Stefan Molyneux Youtube Account and 2k Reddit Subs Terminated Today..

[Spendulus]

What's the end game?

Ultimate power over the peasant classes..

Seems very nebulous. ~10-15 years ago the social media as we know it didn't really exist. Was it created specifically to control the peasants or did it somehow get subverted? As far as I can tell people voluntarily join it and even give up their privacy for whatever it is they get from it. I would understand advocating against that loss of privacy and against the use of social media in general, but instead we have this bizarre desire even by conservatives to get in on the whole scheme. Something doesn't compute here.

Actually, well, reverse that last statement. This is exactly what computation - computers - are doing.

Software has a way of starting off exciting and innovative, and then as it ages, say at five to ten years of maturity, morphing into total evil. This is new, but we are observing it. Google, Facebook, Twitter, many others. Can one observe a trend over time, and what is that trend?

[TECSHARE]

~

Seems very fucked up to (1) recognize that social media is evil but (2) use it indoctrinate the "sheep" as long as it's the "correct" doctrine. Would it be ok to run ponzi schemes or sell meth to finance conservative campaigns?

Any medicine can become a toxic poison. Any tool can be turned into a weapon. I can build a house with a hammer, or use it to cave your skull in, it doesn't make the hammer bad. Your premise is null on its face.

[eddie13]

~

Seems very fucked up to (1) recognize that social media is evil but (2) use it to indoctrinate the "sheep" as long as it's the "correct" doctrine. Would it be ok to run ponzi schemes or sell meth to finance conservative campaigns?

So it's hypocritical for anyone who disagrees with the way youtube and facebook are ran to use them?

Would it be unethical to speak about democracy in china?

[Gyfts]

~

Seems very fucked up to (1) recognize that social media is evil but (2) use it to indoctrinate the "sheep" as long as it's the "correct" doctrine. Would it be ok to run ponzi schemes or sell meth to finance conservative campaigns?

Social media isn't evil by any means but it gives people an amplified voice and removes any filter. Having the cloak of anonymity will void people of any humanity they had left because they face no repercussion for the words they say. Twitter's a good example of hard left groups that tend to be an echo chamber of people recyling the same political content amongst themselves with no sort of scrutiny causing confirmation bias. Then on the other hand Facebook tends to have conservative circles that regurgitate the same brain dead snowflake/libtard memes.

It makes people toxic. Politicians jump on the bandwagon too trying to make good edgy tweets for news bites.

[Spendulus]

~

Seems very fucked up to (1) recognize that social media is evil but (2) use it to indoctrinate the "sheep" as long as it's the "correct" doctrine. Would it be ok to run ponzi schemes or sell meth to finance conservative campaigns?

Social media isn't evil by any means but it gives people an amplified voice and removes any filter. Having the cloak of anonymity will void people of any humanity they had left because they face no repercussion for the words they say. Twitter's a good example of hard left groups that tend to be an echo chamber of people recyling the same political content amongst themselves with no sort of scrutiny causing confirmation bias. Then on the other hand Facebook tends to have conservative circles that regurgitate the same brain dead snowflake/libtard memes.

It makes people toxic. Politicians jump on the bandwagon too trying to make good edgy tweets for news bites.

Social media certainly can be evil.

[Viper1]

I looked at his wikipedia page

Ofcourse the wikipedia page is slander..

I watched a total of one of his "race" videos half a year ago or so. It was crystal clear to me from the way he used misrepresented the stats he was presenting what his agenda was and that he wasn't trying to present a well balanced perspective on the issue. I particularly loved how he was constantly doing the "I'm not saying... " in the video. When someone goes overboard with that sort of thing, you know that's exactly what they're saying. Maybe it was just easier for me to spot what he was doing given I was familiar with the issue and data. Won't shed a tear over someone like that getting the boot.

[Viper1]

However, there's no such thing as a right to social media.

That's always the excuse given by those that are at least secretly happy with the "book burning". Social media has become the new "town center". The sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner things can be put in place that take that into account for the benefit of everyone.

[suchmoon]

If you want the government to mandate that social media companies have to give a platform to everybody or even just certain individuals, write your representatives in congress and convince them to pass such a law.

Don't forget a new tax to finance it. Or maybe just borrow more from China, this seems to be the new conservative approach. Because sure as shit the "town square" isn't gonna sustain itself if they're forced to publish stuff that no advertiser wants to be associated with.

