[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/news/ - Current News

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 31 posters in this thread.

05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
06/20/16New 4chan Banner Contest with a chance to win a 4chan Pass! See the contest page for details.
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks Make sure to check your spam box!



File: NasimYouTubeGrave.jpg (113 KB, 1024x731)
113 KB
113 KB JPG
>“Hate speech has no place on YouTube,” stated the video-sharing platform’s press account in a tweet, “We’ve invested heavily in teams and technology dedicated to removing hateful comments / videos. Due to the presence of hateful comments, we disabled comments on the livestream of today’s House Judiciary Committee hearing.”

>The hateful YouTube comments appeared to be mainly anti-Israel and antisemitic remarks, but when users began to notice that the option for them to post comments to the livestream was no longer available, they simply started commenting the same rhetoric on other livestreams of the hearing.

Is "racist" a dehumanizing term?
Is "hate speech" the same as "blaspheme"?
Do identified members of a segregated labor union, promote the groups ideological supremacy as a replacement religion?
Is the only difference between white supremacist & a trans woman, that one is wearing a hood?

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/04/09/youtube-disables-comments-on-livestream-of-house-judiciary-hate-crime-hearing/
>>
Yes
>>
What constitutes as "hate speech"? What white liberals say is offensive?
>>
>>379461
> What constitutes as "hate speech"?
Breitbart
>>
Private companies have the right to control what you say on their websites.

If you don't like, stream it yourself.
>>
>>379475
Unfortunately, given that our internet is run the same way as public utilities and the infrastructure for running it is doled out by the government to our ISPs for sale and distribution in a centralized manner, saying this is akin to "You have no rights on the internet", just because companies own it. I'm not sure I believe that.
>>
>>379479
I could, if I wanted, provision a dedicated server from any number of hosts and set up a YouTube stream relay in the next hour with a chat box below it for everyone to shitpost in.

If I cared about privacy I could have it up on Cyberbunker, paid via Bitcoins, in roughly a day.
>>
>>379475
This was actually raised as a point in the hearing. Companies either allow *everything* that doesn't break the law and they are not held responsible for whatever is said, akin to a public square, or they self regulate beyond what is legal and illegal, and thus they become liable as publishers. There is no middle ground.
>>
>>379485
>Companies either allow *everything* that doesn't break the law and they are not held responsible for whatever is said, akin to a public square, or they self regulate beyond what is legal and illegal, and thus they become liable as publishers
So, the moment that 4chan deletes any shitpost by anyone, it's liable for every piece of copyrighted material, pornography, and terrorist thread that's ever been issued on 4chan?

Congratulations on a policy that would more effectively kill off discussion on internet than the most fascist politician alive today.
>>
>>379490
I think we can delete the occasional shitpost and hold posters to a higher standard and not be seen as a fascist state.
>>
>>379504
wouldn't that be eupostics?
>>
>>379485
We are in the middle ground now. They call themselves platforms, yet act like publishers. But since they just edit the content, and don't produce it, they get a pass on having the same legal liabilities as publishers.

But the stance places like Twitter are taking are that they are not moderating ideas, they are moderating harassment. So they aren't saying you can't talk anything pro-hitler, it's when you post on a Jews channel some anti-semetic thing harassing that user.

In practice I think they are just banning ideas they don't like under the guise of harassment.
>>
>>379504
If regular content moderation meant hiro would be held liable for all the CP ever posted and all the CP that will be ever posted, he would go to prison for a million years. Since he presumably values his freedom and anal integrity as much as anyone else, 4chan would close, as would every other website with user-uploaded content on the internet. Both you and >>379660 are fucking retards.
>>
>>379663
The courts would undoubtably find that as long as reasonable moderation of the CP was employed that hiro is not liable. If he left it up all day, it's a problem. But people post it now and it's taken down in minutes, he is doing his job to take illegal content down. Same with YouTube. Pretty straight forward.

Now with hate speech, it's not as easy because there isn't laws against that. There are laws against harassment though, hence why 4chan doesn't allow raids or doxxings. In many ways, I would say 4chan has better moderation than a lot of the big cites like Twitter. I see doxxings on Twitter that stay up indefinitely, versus on 4chan now that doesn't last an hour.
>>
>>379422
I love the conservative flip-flopping ideology on the free market. Conservatives fight tooth and nail to ensure that private employers and companies don't have to do things like bake cakes for gay people or pay for birth control based on their "religious freedoms" but the second a private company that exists in their precious free-market makes the decision not to feature conservative or fringe voices on their platform they want to cry about how unfair it is. It seems that conservatives only want the free market to be free when it comes to their own personal ability to censor and discriminate dissenting ideologies. As soon as someone else does the same thing they screech about censorship and do the same victimhood safe-space dance that they so love to accuse other people of doing.


