YouTube ban former Pickup artist Roosh V

[TrustTheProcess]

1 minute ago, IJB063 said:

@louhad

They shouldn’t be 

why? youtube is literally a private company. There is nothing stopping TrumpTube from being made. 

I thought you were a libertarian... Isn't trying to make youtube public a bit too socialist for ya?

[Forestluv]

12 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

@Forestluv

Freedom of expression does not mean freedom to arson lol, I’m talking about speech

You don’t have the right to burn down someone’s house, you do though have the right to say you’d like it if there house was burnt down

see the difference

It’s the same dynamic with speech. If my speech is teaching people online how to kidnap children and get away with it, it is not protected. It would be absurd to say “If he loses his right to free speech, we all lose our right to free speech!”

An absolute binary construct of 100% free speech or 100% no free speech in untenable. It is a spectrum and a line must be drawn somewhere. 

[IJB063]

@louhad

15 minutes ago, louhad said:

why? youtube is literally a private company. There is nothing stopping TrumpTube from being made. 

I thought you were a libertarian... Isn't trying to make youtube public a bit too socialist for ya?

I’m not an ancap lol

Government needs to exist an companies need to be regulated when they violate human rights

You just want as little restrictions as possible to create maximum efficiency 

I believe google needs to be broken up, and google know that they are going to be broken up which is why they formed alphabet, in my opinion the sooner they’re broken up the better

YouTube have a choice, they can either be a publisher or a platform, they can’t be both, if YouTube choices to be a publisher then they’ve undermined the entire concept behind YOUtube. 

@Forestluv

13 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

It’s the same dynamic with speech. If my speech is teaching people online how to kidnap children and get away with it, it is not protected. It would be absurd to say “If he loses his right to free speech, we all lose our right to free speech!”

An absolute binary construct of 100% free speech or 100% no free speech in untenable. It is a spectrum and a line must be drawn somewhere. 

what got linked before 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions

“speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action“

This is not free speech, you don’t know what freedom of speech means, you don’t have the right to teach people how to kidnap or use any speech that is integral to illegal conduct, free speech is about the discussion of ideas

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by IJB063

[IJB063]

@Etherial Cat

4 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

It's complicated.

Basically, the Supreme court is the ultimate authority on the matter. If you look at the wikipedia page I sent you, its full of cases which set up principles. The other courts judge according to its previous cases and their interpretations of it.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that there is no such thing as hate speech

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/06/19/supreme-court-unanimously-reaffirms-there-is-no-hate-speech-exception-to-the-first-amendment/%3FoutputType%3Damp

[Forestluv]

18 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

 

This is not free speech, you don’t know what freedom of speech means, you don’t have the right to teach people how to kidnap or use any speech that is integral to illegal conduct,

Exactly, notice how you are placing restrictions on free speech. The issue is not wether there should be 100% free speech. You yourself said there should not be. The issue becomes where to draw the line. You want to draw the line at illegal conduct. Yet then the question becomes where to draw the line of what is “illegal conduct”. This also is highly nuanced with grey areas. 

For example, you say that teaching people how to kidnap children is excluded from free speech. What about someone that was writing about his imaginations of how one might kidnap children? He says that this is just “creative writing” and he is not teaching anyone how to kidnap children. Yet is “creative writing” about kidnapping children is so detailed, it is effectively a “how to” manual for kidnappers to kidnap children.

Do you see the nuances here? There is not clear cut line that can be drawn. There will always be grey areas. It is not binary. It is a spectrum. 

[IJB063]

@Forestluv

6 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

Exactly, notice how you are placing restrictions on free speech. The issue is not wether there should be 100% free speech. You yourself said there should not be. The issue becomes where to draw the line. You want to draw the line at illegal conduct. Yet then the question becomes where to draw the line of what is “illegal conduct”. This also is highly nuanced with grey areas. 

For example, you say that teaching people how to kidnap children is excluded from free speech. What about someone that was writing about his imaginations of how one might kidnap children? He says that this is just “creative writing” and he is not teaching anyone how to kidnap children. Yet is “creative writing” about kidnapping children is so detailed, it is effectively a “how to” manual for kidnappers to kidnap children.

Do you see the nuances here? There is not clear cut line that can be drawn. There will always be grey areas. It is not binary. It is a spectrum. 

Freedom of Speech Merriam Webster Definition:-

“The legal right to express one's opinions freely”

Yes there are nuances, but what do you think is worse, allowing the mob, the government, or a technocratic elite to tell you want you can and can’t say, what you can and can’t read, really what you can or can’t think

Or instead siding on the side of the individual, accepting that there are nuances and that of course people can say immoral things, and the things that they say can motivate people into doing immoral actions, but understanding that the sentiment behind freedom of speech is more important, which I see as the discussion of ideas and the allowance of the expression of those ideas 

 

[AtheisticNonduality]

@IJB063 Google owns the physical servers where the website is hosted.  