[TECSHARE]

[Appeal to authority, straw man arguments, ad homnem attacks]

There wasn't one logically valid point in this whole screed. People have a right to equal representation under the law, and that is what they are NOT getting. These companies enjoy protections carved out for public forums, which literally yes gives users a RIGHT to use them as much as they allow anyone else with differing ideological views. If they want to operate as publishers then they need to operate within the law and be regulated as publishers. They want to benefit from protections of open forums while they curate content. They don't have a right to do this.

However, there's no such thing as a right to social media.

That's always the excuse given by those that are at least secretly happy with the "book burning". Social media has become the new "town center". The sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner things can be put in place that take that into account for the benefit of everyone.

Fuck you.

It's a statement of fact.

If you want the government to mandate that social media companies have to give a platform to everybody or even just certain individuals, write your representatives in congress and convince them to pass such a law.

No, fuck you little girl. We want the government to mandate these companies be held responsible under the laws that already exist. You enjoy warming yourself in front of the fire while you can.

Don't forget a new tax to finance it. Or maybe just borrow more from China, this seems to be the new conservative approach. Because sure as shit the "town square" isn't gonna sustain itself if they're forced to publish stuff that no advertiser wants to be associated with.

More strawman arguments. Boo fucking hoo. If they want the liability protections of being a public square they need to actually operate as a public square. Shed some more tears for the oligarchs and corporate overlords. Maybe it will put out the fire on the burning books.

[tvbcof]

They are a monopoly, they are acting as publishers, and violating their own terms of service, so no, they aren't free to do whatever they want. This is illegal and action needs to be taken against these modern book burners.

It's worth considering also that almost everything that makes these types of businesses possible was funded at the time of it's creation by taxpayers.  This includes the internet itself (DARPA) and a plethora of public educational institutions and research organization who take a lot of tax dollars (e.g., NASA, ARL, etc.)  It was also countless hours of volunteer time and effort on the part of scientists and developers who very often are mortified at what their work has become...or would be if they were still alive.

These slimeball leaches (Jewtube (under the management of Google who probably only got off the ground via In-Q-Tel or the like), Twitter, etc) are riding on the shoulders of giants...and dribbling piss down their necks.

Even if Molyneux is a pretentious and boring bozo he still should not be censored and terminated.  It's been about 4 years since I suffered through even a part of one of his vids, so if he got into CP or some such material since then then I would retract my statement.  I kind of doubt that.

[suchmoon]

More strawman arguments. Boo fucking hoo. If they want the liability protections of being a public square they need to actually operate as a public square. Shed some more tears for the oligarchs and corporate overlords. Maybe it will put out the fire on the burning books.

Just an observation - a public square with mandated content would likely require to be publicly funded. Personally I don't care if that whole steaming pile of social media disappears.

[TECSHARE]

More strawman arguments. Boo fucking hoo. If they want the liability protections of being a public square they need to actually operate as a public square. Shed some more tears for the oligarchs and corporate overlords. Maybe it will put out the fire on the burning books.

Just an observation - a public square with mandated content would likely require to be publicly funded. Personally I don't care if that whole steaming pile of social media disappears.

You have flipped this on its head. They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content. Furthermore if they want to limit content, they can, they just need to hold the same liabilities all publishers are held to. These practices are not only illegal under laws regulating publishers and open forums, they violate these sites terms of service, they are also anti-competitive and tortious interference. Furthermore they are explicitly using this position to manipulate elections, and provide millions of dollars of value of in kind campaign contributions. There is simply no way to interpret what is happening now as legal or desirable.

[suchmoon]

They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content.

"We're not robbing the bank. We demand open access to the vault."

[eddie13]

Ok...
So even if Stef did some content on race and IQ many years ago that you may not agree with, it is obviously not the reason he was recently terminated from youtube.. As I said, those topics were done years ago..
He never called anybody niggers or said any such thing like whites are superior.. If anything he said that Asians and Jews have the superior average intelligence, something a white supremacist would never admit.. He is no nutjob/wackjob/alt-right/kkk/Nazi of any sort, but think whatever you want..

That is just being used here as an excuse to agree with political deplatforming by the big tech companies pushing an agenda..
Great news for you if you agree with the Marxist agenda.. Congratulations..

Not me.. I'm a lover of freedom of speech, and I believe that the truth will prevail in an open contest of ideas..
The way I see it, if something is false or incorrect, their is no reason to be afraid of it because it will be crushed by truth.. So let all ideas fly and see what comes out on top..

I guess some people here agree with censorship of ideas that are contrary to their own, and that's kinda sad to me, but I sure don't want them banned for those views as they do in turn..

