The Anti-American Dream

Post Reply New Topic

Do people still use words on this forum?

We should institute a ban on YouTube content apart from OC or originating from respected sources like BBC.

We should NEVER let YouTube do our thinking for us.

Oh, God! Please tell me you're joking!

"Respected sources like BBC?" So, in other words, only corporately owned news sources who push a narrative compliment with the political establishment and oligarchs, should be allowed? Wow!

The BBC is an infinitely more reliable news source than this joker:

Then who TF do we trust? Some joker on YT who claims they're revealing the Truth that "they" don't want you to know about?

Completely irrelevant to the point I was making.

Getting one's "news" from YouTube is like getting love and dating advice from the men's room wall.

A "joker on YT"? Of course not! A Pulitzer Prize winning journalist on YouTube...well, no also. You should never trust anyone until you've done your own research.

You should never let those who let YouTube do their thinking for them do your thinking for you.

I agree. Still, I don't understand how that is relevant in the slightest.

The sweet irony of conservatives whining that corporations are using the power over their businesses that GOP politicians helped them get to regulate speech in ways they don't like.
I can't help but be pleased how quickly the GOP is turning on capital now that they won't enable their social conservatism, misinformation, and voter suppression.
Capitalist consensus is dying and it makes me so, so happy.

Last edited by Cornflake on 03 May 2021, 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.: Fixed image link

Big business is interested in money-making. That's it. There's no deeper plot than that.

Censorship by companies like Google and Facebook isn't politically motivated, it's money motivated.

They don't want to side with old, white, ultra right-wing Christian guys because then they'd alienate the majority of their worldwide customers to keep a small but vocal minority of bigots happy. On the other hand they don't actually want to support any form of social reform by paying taxes either. Quite happy to carry on with the wealth extraction, but need to look nice while doing so.

Similarly they don't want to be held liable for innocent people getting slandered, bankrupted, injured or killed because they've given extremists a platform - whether the threatening behaviour came from the left wing or right wing. Again that's nothing to do with politics, it's the fact legal fees are expensive and settlement figures even more so. Permitting abusive and threatening behaviour affects the bottom line.

I do find these delusional old fools hilarious with their claims of constant repression. Just because their ideologically conservative power base (that gave them dominance for so long) is gradually being eroded away by the multinationals they pandered to, who took their money-first ethos closest to heart. That's some fine irony right there.

I really have to say - banning 'Youtube' as an entire category would be absurd. There actually is really good content on there to be found, it has a lot more to do with the particular person selecting it and what it is they're actually posting.

Also, maybe this is a mistaken impression, isn't it usually that if someone posts a video most people don't even use laptops anymore, are pulling up a given thread or OP on their phone, see that it's a video, they don't want to bother using their plan data to watch it, and quite often you have something like either a dead thread or ten or fifteen people discussing the thread title and none of them watched the video?

With that last paragraph it might seem odd that I'd still do it occasionally but then again I pick my topics and speakers carefully.

Never use a self defeating dishonest mantra like "never let YouTube do your thinking for you".

Its impossible for Utube to "think for a person" even if the person wanted it to.

YouTube isnt the Vatican, nor is it the Kremlin, nor is it the Supreme Ayatollah. It does not dictate any kind of monolithic creed. Quite the contrary. YouTube doesnt even think for itself.

What you actually mean is that is the exact opposite of what you say you mean. You obviously wish that Utube would do MORE thinking for you. Not less. You obviously wish that UTube would apply more stringent editorial standards on its content. And be more like the NYTimes, or like the New England Journal of Medicine. Vet its contributors, and content more conventionally. Nothing wrong with wanting that. So why not just say what you mean? Would a little honesty kill you?