[Zak]

Alright guys, A quick update here.

He wasn't a pick up artist at the time YouTube taken down his channel. He actually was talking more about spiritually and religion.

Here is his recent interview:

 

[Forestluv]

35 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

@Forestluv

Yes there are nuances, but what do you think is worse,

That is the spectrum I am pointing to. It is not a binary decision between “good” vs “bad”. It is a spectral decisions of “what is worse”. Those are the grey areas of drawing lines. When we enter a grey area, it is not cut and dry. We need to consider pros and cons from different perspectives. We can see that side A has some pros and cons. We can also see that side B has some pros and cons. We can weigh all of that together and say “When we consider all the good and bad on each side, it seems side A is worse”. Yet this is very different than a binary construct in which “side A is bad” and “side B is good”. 

[IJB063]

1 hour ago, IJB063 said:

If everywhere you went was private property. And everywhere every person was at a private event. And you were restricted to some small isolated island, then guess what, you right to freedom of speech would be redundant.

17 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

To be honest, it's probably the most compelling aspect of it all.

If Roosh comes to my property and I get bored with what he's got to say, I'm totally allowed to kick him out.

He's free to start his own platform and speak elsewhere.

If a private monopoly owned all the land. And to buy any land was extortionately high to the point it’s impossible to afford any land.  

And this monopoly can kick you of this land despite you having no where to go.

Is this right? 

Does this monopoly not have to much power? Now that you’re a practically serf
 

Also the entire point of social media is to have as many eye balls as possible, that’s why it’s so useful if you start splitting it up it loses its purpose and use and all people fall into their echo chamber and the purpose of free speech dies

Platforms like youtube are the land, and the amount of eyeballs are the size of the land

The new town square is youtube, and the sentiment behind free speech is to allow people to speak in the town square and express there ideas and have people listen

If they don’t have that right because now there is no town square free speech is dead

The legal 1st amendment concept of free speech is now antiquated now that we have social media platforms, the first amendment was to protect freedom of speech, and in 1787 the greatest threat to free speech was the government, in 2020 the greatest threat is still government, but followed closely behind is corporate technocratic power


 

Edited July 15, 2020 by IJB063

[IJB063]

@Forestluv

6 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

That is the spectrum I am pointing to. It is not a binary decision between “good” vs “bad”. It is a spectral decisions of “what is worse”. Those are the grey areas of drawing lines. When we enter a grey area, it is not cut and dry. We need to consider pros and cons from different perspectives. We can see that side A has some pros and cons. We can also see that side B has some pros and cons. We can weigh all of that together and say “When we consider all the good and bad on each side, it seems side A is worse”. Yet this is very different than a binary construct in which “side A is bad” and “side B is good”. 

Yes there is a spectrum and since theres a spectrum there are degrees, free speech has a definition, a society either has freedom of speech or it doesn’t, the pros of free speech massively out weigh the cons, free speech is not this amorphous concept, and it’s in my eyes proven by history that one should side with free speech over censorship 

[IJB063]

@Etherial Cat

1 minute ago, Etherial Cat said:

I have always been in favor of anti-trust law for the reasons you've mentioned above. 

This issue isn't only going on with Youtube. It goes with Facebook, Google in general, Amazon, Twitter...

The thing is, those companies managed to create those platform and make them attractive to the point that they have a strong network effect. They've got the first mover advantage, a shit load of money, the strongest team one can buy and obviously data and data analytics... 

They've all reached a point where they literally own a technology which is essential to society as a whole and became even potentially a threat to democracy.

Of course regulation should kick in and try to sort it out. But that whole stuff is so complex that nobody knows what to do with it. Not to mention the fact that USA are under weak leadership and allocate little ressources to that problem.

 

 

Yes I’m also for breaking up amazon, twitter etc... for similar reasons

2 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Of course regulation

Then we agree, and regulation should kick in to protect people right to freedom of speech, which means that these platforms shouldn’t have the right to censor, do they currently have the right to censor of course, I never said they didn’t, it looks like you’ve changed you argument because before you were saying that they should have the right to censor and that you’re glad that they do, that why I said that’s called boot licking 

@Forestluv

20 minutes ago, Forestluv said:

That is the spectrum I am pointing to. It is not a binary decision between “good” vs “bad”. It is a spectral decisions of “what is worse”. Those are the grey areas of drawing lines. When we enter a grey area, it is not cut and dry. We need to consider pros and cons from different perspectives. We can see that side A has some pros and cons. We can also see that side B has some pros and cons. We can weigh all of that together and say “When we consider all the good and bad on each side, it seems side A is worse”. Yet this is very different than a binary construct in which “side A is bad” and “side B is good”. 

