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

[tvbcof]

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.

I would agree with this.  Well stated and accurate IMHO.  I would add, though, that the big tech corporations are often awash with cash and they don't like paying taxes any more than anyone else.  Since they are by the nature of the internet 'global', they spend plenty of effort (lobbying funds) to limit their tax liabilities.  One method is to not repatriate profits until such time as a 'repatriation tax holiday' can be engineered.  These are normally advertised as a 'one time' thing to benefit 'the people', but in practice they tend to be periodic.  More and more 'globalism' has done away with the need to even bother with this type of fraud.

One of the giant corporations that I had some exposure to used to borrow most of the money they needed for U.S. operations while the profits were never repatriated as far as I could tell.  All of the high-IQ tech geeks could never figure this stuff out (and are every bit as allergic to the idea of 'conspiracy theories' as your average sheep).  It was funny to see the boss-men _not_ explain this at one of the giant weekly meetings on campus and to see all the geeks scratching their heads...for a few seconds until they forgot all about it.

[1714762649]

1714762649

[1714762649]

1714762649

[1714762649]

1714762649

[1714762649]

1714762649

[1714762649]

1714762649

[1714762649]

1714762649

[eddie13]

No agenda at all...

[Viper1]

OK, so show me where in the constitution or any legal code for that matter that says people have a right to social media.

I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently not though. I love it when people throw out things like the constitution or laws etc as a means to refute some argument. It's a worthless standpoint since that is driven by society as a whole and what they want, the rights they want etc. Try again. Oh wait, nevermind, I seem to remember you think you have rights by virtue of just being born.

instead of just comparing people you don't like to Nazis.

Where did I say that? Please do show me. Or maybe that's just your way of shoving what I'm saying off into a corner cause you don't like it. Bravo.

[Gyfts]

...
No agenda at all...

Might be because of an agenda, or it might be jumping on the bandwagon as all companies are afraid of pissing off the mob and being canceled. Does anyone actually cares about the BLM movement, or are they just pandering?  

[suchmoon]

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.

I think it makes about as much sense as claiming that mandating "access" to post certain content (which those sites otherwise don't want) is not equal to mandating that content.

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

[Viper1]

OK, so show me where in the constitution or any legal code for that matter that says people have a right to social media.

I thought you were smarter than that. Apparently not though. I love it when people throw out things like the constitution or laws etc as a means to refute some argument. It's a worthless standpoint since that is driven by society as a whole and what they want, the rights they want etc. Try again. Oh wait, nevermind, I seem to remember you think you have rights by virtue of just being born.

instead of just comparing people you don't like to Nazis.

Where did I say that? Please do show me. Or maybe that's just your way of shoving what I'm saying off into a corner cause you don't like it. Bravo.

OK let's try this again. You said the fact that there is no right to social media was bullshit. So I'm asking you to please educate me where the law says there is a right to social media. Don't dance around. Just produce an argument that affirms your statement. It shouldn't be that hard if you are right.

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.

Seeing as how social media wasn't even around the last time there were major book burnings (Nazi Germany), I have to wonder what the fuck are you actually talking about. "Secretly happy with the book burning?" What book burning? Where? You're equating videos hosted by YouTube being taken off YouTube with someone's books being forcibly confiscated and then burned. This is a bit retarded of a comparison.

Stefan Molyneux does have books but you're a fucking idiot if you actually think I want them burned.

You can attempt to "try again" all you want by once again attempting to frame the issue in a way so you can "win". But you're willfully ignoring the bigger philosophical issues and the impact of all of this on society. The fact that you won't even engage on that front tells me you're happy with corporations via activist groups telling you what to believe and what's right and wrong.

Amazon is refusing to publish books or at least I've heard of one recently. Social media "censoring" content. If you can't see the direction all of this is going then you've got your head buried in the sand.

[Spendulus]

....
Seeing as how social media wasn't even around the last time there were major book burnings (Nazi Germany), I have to wonder what the fuck are you actually talking about. "Secretly happy with the book burning?" What book burning? Where? You're equating videos hosted by YouTube being taken off YouTube with someone's books being forcibly confiscated and then burned. This is a bit retarded of a comparison.