Reddit, fabebook, and youtube etc. are great for censoring speech of libertarians and pushing the Marxist agenda.. Cool story..
IMO even if it is legal, it is vastly unethical and immoral.. But I guess not if you agree with it..

If you can't see almost every big tech company from Wikipedia to Google attempting to influence public opinion then I would contend that you are blinded by your favorite narrative...

I don't think anything is going to change anytime soon.. I'm mostly just sitting back and watching the downfall of the west..
Looks like a 4th Marxist reich happening these days to me.. It may be wise of you to be seen to be on it's side, but not me.. My morality of truth is worth more to me than fear of the new brownshirts, the BLM..

Ban guns, burn books, censor all "racism" except against whites no matter how blatant, blame all their problems on someone else, create hate..
The writing is on the wall..

[TECSHARE]

They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content.

"We're not robbing the bank. We demand open access to the vault."

No, your metaphor is completely fallacious. What are people robbing by maintaining equal access exactly? Oh right you just invented that for your dumb metaphor to sound like it made any sense just on a superficial level. It is more like "You can't bank here, we don't serve your kind." These companies not only have special government funding, they enjoy legal protections that other publishers don't. Tax money has already gone to develop these companies and continues to flow into them.

You should take a break from sucking so much corporate cock, you are going to damage the cartilage in your knees if you spend so much time down there. Funny how the left has completely inverted all of the principles they used to stand for and have turned them upside down and inside out. The left is now anti-free speech, pro-corporate, pro-violence, pro-war, racist, and authoritarian. They can't help but constantly inject themselves into everyone else's business with the ultimate goal of just destroying everything in sight because they are so miserable, so why should anyone else be happy right? Don't forget to wipe the slob off your face corporate cum dumpster.

[suchmoon]

They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content.

"We're not robbing the bank. We demand open access to the vault."

No, your metaphor is completely fallacious. What are people robbing by maintaining equal access exactly?

No one is robbing anything. Can't you read? People just want access to the vault. Maybe they'll have a barbecue there.

[TECSHARE]

No one is robbing anything. Can't you read? People just want access to the vault. Maybe they'll have a barbecue there.

[senseless metaphor]

"Your metaphor makes no sense."

[even more senseless reply hiding your failure at using logic with a completely failed attempt at humor]

Of course this is SOP for you any time you talk yourself into a corner with your nonsense, you just do a little juke spin and run away and hope no one notices how brain dead you are.

[Spendulus]

They are not mandating content. They are mandating open access to publish content.

"We're not robbing the bank. We demand open access to the vault."

No, your metaphor is completely fallacious. What are people robbing by maintaining equal access exactly?

No one is robbing anything. Can't you read? People just want access to the vault. Maybe they'll have a barbecue there.

I agree 1000%. They just WANT ACCESS TO THE VAULT. Where did all the goodies from the vault go? Oh, IT MUST HAVE BEEN SOMEONE ELSE THAT TOOK THEM!!!!

[Viper1]

However, there's no such thing as a right to social media.

That's always the excuse given by those that are at least secretly happy with the "book burning". Social media has become the new "town center". The sooner everyone realizes that, the sooner things can be put in place that take that into account for the benefit of everyone.

Fuck you.

It's a statement of fact.

If you want the government to mandate that social media companies have to give a platform to everybody or even just certain individuals, write your representatives in congress and convince them to pass such a law.

oooooo.. Did I hit a nerve there? I guess you are one of those typical liberals that thinks you're better than everyone else and want to dictate to them what they can and can't say. And your "fact" is bullshit. We have a right to nothing and everything.. "Rights" are just shit we as society have made up in order to function and to have rules, laws and the like. But I noticed you didn't address the town center thing. What's wrong. You need a safe space so the bad men won't say something you don't like. Grow the fuck up and think beyond your nose in terms of the path this shit is going down.

[PrimeNumber7]

What's the end game? Why would big companies go against the big-business-friendly tax-cutting anti-regulation president?

Social Media companies are very profitable in large part because their employees are very productive. Their employees are very productive because of their heavy use of automation, and of their creation of predictive models that can quickly classify data, allowing actions to be taken on these classifications that would not otherwise be possible.

The above gives employees a unique power over their employers. Employees at Social Media companies are overwhelmingly left-leaning, and are not 'left of center'.

Social media companies don't need low taxes to be profitable, nor do they need low regulations; they need productive employees. There is only so much companies can pay their employees to keep them happy, and attract additional talent, and many tech companies have resorted to unique perks.