Message from @ThePangburn
Discord ID: 756279921856217159
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
> You should be able to answer his very simple question very succinctly and persuasively if you’re so knowledgeable
@Zurich04 I totally agree i live by the Einstein quote where if you can’t explain something simply or to a level where someone can understand you don’t fully understand it yourself.
> 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.
@LokiV I have absolutely no idea why you’re being insulting we’re all about good faith discussion here and I was asking you to teach me about what you were talking about and you almost say it’s impossible.
@everyone is this platform not worth a $1 contribution? I get that $1 is not possible for some and that some of you may donate at a later date.. But the lack of response is troubling. https://www.gofundme.com/f/youtube-demonetizing-pangburn?utm_medium=copy_link&utm_source=customer&utm_campaign=p_lico+share-sheet
This platform is totally free and costs no money
@everyone I am live. https://youtu.be/_0oBBJViRzk
> This platform is totally free and costs no money
@T2the2ndpowr You think all of this is free to provide?
@ThePangburn we are down to chat with ya!
@ThePangburn i apologize when i said it costs nothing for this platform i meant discord when i said it costs you nothing and i thought thats what you meant, i did not know you meant youre youtube channel.
@m.miller Jump in the live chat. I am solo for this one
Willing to have the discussion above between T2 LokiV etc in the live chat
yeah i'll hop in VC
I think Trav has a right to be pissed.
https://www.pang-burn.com/response here's Trav's side of what happened with Sam Harris
@brucebruce You are the 2nd coming brother. This donation you made puts you in the Pangburn Hall Of Fame... Your generosity inspires me. 💫 https://gf.me/u/yzgw89
> https://www.pang-burn.com/response here's Trav's side of what happened with Sam Harris
@m.miller https://www.thewarofideas.org/post/pangburn-philosophy-sam-harris
@everyone https://youtu.be/i3QZlZFclJE
There may be an infestation at Google, worse than Covid:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSHL-rSMIro
In truth, our society has many severe problems and conflicts, and "Critical (social justice) Theory on the surface sounds like something overdue.
Only in practice do we find it's really a set of mob bullying and extortion tactics, that gives rise to terms like psychobitch, and that led OED to add SJW to its emerging words definitions as a pejorative.
29 CFR 1605 is the section of US Labor regulations that addresses treatment of religious conflicts as matters of practice, where theology or similar ideas or thoughts may be motivating factors, but in and of themselves are rarely valid issues of conflict. How they handle it and case law cited for the larger framework are worth reviewing at US GPO or other free law archives.
If we compare two Robi/yns.....
One of these has worked in ways that advance social justice, and if engaged after workshops over issues with metrics and models she's used, is also aware of the problems in realistic, adequately simple systems to scale or classify complex humans, and has worked to improve same. (That I know from in person discussions after events.) The other does social justice warrior (SJW) virtue signalling, but is a dangerous nutcase the world might be better off without. Shouldn't be hard to tell which is which:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Ochs
https://www.robindiangelo.com/about-me/
Then look up the Peggy McIntosh "knapsack", and consider whether it's a realistic model, or a sign of the Northhampton, MA neurotic bitches cult camp.
Which is most likely to have some rather problematic influence over Google HR practices, and in turn how staff treat users?
> @Zurich04 I totally agree i live by the Einstein quote where if you can’t explain something simply or to a level where someone can understand you don’t fully understand it yourself.
Are you really that dishonest, or prone to misrepresenting Einstein (an all too common logical fallacy practice)?
Einstein admonished to "keep it as simple as possible, but no simpler".
Common law interpretation of laws that are widely violated in practice, with impunity due to broken courts and corporate and government bad actors, is NOT simple. The paragraph of DMCA on which that was focused is, but there's no way anyone too lazy or stupid to find and read one paragraph, can be spoon fed the context and meaning.
Malicious law is drafted by treacherous, underhanded, sick fucks in power and their henchmen. Try reading the two paragraphs of Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that purported to revive and expand the long since overturned Comstock Act. They were written to look like simple legislative codification conformance language, but were anything but that. They were also not obvious as to real meaning even to civil rights activists and counsel who tried to read that devious Bill, until months after its passage.
Sometimes tolerating facial hyper-simplicity is dangerous, and when other process fails, we need public drawing and quartering for officials. Lacking that, mandates for more detailed legislative justification, and bans on amendments that change meaning without new sections and clear topic headers, could be important protections even if more complexity is added.
What percentage of Americans are functionally literate enough to do such reading? I'd consider all who aren't, which is most, incompetent to be responsible adults in our democratic society, a serious paradox of competency and inclusion.
@everyone share your art! I want to know what inspires you artisticly 🙂 https://youtu.be/wrdrqh_Phxc
@everyone come hang out for @brucebruce appreciation chat!! https://youtu.be/7Zpm1sRM36w