By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Google Bans Censorship-Resistant Competitor, LBRY

JWeinCom said:

Machina said:

You're playing the man not the ball. Either LBRY has been banned by Google for the reason stated or it hasn't; everything else is fluff, spin, and obfuscation.

No, it's not.

In this situation we can't play the ball because we don't have access to any evidence on the matter. All we have is the account of "the man" so the only thing that can inform our decision is how credible we find them to be. 

They clearly have a political view that they are using to drive people to their platform. That gives us ample reason to be skeptical that they are accurately reporting.

It is. The site's source is LBRY's Twitter feed; you can cut it out of the equation entirely.



Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:

That site you link to is extremely politically onesided.

At a first glance i see :

-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists

''If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.''

What a joke, a good amount of people that flock to sites and youtube channels like this are part of cancel culture, so selective that they're unaware or ignorant of it.

Ddint even look it up, but I like that place already



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus said:
Immersiveunreality said:

That site you link to is extremely politically onesided.

At a first glance i see :

-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists

''If you're tired of cancel culture and censorship subscribe to Reclaim The Net.''

What a joke, a good amount of people that flock to sites and youtube channels like this are part of cancel culture, so selective that they're unaware or ignorant of it.

Ddint even look it up, but I like that place already

At first glance you made me laugh, but do you really like a place that is so tilted towards one extreme?



While the specific grounds that were cited seem weak, the central purpose of LBRY is to not remove content unless it is:
1) Not yours (cannot upload copyrighted works)
2) Illegal

Under those rules, porn and other content which is not allowed under Google's policies can readily be found. While I question the consistency of Google's enforcement, banning LBRY seems to be consistent with their stated policies.



Machina said:
JWeinCom said:

No, it's not.

In this situation we can't play the ball because we don't have access to any evidence on the matter. All we have is the account of "the man" so the only thing that can inform our decision is how credible we find them to be. 

They clearly have a political view that they are using to drive people to their platform. That gives us ample reason to be skeptical that they are accurately reporting.

It is. The site's source is LBRY's Twitter feed; you can cut it out of the equation entirely.

They make claims that go beyond LBRY's twitter. For example, they make the assertion that Google's decision was arbitrary, which is the "ball" you're referring to. Yet, all they have is what we have, a cropped screenshot that may or may not be from a message sent by Google, and a screenshot which may or may not have been the one Google sent. If they were simply reporting that LBRY said X, in a neutral fashion, that would be one thing, but they are making claims beyond that. 

And of course, LBRY is itself an obviously biased source, as I'm pretty sure they're on their own side. So, arguing that the potentially biased source is getting information from an obviously biased source doesn't really help. Pointing out that a source is biased does not mean that everything they say is false, but it's a warning sign for readers to be skeptical of the site's conclusions and look into it themselves. Encouraging people to consider a site's point of view is most definitely a good thing.  

And... if we cut it out entirely, then all we have is LBRY's twitter feed giving their account of the situation, supported by one cropped image that they say is sent by Google. Tbh, I don't see that as worthy of much time or consideration.

What an actual good source worthy of posting would do is something like this...

Here is the video that allegedly was the cause for the app being taken down.

https://vimeo.com/102980219

Here is Google's policy on what counts as inappropriate content.

  • Depictions of sexual nudity, or sexually suggestive poses in which the subject is nude, blurred or minimally clothed, and/or where the clothing would not be acceptable in an appropriate public context.
  • Depictions, animations or illustrations of sex acts, or sexually suggestive poses or the sexual depiction of body parts.

Then they would let the reader decide if the alleged reason for taking down the app was valid.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 27 September 2020

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
Nautilus said:

Ddint even look it up, but I like that place already

At first glance you made me laugh, but do you really like a place that is so tilted towards one extreme?

Any time someone thinks that any of the things you posted can be considered extreme and that said place that promotes is considered, and I quote, "Extremely politically onesided", is positive for me, especially since many left-focused websites or jornals, like new york times, aren"t called that, when they clearly have a bias towards a certain political opinion.

Anyone that thinks that having positive news about Trump(or any right-leaned politician), or saying actual facts that isn't in favor of authoritarian-like movements like Black Lives Matter makes them "extreme" or think they are dilusional lives in a bubble, or at the very least are lying to themselves(or convinced themselves of that lie). 



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Nautilus said:
Immersiveunreality said:

At first glance you made me laugh, but do you really like a place that is so tilted towards one extreme?

Any time someone thinks that any of the things you posted can be considered extreme and that said place that promotes is considered, and I quote, "Extremely politically onesided", is positive for me, especially since many left-focused websites or jornals, like new york times, aren"t called that, when they clearly have a bias towards a certain political opinion.