Reading back over I don’t think my last comment made much sense

Freedom of speech does have downsides, yes, but it’s positives out way it’s negatives, censorship to has its positives, but it’s negatives out way its positives

Both free speech and censorship have strict definitions, a society exists on a spectrum between the two

Depending on your values either free speech can further you’re values or not, and vice versa

According to my values, living in a free society, it’s objectively right to support free speech, if you to want to live in a free society you to have to agree that free speech / side a is objectively good, and side b is objectively bad to that goal / value

I believe that it is pretty cut and dry to support free speech, although there are nuances 

[TrustTheProcess]

36 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

If a private monopoly owned all the land. And to buy any land was extortionately high to the point it’s impossible to afford any land.  

And this monopoly can kick you of this land despite you having no where to go.

Is this right? 

 

not a good analogy, a drunken jq conspiracy theorist is more than welcome to host his own private event where a bunch of other ignorant white supremacists can congregate and spew their verbal diarrhea. 

it isn't like youtube is banning ben shapiro, JP, and whoever else is sharing blue/orange content... they aren't actively spreading dangerous beliefs with their platforms... youtube is purging actual white supremacists and it is their right to do so... ik you don't agree, but they have the legal right to do so. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by louhad

[IJB063]

@louhad

They shouldn’t have the right to do so

I don’t care about the legality the law should change

You haven’t said anything new neither did you answer my question

4 minutes ago, louhad said:

not a good analogy, a drunken jq conspiracy theorist is more than welcome to host his own private event where a bunch of other ignorant white supremacists can congregate and spew their verbal diarrhea. 

The point is people shouldn’t be stuck in their echo chambers, if they are than there ceases to be a point to free speech

Whats the use of speech if there’s no one there to hear you?

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by IJB063

[TrustTheProcess]

@IJB063 haha, I am for differing opinions, I am ok with blue and orange ideas being available on youtube... that said, people saying that blacks are genetically inferior due to their skull shapes with nearly 1 million followers. some 14 year old sees that... do you not see how that is problematic? you can't just have unrestricted free speech bucko. there is nuance and someone needs to draw the line. it isn't a good option to throw your hands up and say "well if the standard of where the line is is so relative... then there should be no line". It needs to be well thought out and the youtube terms of service is if you decide to look into it. 

[IJB063]

@louhad

2 minutes ago, louhad said:

@IJB063 haha, I am for differing opinions, I am ok with blue and orange ideas being available on youtube... that said, people saying that blacks are genetically inferior due to their skull shapes with nearly 1 million followers. some 14 year old sees that... do you not see how that is problematic? you can't just have unrestricted free speech bucko. there is nuance and someone needs to draw the line. it isn't a good option to throw your hands up and say "well if the standard of where the line is is so relative... then there should be no line". It needs to be well thought out and the youtube terms of service is if you decide to look into it. 

What can and can’t be said shouldn’t be dictated by the intelligence of 14 year olds

It’s better to air on less restrictions than more restrictions, that the point I was making in the previous comment.

Again you didn’t answer my question.

5 minutes ago, louhad said:

then there should be no line". It needs to be well thought out and the youtube terms of service is if you decide to look into it. 

The YouTube TOS is dog shit, and doesn’t matter because it can change at a dime and be enforced at there discretion, you can be banned for not even breaking the ToS

 

[IJB063]

@Etherial Cat

9 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you're entitled to a platform. It not the case today, and it wasn't the case at any point in history.

Of course that’s the case, otherwise what would be the purpose of free speech. Hence my question before, what’s good is the right to speak if no one listens?

There was a case in America by the Supreme Court where Jehovah witnesses went into a Disney land private area, where many of the people who worked at dis WU land lived and started handing out leaflets, the Jehovah witnesses were thrown out of Disney land for being on provate property, they took this to court, to the point it went all the way up to the Supreme Court and you know what the Supreme Court ruled, that the Jehovah witnesses have a right to go into Disney land, you know why, because what good does freedom of speech matter if they can’t 

What you people are advocating, this was my analogy, is that it’s okay for Disney to completely take everything over and to throw you out

9 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

actually think it's totally ok that Youtube boot him out. So far, I haven't seen any cases which were outrageous.

He has a right to speak and be heard, everyone does, if anyone loses that right it’s outrageous 

9 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

The reason why I don't care if Roosh V is out is because he's been infringing Youtube TOS and their TOS are actually pretty well crafted and suitable for nowadays society.