Its also fairly safe to completely toss out the credibility of anybody who compares the amount of death, torture and suffering caused underneath the banner of white supremacy versus the amount of death, torture and suffering that trans people have caused. Its a laughably false and dishonest comparison.
>>
>>379669
>The courts would undoubtably find that
I mean, you need legislation for that. Right now, distributing CP is illegal. 4chan distributes CP. It has distributed CP for 15 years and it will continue to distribute CP in the future. If 4chan lost Section 230 today, Hiroyuki and all of 4chan's mods would be in jail tomorrow.

Without Section 230 there is no 4chan. Period.
>>
>>379670
It just concerns me that eventually the left won't talk to the right at all because they'll just end up on completely different sites. These echo chambers are what are causes the radicalization of both sides. I think most adults still fall somewhere in the middle and I'd hate to see them have to decide their social media platforms like they decide their news networks. It's a shame everything is seen through a political lens today.
>>
>>379670
>>379673
The problem is that neither side is starting with the same first principals. 40 years ago, both sides agreed America was the best country in earth, its culture should be preserved, and businesses making lots of money legally was a good thing. Now, the two sides don't share those same core beliefs.
>>
>>379422
>Is "racist" a dehumanizing term?
>Is "hate speech" the same as "blaspheme"?

yes
>>
>>379479
>Unfortunately, given that our internet is run the same way as public utilities

If Internet sites were subject to the same regulations as public utility companies, (as they ought to be) then YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and such couldn't arbitrarily censor free speech just as your phone company can't censor your speech.
>>
>>379760
It would literally be against the First Amendment for the government to compel a company to host content it didn't want to.
>>
>>379776
No it wouldn't. We already do it to the utilities. Companies don't have speech rights. Only people have rights.
>>
>>379782
>Companies don't have speech rights.
Boy do I have news for you.
>>
>>379782
>Companies don't have speech rights
oh my fucking goodness
>>
>>379670
Fucking this. They just jump from one rationale to the next. They are just as guilty of picking winners and losers as the dems but fail to admit it.
>>
>>379670
>Conservatives fight tooth and nail to ensure that private employers and companies don't have to do things like bake cakes for gay people or pay for birth control based on their "religious freedoms"

A bakery and a hobby shop is neither a public square nor a medium someone uses to communicate with others.
>>
>>379475
But should it stay that way, when they're becoming the only way to communicate?
>>
>>379891
YouTube isn't a public square either. It's a private square. Terrorists and Nazis aren't welcome.
You're acting as if if you invite people into your living room to talk about things we also have the right to sit on the couch and never leave.

>>379893
They're not even CLOSE to the only way to communicate. They're the only way to communicate for illiterate, lazy retards.
>>
>>379923
Do we have to resort to name calling anon?
>>
>>379924
I didn't call anyone in this thread names. Unless, of course, they're so incredibly stupid so as to think that it's not possible to communicate without using platforms like YouTube. In which case they're retarded and deserve to be called names.
>>
>>379776
>It would literally be against the First Amendment for the government to compel a company to host content it didn't want to.
But Youtube. facebook & Apple all wanted Alex Jones until after Alex built them an audience. In Sales we get get hired for having relationships. If I bring my kids on Facebook, can facebook decide, I can no longer talk to my kids & decide who my kids can have relationships with? Who Owns my relationships?

The small cake shop didn't suddenly refuse to make gay cakes to existing customers, unlike big corporate Walmart who stopped making ISIS cakes after exterminating the local small cake shops.
There's different laws for Small biz with less then 15 employees (like- all in same family without violating discrimination laws) unlike Large biz with more then 15.

Laws: (Is Jones competition to virtual media monopolist like Apple, Facebook, Youtube?)
Refusal to Deal - may be considered an unlawful anti-competitive practice, if it prevents or reduces competition in a market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusal_to_deal

Collusion - is a secret agreement between two or more parties to limit open competition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collusion

Sherman Act is "against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself"
a monopolist if "it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
>>
>>380081
If you bring your kids to the mall, and the mall kicks you out, either you take your kids out of the mall or you let them stay in the mall by themselves.

