’t see any correlation between the analogy of the phone company and YouTube.
If you want to discuss it over VC tonight I’d be interested in having the conversation about it
I guess a point I could make is YouTube already as a system of censorship and have general guidelines phone services do not have that. And my point really is that YouTube have general guidelines on what they want displayed on there sight and as a private company they have every right to cherry pick things they don’t like and things they don’t want on there site.
If you guys stop and notice just how often everyone asks for your skin color in America you’ll be appalled. We don’t even notice it because it’s such a force in the air
What is that regarding?
I see no harm in answering census-type questions
T2.... You sound about 2700 years of education short of understanding that corporations are not entirely private businesses, but are legal fictions that are more akin to feudal barony privileges extended at the whim of a Kings agents, and exist only as creatures of a state.
Companies like Google and others online try to claim a "safe harbor" immunity for content codified within the DMCA, itself a bastard law political scam, apply to them, while engaging in content based censorship that were that law applied honestly, voids the immunity from applying. Go read that law, and related history, and jurisprudence, and come back when you're ready to seriously discuss it (and understand then what others are saying, that's flying through you like a blonde joke).
Net businesses cannot legitimately have discriminatory ToS used for content based speech censorship, and claim DMCA safe harbor. That's a much bigger problem than YouTube. Facebook is probably the worst violator, due to scale and arrogant practices, while faux-xtian hate cults and countries whose existence is rooted in genocide may be more extreme.
Terms like indecency, profanity, pornography (did Potter Stewart ever manage another hard-on?), obscenity, blasphemy, and such, all have perverse legal histories of factions, including corrupt courts, have wrestled to pretend inherently religion, culture, and arbitrary/subjective bias based terms, can have some allegedly neutral legal definition (under US ConLaw or international human rights). Likewise, but with different contexts, "public accommodation" (classes of businesses with quasi-government non-discrimination obligations), telecoms (as public infrastructure with quasi-monopoly privileges), or employers with more than 5-500 employees in graduated degrees.
Multinational, public securities backed, families of nested corporations, with more assets and employees than many world governments, are not legally or structurally equivalent to a "private business".
> T2.... You sound about 2700 years of education short of understanding that corporations are not entirely private businesses, but are legal fictions that are more akin to feudal barony privileges extended at the whim of a Kings agents, and exist only as creatures of a state.
>
> Companies like Google and others online try to claim a "safe harbor" immunity for content codified within the DMCA, itself a bastard law political scam, apply to them, while engaging in content based censorship that were that law applied honestly, voids the immunity from applying. Go read that law, and related history, and jurisprudence, and come back when you're ready to seriously discuss it (and understand then what others are saying, that's flying through you like a blonde joke). “
@LokiV if you can explain that seriously instead of using crazy analogy’s that’s I don’t understand then I’d be extremely interested in listening and learning. If you can explain simply to me why YouTube doesn’t have the right to have standards on there site and cherry pick what they think is appropriate and inappropriate I would absolutely love to hear it and learn.
Context, a mix of regulatory law, and bastard politics. I've worked with and against (engineering consultant, and activist) for decades. It cannot be dumbed down to 700 words. But you're not even paying attention (do your own fucking homework; unlike years ago, USC and CFR and precedential jurisprudence are all freely available everywhere, online), you are clearly clueless about basic literacy several others here are citing as fundamentals and entry level to serious discussion.
You should be able to answer his very simple question very succinctly and persuasively if you’re so knowledgeable