Fuck the TOS, fuck google

And TOS are the most retarted shit, ever tried to read your phones TOS, lot if it’s gibberish, they can span for 100s if pages of literal nonsensical bullshit which amount to basically we do whatever we want and if you don’t like it go and fuck yourself, if you support that you’re an idiot and a boot licker

9 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Roosh has said and even done quite problematic things. He hasn't been sanctioned or prosecuted for it, but I've read him detailing how he extorted consent on a 17 year old Estonian girl years ago. He's a piece of shit, and people shouldn't seek for his advices. 

That can all be true 

still has the right to speak

Edited July 15, 2020 by IJB063

[Forestluv]

33 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

 

Freedom of speech does have downsides, yes, but it’s positives out way it’s negatives, censorship to has its positives, but it’s negatives out way its positives

This is context dependent. You just told me that free speech under certain conditions has more negatives than positives.

For example, supposed someone online wrote a “creative story” about a man that kidnapped children and got away with it. The author says that “This is just creative writing of a fictional story. I am not teaching people how to kidnap children. I am not saying it’s ok to kidnap children and I do not encourage people to kidnap children”. . . However, this can be used as a “freedom of speech shield”. Imagine that this guy actually got off fantasizing about kidnapping children and molesting them. He has never done it, yet he fantasizes about it all the time. His “creative story” is so detailed about how to kidnap children and get away with it, it is essentially a manual for people who actually want to kidnap children. The author may claim “this is not my intention”, yet that is the impact. Kidnappers use this as their manual and kidnapping increase 10X within a community. Children are suffering and the police are having a hard time catching the kidnappers, because of the author’s online postings. The kidnappers they do catch follow the guy online and have print-outs of the “creative story” about how to kidnap children.

This is a grey area of what “freedom of speech” is and what “legal” is. These issues are not black and white.

33 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

 

Both free speech and censorship have strict definitions, a society exists on a spectrum between the two

That is a hyper-simplistic binary mindset. These are not black and white definitions. Study some law or watch some court proceedings. These definitions are not always either / or. Often, there are clear cut cases, other times there are grey areas and interpretations. Just look at how many 5-4 Supreme Court decisions there are. There are debates within grey areas of what definitions mean.

33 minutes ago, IJB063 said:

 

I believe that it is pretty cut and dry to support free speech, although there are nuances 

You don’t get it both ways. Claiming nuances are “cut and dry” is a way to avoid dealing within those nuances. This takes effort and can be uncomfortable.

For the example of the online poster who writes “creative stories” about a man that kidnaps children and his “creative stories” include lots of details about how to kidnap children and get away with it. Where exactly is the “cut and dry” line you would draw?

[Leo Gura]

7 hours ago, IJB063 said:

@Leo Gura

YouTube is the largest video sharing platform in the world

Precisely, which is why it must be rigorously moderated.

Quote

In a free society people have a right to say what they want, even if you don’t agree with what they say. You don’t have the right to censor them

Yes we do, if you are calling gay people and women evil.

We have no obligation to provide you a platform for racist, sexist, and homophobic ideology.

Quote

If this forum magically became as popular as YouTube then I’d being saying the same thing, that you don’t have the right to censor if it is legal speech.

You have no idea how much moderation a successful forum requires.

Quote

All a TOS basically amounts to is, we can do whatever the fuck we want and you can’t do anything about it. I don’t agree that giant tech conglomerate monopolies have the right to say what you can and can’t hear.

Tough. Go watch my video on Why Libertarianism Is Nonsense. I made it for people like you.

[Raze]

58 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Tough. Go watch my video on Why Libertarianism Is Nonsense. I made it for people like you.

But this is an example of the limitation of libertarianism. It eventually turns into a oligarchy of corporations that control society. What happens when a few corporations control every aspect of society and can un-person people, no bank accounts, no internet presence, can't buy a home, banned from buying things online, can't buy an airplane ticket. It may not be that big a problem now, but the more the companies control every aspect of life, the closer we get to giving them complete control of people. Maybe it's easy to look away when people you disagree with get censored, but it will never stay that way.

Heres another example, he was banned from his bank, all major social media sites, paypal, airbnb, etc.

https://itmattershowyoustand.com/2019/02/chase-bank-shuts-down-proud-boys-leaders-personal-bank-account-blp/

He has alternatives, but in the near future it won't be surprising if he won't, as corporations get larger and control more aspects of society. Even if you find him repugnant, this is setting a precedent that will destroy free speech because outside of legal action it is making a situation where certain speech puts you in danger of destroying your life. It's easy to be ok with that when you find the speech they are punished for vile, but like I said it's naive to think that's all it will be limited too. 

 

Edited July 15, 2020 by Raze