>Refusal to Deal
Twitter's banning Nazis does not reduce competition in the social media space. In fact, it increases it: Gab wouldn't exist if Twitter didn't ban people. The rest of the laws you cite are similar: all anti-competition law is designed to stop anti-competitive activity IN THE SECTOR in which the actor acts.
>>
>>379422
Can wait for youtube to remove all "alt-right" channels and start deleting videos and music that are perceived to be enjoyed by them.
>>
>>380107
same but all itll do is nuke the comment sections like when Ellen Pao fucked up plebbit.
>>
>>379776
>It would literally be against the First Amendment for the government to compel a company to host content it didn't want to.

Again, your cellphone provider can't censor your speech because they don't like your politics and neither should YouTube, Facebook and other huge communications corporations.

It's the _size_ of the companies I'm specifically addressing here, because YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are so big that they can't really claim they're just some run-of-the-mill website like 4chan, in fact many corporations won't even hire someone if they don't have a Facebook account that can be checked.

At that point, these websites have become defacto "utilities" like the phone company and shouldn't be able to arbitrarily censor users.
>>
>>380136
>It's the _size_ of the companies I'm specifically addressing here, because YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are so big that they can't really claim they're just some run-of-the-mill website like 4chan
Fox News is a very large company, and yet I don't have a right to show up on Fox News and talk to America about how Donald Trump is secretly the antichrist, because Fox has paid good money for its airtime and I am in zero way entitled to Fox's airtime if Fox News doesn't want me to have it.

Utility companies are regulated as utilities not because they are large, but because they are monopolies. There is only one power company, one water company, and one landline company in your area. Neither YouTube nor Facebook have a monopoly on speech.
>>
>>380144
> > It's the _size_ of the companies I'm specifically addressing here, because YouTube, Facebook and Twitter are so big that they can't really claim they're just some run-of-the-mill website like 4chan
> Fox News is a very large company, and yet I don't have a right to show up on Fox News and talk to America

Except Fox News isn’t a _communications company_ providing a forum for its user’s speech, like the phone company and Facebook are.

Though due to the size of Fox News, CNN, NYTimes, etc. any on-line discussion forums on their websites would also be subject to the same freedom of speech guarantees that the phone company must adhere to.
>>
>>380109
That's not enough. We must go further.
>>
>>380152
>Except Fox News isn’t a _communications company_ providing a forum for its user’s speech, like the phone company and Facebook are.
Your local newspaper is a communications company. I can take out ads, whether in the classifieds section or even a full-page spread. And yet this company would be fully within my rights to refuse to publish a full-page ad declaring that black people aren't really people and therefore killing them shouldn't be a crime.

>Though due to the size of Fox News, CNN, NYTimes, etc.
More people use 4chan than the Fox News comments section. You are actively claiming that private platforms should be commandeered into public spaces.
>>
>>380157
Hell, my local fucking supermarket is a communications company. There's a bulletin board where you can post advertisements and announcements for community events. You even bring the flyers yourself.
>>
>>380083
>If you bring your kids to the mall, and the mall kicks you out, either you take your kids out of the mall or you let them stay in the mall by themselves.
If I leave them in the face book mall how do I communicate with them? This no different then the Orphan train using truancy laws to kid nap the Irish children to sell as replacement slaves. The facebook Orphan train decides who the kids are assigned to have relations with.

Far more importantly, the mall doesn't have the right to shut down a store (Reduce Competition by evicting a competitor) that's inside it that Alex paid rent. Also CNN a direct competitor of Alex colluded with Facebook to silence its competitor.

> all anti-competition law is designed to stop anti-competitive activity IN THE SECTOR in which the actor acts.
Exactly the sharecropping media distribution sector is dominated by a few virtual monopolies. If Todd McFarlane, who started Image comics after famously refusing to redraw a scene with Juggernaut having an eye gauged out (for religious / ideological reasons), but then one day the Large distributors (for nazi/communist style censorship reasons similar to collusion between Facebook, Youtube, Apple) just refused to deal by suddenly stop carrying his Small company's Spawn comic. We have to wonder if Todd competitors Marvel & DC (or CNN, MSN & the Democrats) had colluded with the distributors to limit competition.

>>380136
>It's the _size_ of the companies
Exactly! Why do people always try to compare a small biz to a large company? The Laws are different for a company with less then 15 employees, as you can 15 family family only employees without the violating discrimination laws.
>>
>>380162
>If I leave them in the face book mall how do I communicate with them?
Call them on their fucking cell phones. Buy them cell phones. You literally don't have a right to be in any given mall. Malls can throw you out if you're shouting about how we need to bring back the Third Reich inside them.