Stefan Molyneux does have books but you're a fucking idiot if you actually think I want them burned.

What's the equal for an ebook to a physical book burning of physical books?

It consists of removing the ebook from availability, which has three primary ways.

A) Not providing the ebook's source in google or other search algorithms.
B) Not providing the ebook when the end user has the correct location.
C) Removing the DNS of the correct location.

[eddie13]

...
No agenda at all...

Might be because of an agenda, or it might be jumping on the bandwagon as all companies are afraid of pissing off the mob and being canceled. Does anyone actually cares about the BLM movement, or are they just pandering?  

They are the ones pushing the agenda, creating the mob.. The media and big tech companies are causing it, not just pandering to it..
It's top down, not bottom up..

Top down from way way way up top.. Those seeking ultimate power over many countries.. One world government shit..
Everything the left does is almost always traceable to their efforts to create an ultimate authoritarian one world government if you can open your eyes wide enough to see the big picture..

This effort is divide and counquer.. Overthrow those that seek liberty and resist control..
Get them all to vote for anti-"racism", free stuff, protections, open boarders, and toss out the constitution and eventually sovereignty while they are at it..

[eddie13]

I'm all for net neutrality, but I'm against social media companies being forced to service customers they feel are bad for business.

Uhhhh....
Net neutrality is more protections for the big data companies like FB, netflix, google, youtube, etc...
It just has a nice and fancy sounding name... Another trick.. Like the "patriot act" or the "affordable care act"..

Don't even get me started on how netflix is also aligned with the agenda shoving...

[Viper1]

You can attempt to "try again" all you want by once again attempting to frame the issue in a way so you can "win". But you're willfully ignoring the bigger philosophical issues and the impact of all of this on society. The fact that you won't even engage on that front tells me you're happy with corporations via activist groups telling you what to believe and what's right and wrong.

Amazon is refusing to publish books or at least I've heard of one recently. Social media "censoring" content. If you can't see the direction all of this is going then you've got your head buried in the sand.

Nice dance moves. Amazon has the right to not publish whatever the fuck they want. I don't think you actually understand what "freedom of speech" means.

You're really just a simpleton aren't you, incapable of looking at the higher level issues with all this. You probably think this is all right wing whining. So here. Here's some others talking about the same broader issue although they're focused more on FB in this video.

https://youtu.be/EQICXcPBG8c

Far smarter people than you and me are raising alarm bells about the control mega corporations have over open discourse which is what shapes peoples views on things.

[Spendulus]

You can attempt to "try again" all you want by once again attempting to frame the issue in a way so you can "win". But you're willfully ignoring the bigger philosophical issues and the impact of all of this on society. The fact that you won't even engage on that front tells me you're happy with corporations via activist groups telling you what to believe and what's right and wrong.

Amazon is refusing to publish books or at least I've heard of one recently. Social media "censoring" content. If you can't see the direction all of this is going then you've got your head buried in the sand.

Nice dance moves. Amazon has the right to not publish whatever the fuck they want. I don't think you actually understand what "freedom of speech" means.

....
Seeing as how social media wasn't even around the last time there were major book burnings (Nazi Germany), I have to wonder what the fuck are you actually talking about. "Secretly happy with the book burning?" What book burning? Where? You're equating videos hosted by YouTube being taken off YouTube with someone's books being forcibly confiscated and then burned. This is a bit retarded of a comparison.

Stefan Molyneux does have books but you're a fucking idiot if you actually think I want them burned.

What's the equal for an ebook to a physical book burning of physical books?

It consists of removing the ebook from availability, which has three primary ways.

A) Not providing the ebook's source in google or other search algorithms.
B) Not providing the ebook when the end user has the correct location.
C) Removing the DNS of the correct location.

The equivalent would be somebody deleting the content of your computer or mobile device and the action being sanctioned by the government. I'm all for net neutrality, but I'm against social media companies being forced to service customers they feel are bad for business.

