When people argue FOR YouTube’s right to discriminate, as “it is a Private Company”… I can’t help but think of a certain Baker who refused to bake a certain wedding cake and the ensuing firestorm and outrage that followed.

Sharing is Caring!

Or my “hypocrisy meter” is out of whack?
Whatever the case may be, it still astounds me with how much veracity and force people will protect the rights of corporations such as Google and their baby YouTube.
These corporations might not have to allow everything on their platforms, but corporations like that, ranging from Google, to Facebook, to Bayer, Monsanto. …and so many more… are everpresent in our lives and our society. They should be called out and rightfully so when using methods that creep us ever so deeper into an Orwellian dystopia.
You might think it’s OK. That’s fine. But I wonder how you would react if a controversial topic YOU supported would suddenly start being censored on major media platforms.
YouTube might not have what is officially called a monopoly, but it’s range of influence is vast. And that range has been created through years of lack of censorship and the gaining of people’s trust. Now, when the time is right, they might just start pulling the plug on any freedom of expression on their platform and start banning those that are deemed to controversial for then to handle.
Fine, YouTube can do what it wants. But the outcry should still be there! The awareness of what is happening on YouTube should be spread far and wide, so that the people that were once supporters of YouTube start to abandon that platform. Over time, if this is a success, YouTube will start getting legitimate rivals and the port to other platforms will be complete.
That doesn’t mean you can’t still support the content creators you love on YouTube, but it does mean that considering, visiting and supporting (with your presence if nothing else) another platform is something we should all be striving for and thinking about.
If nothing else, the awareness of what YouTube is doing should be spread far and wide. People should know about it in order to make an informed decision on whether YouTube should retain the popularity it still has, or whether we should all be considering alternative solutions and platforms.
 
h/t odd-meter

READ  PEOPLE ARE ANGRY ALL OVER:
READ  Texas Senator Claims People Are Flocking to Bitcoin Because US Is on 'the Verge of an Inflation Crisis'... Deutsche Bank issues dire economic warning for America: Inflation
960 views

17 thoughts on “When people argue FOR YouTube’s right to discriminate, as “it is a Private Company”… I can’t help but think of a certain Baker who refused to bake a certain wedding cake and the ensuing firestorm and outrage that followed.

    • Hundreds of millions killed just in the last 150 years! It’s dangerous to disagree with a liberal, they are always right, so right if you disagree they feel compelled to kill you.

      • “”Hundreds of millions killed just in the last 150 years!””
        liberals are evil! the bad guys! 150 years of evil and it’s just liberals?
        wow never mind pol pot, gunga din, hitler, etc.
        were any of them liberals? no, they were all despot dictator rulers.
        “hundreds of millions killed”! what about bush sr, cheney and bush jr?
        liberals? hardly. yet how many middle eastern people did they kill?
        okay maybe the bolshevics qualified as liberal but what religion were they exactly? things that make you go hmm.
        do yalls even know what a real liberal is? real liberals got their asses beat, their bones broken and sprayed with tear gas for protesting and even refusing to be drafted into the war on vietnam – again, millions killed, not by liberals, but by the powers that be du-jour. liberals were the good guys in that instance just as they were/are in the current middle east slaughter.

        • 1. Bolsheviks weren’t classical liberals, they were communists.
          “Freedom of speech? We are not going to commit suicide.” Vladimir Lenin
          http://russiapedia.rt.com/prominent-russians/leaders/vladimir-lenin/
          2. Classical liberalism
          Another regularly asserted contrast between classical and modern liberals: classical liberals tend to see government
          power as the enemy of liberty, while modern liberals fear the concentration of wealth and the expansion of corporate power.
          http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism
          3. Before Vietnam…
          THEY FOUGHT THE GOOD FIGHT
          The Legacy of the America First Committee
          https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j082302.html
          PUTTING AMERICA FIRST
          A voice from the past, a legacy for today
          https://www.antiwar.com/justin/j042103.html

        • Nope nope, Obama and Clinton slaughtered thousands by drones and proxy forces in Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan, Mali, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and made millions homeless. Democrats have no moral high ground whatsoever. Other than that I agree with pretty much everything else.