Anyone that thinks that having positive news about Trump(or any right-leaned politician), or saying actual facts that isn't in favor of authoritarian-like movements like Black Lives Matter makes them "extreme" or think they are dilusional lives in a bubble, or at the very least are lying to themselves(or convinced themselves of that lie). 

Yeah, all those militarized police forces murdering people for being black, brutalizing protesters, all without consequences. THEY’RE the ones fighting against authoritarianism. :/



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Nautilus said:
Immersiveunreality said:

At first glance you made me laugh, but do you really like a place that is so tilted towards one extreme?

Any time someone thinks that any of the things you posted can be considered extreme and that said place that promotes is considered, and I quote, "Extremely politically onesided", is positive for me, especially since many left-focused websites or jornals, like new york times, aren"t called that, when they clearly have a bias towards a certain political opinion.

Anyone that thinks that having positive news about Trump(or any right-leaned politician), or saying actual facts that isn't in favor of authoritarian-like movements like Black Lives Matter makes them "extreme" or think they are dilusional lives in a bubble, or at the very least are lying to themselves(or convinced themselves of that lie). 

Sorry, but this first paragraph is just beyond ridiculous. 

I will for argument's sake assume that the New York Times is a biased rag that promotes communism, authoritarianism, pedophilia, cannibalism, and rounding up an executing Trump supporters. Whatever.

No matter how biased the Times is, that does not have anything to do with how biased another source is. "I like my sources biased, because other sources are biased", is not a good argument. Attacking another thing does not make your thing better. If one food will kill you, and the other will make you go blind, you don't eat either.

Second paragraph is just a pure strawman argument.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 28 September 2020

Jumpin said:
Nautilus said:

Any time someone thinks that any of the things you posted can be considered extreme and that said place that promotes is considered, and I quote, "Extremely politically onesided", is positive for me, especially since many left-focused websites or jornals, like new york times, aren"t called that, when they clearly have a bias towards a certain political opinion.

Anyone that thinks that having positive news about Trump(or any right-leaned politician), or saying actual facts that isn't in favor of authoritarian-like movements like Black Lives Matter makes them "extreme" or think they are dilusional lives in a bubble, or at the very least are lying to themselves(or convinced themselves of that lie). 

Yeah, all those militarized police forces murdering people for being black, brutalizing protesters, all without consequences. THEY’RE the ones fighting against authoritarianism. :/

Oh god damn it, you are right! It was just I was so blinded by all the people killed by the protestors only because they were doing their job or just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Or all the lives they have ruined by pillaging and tearing down stores, in the name of something they had nothing to do about. I'm so sorry!



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

JWeinCom said:
Nautilus said:

Any time someone thinks that any of the things you posted can be considered extreme and that said place that promotes is considered, and I quote, "Extremely politically onesided", is positive for me, especially since many left-focused websites or jornals, like new york times, aren"t called that, when they clearly have a bias towards a certain political opinion.

Anyone that thinks that having positive news about Trump(or any right-leaned politician), or saying actual facts that isn't in favor of authoritarian-like movements like Black Lives Matter makes them "extreme" or think they are dilusional lives in a bubble, or at the very least are lying to themselves(or convinced themselves of that lie). 

Sorry, but this first paragraph is just beyond ridiculous. 

I will for argument's sake assume that the New York Times is a biased rag that promotes communism, authoritarianism, pedophilia, cannibalism, and rounding up an executing Trump supporters. Whatever.

No matter how biased the Times is, that does not have anything to do with how biased another source is. "I like my sources biased, because other sources are biased", is not a good argument. Attacking another thing does not make your thing better. If one food will kill you, and the other will make you go blind, you don't eat either.

Second paragraph is just a pure strawman argument.

Never said that I supported the site mentioned in the OP, though I did approve of it's overall approach to politic based on that one post(Because usually the people that makes that kind of comment are the ones that have tunnel vision, and thus anything they disagree with is something that I agree, but alas that's not the point). Actually I never heard of it before. The initial post I made regarding this subject is exactly what you pointed out: That it was being disregarded not by facts or actual arguments, like the posts you made, but rather because, and I will quote:

"-Anti lockdown support
-Negative news towards Black Lives Matter
-Positive news towards Trump
-anti censoring enforced by leftists"

All topics that have legitimate arguments for and against. So just disregarding it based on it being against something that you dont like or support, but not the arguments on why he is against, is faulty by itself. And the double standard about this whole discussion is, since every paper and website has some form of bias to one way or another(such as The New York Times being more left-leaned, as it is (usually) evident in the stories they run and how they phrase their editorials and such) disheartening and infuriating to say the least.

But if you want to argue with me, please dont attack me for saying this you dont agree, and then making things up that I didn't say. All I said is that The New York times is left-leaned, not "communism, authoritarianism, pedophilia, cannibalism, and rounding up an executing Trump supporters". Don't come to me saying my argument is a pure "strawnman argument" but you end pulling this.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1