Start your own social media service. Literally anyone can do so. Problem solved.

That just plain isn't correct. Also it's a misdirection. I listed three ways that are perhaps the modern equal of book burning. You are going off about social media companies. Not that I agree with you on that, either.

[TECSHARE]

"6 eBay Executives And Employees Charged With Threatening Natick Couple"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NacqQW-SC7I

Mind you, this is just ebay. Think about what a company with 100 times their resources could do.

[TECSHARE]

You asked a question. I answered it. This thread is about social media, not about your digital book burning fantasies.

"6 eBay Executives And Employees Charged With Threatening Natick Couple"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NacqQW-SC7I

Mind you, this is just ebay. Think about what a company with 100 times their resources could do.

"Forcing NPCs to buy your stuff"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYsyTq8pF2g

Of equal relevance to this discussion.

You haven't answered shit. You are advocating for corporate authoritarian rule, which is pretty weird for a Communist. You think this is funny because you have the mistaken impression you are on the "side" that will benefit. As soon as these companies get what they want the first thing they are going to do is aim the gun at people exactly like you.

This isn't about them being "forced" to publish things they don't like. Oh poor corporations! This is about them not obeying existing laws, preventing content from being published outside of their TOS, in illegally monopolistic ways, and in ways that serve as illegal in kind campaign contributions. They aren't just restricting content, they are trying to define what reality is.

[TECSHARE]

[virasog]

I have heard that youtube is taking down channels which promote bitcoins or talk about bitcoins and crypto currencies ? Is there any such policy of youtube recently introduced  ? I never see it written  anywhere on the terms and condition page of youtube.
I am not happy to know Stefan Molyneux youtube account ban  

[Spendulus]

This isn't about them being "forced" to publish things they don't like. Oh poor corporations! This is about them not obeying existing laws, preventing content from being published outside of their TOS, in illegally monopolistic ways, and in ways that serve as illegal in kind campaign contributions. They aren't just restricting content, they are trying to define what reality is.

OK. So then sue them, or better yet, create your own social media platform. Nobody's stopping you. Problem solved.

Reddit taking out The Donald will result in legal action. There's no way their actions are not a blatant pre-election political action. Whether the legal action is from the government or private citizens doesn't really matter, does it? Nobody's stopping us. Problem solved.

[Spendulus]

Reddit taking out The Donald will result in legal action. There's no way their actions are not a blatant pre-election political action. Whether the legal action is from the government or private citizens doesn't really matter, does it? Nobody's stopping us. Problem solved.

What kind of legal action? What law has been broken?

There's been an executive order already issued on this matter.  Everyone knows that Reddit's excuse of violent talk on the Trump forum is bullshit. Trump's forums were shut down as a blatant anti-Conservative, pro-Democrat action. We all know that, including the lying liars that act puzzled and bewildered that anyone could ever suggest such a thing.

Sure, Reddit can be the test case. After 300M in legal fees, let's see how they are doing.

Nobody's stopping Bill Barr.

Problem solved.

[TwitchySeal]

One could also argue that this post is neither unpopular or unpolitical.

[TECSHARE]

One could also argue that this post is neither unpopular or unpolitical.

If you would open your fucking eyes lots of people are trying to tell you this isn't just about politics, but why let that get in the way of you masturbating over how much think "your team" is winning right?

[TwitchySeal]

One could also argue that this post is neither unpopular or unpolitical.

If you would open your fucking eyes lots of people are trying to tell you this isn't just about politics, but why let that get in the way of you masturbating over how much think "your team" is winning right?

Each subreddit has their own set of rules.  I'm not surprised a local mod removed the post from your screen shot. It's a controversial opinion, but it's not unpopular.

This kind of reminds me of when you were complaining about click bait tabloid articles being removed from r/science, where the first three rules are:

- Must be peer-reviewed research
- No summaries of summaries, rehosts, reviews, or reposts
- No editorialized, sensationalized, or biased titles