          • what do you mean “nope nope”? “obama and clinton slaughtered thousands…”, but bush sr and jr/cheney did not?
            look, they are all bastards, left AND right.
            i was originally trying to reply to Jas who made it seem as if only liberals “feel compelled to kill”.

        • Pol Pot was a lefty, facism is lefty as well. The Bush’s should hang right next to the Clinton’s. “Real Liberals” don’t exist. You are an unwitting tool of the elites you protest.

          • i am an “unwitting tool of the elites…”
            oh tooshay!
            as opposed to yallself who must be an all too witting tool?
            anyway pol pot was a lefty? huh. i am a southpaw myself.

    • “”leftists are not nice people.””
      i know, right? neo-cons on the other hand are salt of the earth pillars of the community.
      look up “flowers and cotton candy” in the dictionary and there will no doubt be a photo of the bush family/admistration.
      damn those leftists!

  1. To heck with criticizing YouTube or Google for their censorship policies. What is needed (same goes for media outlets) is an independent venue outlet for videos and ideas. Why does the public remain a “slave” to these corporations? There HAS to be an alternative solution somewhere/somehow!

    • Recently heard that Mike Adams at Natural News was putting up a platform, but I don’t think it’s quite ready yet. Check his site if you’re interested.

    • Revoke their license to do business and confiscate the company. Turn it over to the people or sell it. Constitutional violations should not be tolerated from anyone anywhere at any time !

      • Constitutional violations?
        The Constitution only applies to the federal government. The Constitution was created for the sole purpose of limiting the federal governments powers to the enumerated ones listed. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it merely tells the federal government it can not take them away or infringe on them.
        confiscate the company? sounds communist to me.

  2. For the love of God Please Stand ……………..
    FACEBOOK, TWITTER, YOUTUBE, REDDIT, GOOGLE are PLACES OF PUBLIC GATHERING, “SOCIAL Media”, and ADVERTISE themselves as PUBLIC places.. They are also PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATIONS, unlike the PRIVATELY owned and operated “Mom&Pop” Bakery and Party Planner SUED by homosexuals.
    FACEBOOK is a PUBLIC SPACE therefore it has no right or legal option to censor participants. FACEBOOK is a PUBLICLY TRADED company, NOT a “private entity” and it solicits PUBLIC memberships.
    Just as the “courts” say cake bakers HAVE to bake homosexual cakes, and wedding planners HAVE to “accept” homosexual weddings, ZUCKERberg has to accept opinions, videos, and pictures he does not like. These Social Media/Meeting Places must accept anything which is Permissible under the First Amendment.
    DO they say all Halal and Kosher meat butchers should be forced to process PORK?! Same religious convictions!!!
    A lowly COUNTY CLERK was jailed for refusing to “do her duty” by not issuing homosexuals marriage licenses The Baker, Planner, and Clerk SHOULD have just said: “You homosexuals VIOLATE OUR COMMUNITY GUIDELINES” !!! They advertise themselves as “Social Media & Public Spaces” so everything that is covered under the First Amendment can be posted there. A Party Planner and a Baker were successfully sued for refusing service to homosexuals ….. these “Social Media” can & should also be sued for violating People’s 1st Amendment RIGHTS to speak freely in PUBLIC SPACES.
    Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc. engaging in politically motivated censorship is like your meter reader shutting off your electricity because you have a Trump sign on your lawn. These social media have become like public utilities and therefore have no right to engage in political censorship. It is way past time to impose common carrier status on social media. Just like the phone company cannot censor your conversations there, social media should not be allowed to interfere with content there. Social media is the modern day phone company.
    “It is way pay time to impose common carrier status on social media.”
    Meanwhile, Ajit Pai of the FCC has disallowed common carrier status for ISPs and, moreover, has allowed them to censor content, block websites, raise prices for everyone, and wage class war by using an excellent standard of speed and service for the rich and an inferior one (slow speed and service) for the non-rich.
    “Social media is the modern day phone company.” – and also a potent means of grassroots organization. By censoring one side they are DENYING the CIVIL RIGHT to organize and associate.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.