>Exactly the sharecropping media distribution sector
There is literally no barrier to entry to the distribution of media. You'll have to figure out a way to get an audience, sure, but you're not entitled to other people's audiences.
>>
>>379923
>YouTube isn't a public square either. It's a private square.

At this point in time you're right it's not. The business model they have created, their operation in the United States, and the size of user base is the reason people are calling into question if they need to be regulated like a utility not a private business. While not necessarily for the same reasons Republicans are irate over, even Democrats like Elizabeth Warren are calling for the downsizing and regulation of Silicon Valley businesses.

>Terrorists and Nazis aren't welcome.

Who defines who is a terrorist or nazi? Youtube? The government? The U.S. government defined Antifa as a terrorist group yet there's still YouTube videos about them in droves.
While I personally don't like the idea of the government having to come in, define Youtube as a public utility, regulate and/or downsize YouTube and further water down what was a creator's platform, this inconsistency of banning users based on Silicon Valley's definitions is no longer within compromise - not that a Silicon Valley entity would even blink at the idea of compromise with that much influencial power.

>You're acting as if if you invite people into your living room to talk about things we also have the right to sit on the couch and never leave.

I was pointing out a fact about 2 completely different businesses with few similar operating procedures and regulations in comparison the very public online entity that is YouTube. Whatever analogy you were trying to make with a private home is incomparable to a business entity.

>They're not even CLOSE to the only way to communicate.

True, but no platform outside of Silicon Valley can compare to the user size and exposure.
Not to mention any offshoots trying to provide a service to those expelled from a Silicon Valley online platform brew the same problem of an echo chamber and tend to be one trick ponies that don't deviate from talking about political subjects -Gab being an example of this.
>>
>>379480
Cool story.
>>
>>380299
Well there you fucking go, the people who pretend that YouTube and Facebook are the only place to talk are materially retarded.
>>
>>380203
>There is literally no barrier to entry to the distribution of media. You'll have to figure out a way to get an audience, sure, but you're not entitled to other people's audiences.
SO we agree that facebook, youtube, apple itunes collude with Alex's competitors like CNN to steal Alex's audiance. Now what do we do fix audience theft & stop audience theft from happening again?
>>
>>380424
Literally every company in the world chooses to do business with some companies and not others.

What you want - government intervention in business to business transactions - is literally socialism.
>>
>>380455
thought that was "net neutrality"?
>>
>>379474
nah
>>
>>379422
No, they should not censor "hate" speech.

The supreme court has ruled on multiple occassions that "hate speech" is free spee h and covered under the 1st ammendment.
>>
>>379475
Go fuck yourself corporate shill.

When those "private companies" are giant tech monopolies that have as much influence over the masses as an arm of the government, then forcing them to adhere to the first amendment is necessary for the survival of any healthy political system.

Besides which, if we can have the civil rights act force private entities to adhere to the 14 amendment, we can have a similar law in place to force companies to adhere to the 1st amendment.

If faggots like you had their way we'd already be living under inescapable corporate feudalism.
>>
>>380455
Regulating private companies is a good thing. Especially when it comes to securing our rights.

Corporate entities can become just as tyrannical as oppressive governments if they are giant corporate monopolies.
>>
>>380867
>then forcing them to adhere to the first amendment
You are literally calling on the First Amendment to be abolished so you can restrict the freedom of association of companies you don't like.
>>
Gnhgvgnhfbrbj5
>>
>>379461

More like threats of violence and other extreme shit. Hate speech is covered in free speech but it doesnt mean that youtube cant remove it. Its their platform. Although its important to let bigots have a say so they can be ostracized and judged.
>>
>>379782

Bruh you need to google some shit lmao
>>
>>380455
>Literally every company in the world chooses to do business with some companies and not others.
>What you want - government intervention in business to business transactions - is literally socialism.

But that's exactly what happened. What do you call it when a official government representative (democrat competitor to republican) accepts money pressures large corporations (facebook, youtube, Apple) to violate Refusal to Deal laws (by banning Alex a paying existing customer) at the request of CNN (Alex's competitor) & stealing Alex's audience. Now how do we stop it from happening again?
>>
>>381276
>Now how do we stop it from happening again?
Make sure people like Alex Jones are never allowed on these sites on the first place so that nobody can be accused of "stealing their audience."

If you have an anti-trust lawsuit in the works call your fucking local Representative and call for a congressional investigation based on existing laws.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.