A couple days ago, a gun channel was taken off youtube. Youtube shortly restores it and says it was taken down because it was thought to have violated the Google+ TOS, but it turned out to be nothing. Several other youtubers and fans expressed their concern, considering the highly suspicious timing and Google's already widely known stance. Tonight it was taken down again. Is this pure stupidity, or flagrant censorship?

https://mobile.twitter.com/hickok45

Views: 1693

Replies to This Discussion

Just like the Christian baker is a Putz for denying to decorate a cake for an LGBTQ wedding?

I don't know why you keep reviving this discussion..

Allowing someone to give an honest opinion within proper decorum on your platform is different from refusing to be directly involved in an immoral institution. That's why I didn't bring it up. But, that's another thread.

I'm watching this happen in realtime. I'm sharing it with others. Just because you see no value in it doesn't mean that other people don't.

The advertisers on YouTube don't get the option. It's a randomly selected ad for a randomly selected video. An advertiser wanting to have more control over who is viewing their ad is not censorship it's their right, and since Google isn't going to change this algorithm then they limit ad revenue to channels that don't have these extreme viewership minorities.

How would you feel if your christian organization was being advertised on an LGBTQ channel? Do you not support their right to complain about being associated with a group that doesn't uphold their own beliefs?

No one that has responded understands why this is such an issue with you. If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be arguing the other side.

Holy crap, you answered why it's an issue with me... and other youtubers.

And it wouldn't bother me, because

1. Nobody with half a brain associates random selection with direct sponsorship

and 2. I'd think it's funny. For the same reason I think it's funny to talk trash about Zucc on Facebook. It's like taking a dump on someone's car.

And another thing, all this:

No one that has responded understands why this is such an issue with you. If the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be arguing the other side.

Is a total BS non-argument. You sound like someone's sister.

Get hosting. Upload your dumb videos. Manage it all yourself. Quit bitching because someone hosting it for you is trying to keep the people who pay for the damn hosting happy.

For crying out loud man. Bitching about something that is handed to you for free because you're not going to get a few dollars every month? Here's an idea. Go get more damn viewers and it won't even effect you. Damn...This if some funny shit right here.

Still not an argument. I'm not getting into a pissing contest with you.

You don't have an argument man. Go get more viewers if you don't like the new policy. It's pretty simple actually.

Having trouble distinguishing between 'being right' and 'having the right'? It's possible to wrongly exercise a right. United Airlines had the right to subdue that guy and drag his ass off the plane. They were wrong to do so. Same thing.

Chiming-in with 'YouTube is private, they have the right' every time they censor somebody doesn't answer the question of whether they exercised it wisely. It's a non-sequitur.

JB
I'm not so sure that United in fact had the right to exercise the violence they did. In any case, it's farcical to claim any equivalency between mauling a person and temporarily shutting down a YT page. The ridiculousness of the comparison undercuts your point.
Extreme examples better prove the point. Having the right and rightly exercising it are two very different things. The latter is plenty debatable, even when the former is not.

Whether or not YouTube can legally censor content on its site is not dispositive of the question of whether it should in a specific circumstance.

JB
An analogue where there might not have been a right hardly illustrates that one can have a right and use it poorly.

This isn't censorship...

Don't know how many times that can be said.

RSS

Latest Activity

derick bean posted a status
3 hours ago
Braeden 2.0 replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"I kind of like that old song, to be honest."
3 hours ago
Liam Strain replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"Yup. I'll roll with this. I have trapped and skinned/eaten. And still hunted smaller game. I have not killed and butchered my own deer, but I agree in general. I also think it is valuable to spend some quality time on a working farm. There…"
6 hours ago
Shane replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"I shoot retarded looking bucks. It makes the heard stronger."
8 hours ago
Specs replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
9 hours ago
John Muir replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"I shoot adolescent does. The meat tastes better"
9 hours ago
Shane replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"Tiny little deer."
10 hours ago
John Muir replied to Braeden 2.0's discussion The Horror of Day to Day Life
"Obviously not the sole-source of food. But for two peeps eating meat every day, yeah I'll stick by that. "
11 hours ago

© 2017   Created by Brett McKay.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service