By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
irstupid on 06 August 2018
Edit Thread
Hiku said:

Just so people are aware of how Alex Jones violated Youtube policies (aside from hate speech or harassment, etc), Alex Jones was suspended from Livestreaming on Youtube for 90 days. He can try to appeal his case with Youtube if he wants during those 90 days, but he is not allowed to stream. And Youtube have rules in place to pervent larger channels from circumventing this by for example live streaming on a different account... which is exactly what Alex Jones did.

He live streamed from a different account. And Youtube delete your channel if you do things like this.

irstupid said: 
1.) My problem with this is the size of said platforms. This isn't like VGChartz banning someone, this is the tech giants. They are like the public forums. If you are banned from them, you are essentially silenced.

2.) The argument of "it is a private business and not government and thus not infringing upon the 1st amendment" sounds like an argument I hear when someone says they should be able to not have to serve gays at their restaurant, or similar. It is their private business, they should be able to serve who they want, right?

1.) So if I start a private company and host user uploaded videos, if my company grows to a certain size, I should be forced to host certain videos?
And who would force me to do this/enforce this? The government?

You're also not addressing the fact that Infowars were banned for violating terms of service agreements. I posted one example above.
I can't upload a video containing copyright material, or a video of someone getting lynched, without it getting taken down, or my channel getting deleted.
I agree to this when I sign up on Youtube.

2.) Anti discrimination laws (in regards to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information), apply to the workplace. If they didn't, we'd still have restaurants with "No black people allowed" signs outside.
And even if Youtube is a privately owned business, they're not allowed to say "No black people are allowed to host videos on our site". Get it?

So no, it's not the same.
The difference is these people didn't break any general rules of conduct, like Infowars did. They were simply denied because of their skincolor, or who they love, etc.
On top of that, even a privately owned restaurant (usually) is on land that the government allows private citizens to have so that they can serve their community.

It's a slipery slope.

I have a friend who was a bouncer at a bar and he said they refused to let anyone in who for instance had a baseball cap on backwards. Couldn't even just turn it around or take it off, you were pegged and until they forgot about you, you would be refused entry. They did that because people who wore their hat backwards were more likely to cause trouble at the bar. 

I'm sure you wouldn't have to search very far to find someone on the internet that would claim that doing so is racists.

So is the bar wrong for having a guideline about no backwards hats? Who decides what youtube/facebook/ect deems as inappropriate speech? The world has become so partisan/party affiliated that you will have the same people defending Rosseane attack Gunn, and vise versa solely because said person they deems as on "their side". Who determines what someone says on the internet is a joke, or not. Or is a hypothetical or not?