Sociopath Community

Good said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Buttered Toast said: 

 I believe he is referring to how YT removed the totals for Dislikes.  Only totals for Likes appear.

Yeah... I really hate that trend. As someone who purposely goes out of their way to find videos with surprisingly high dislike counts they've just shut off an entire venue of intrigue for me. Now the only fail-content seeking I can do as readily are low view counts. 

There's some browser add-ons like this one that plan on using retired dislike data as well as those integrated through their own network, but this is just a bandage at best. At this point why even have the dislike button, for just the uploader and Youtube to see? 

Spatial is right about the censorship and it's all in the name of feefees. The dislike button is an example.

We are creating a generation of weak spoiled brats that will ruin everything and I will enjoy it as it burns. There is still room for it to go well, but I won't enjoy that nearly as much.

I don't see it as being all that different from where we were before, albeit over different subject matter. 

Same problem, different labels. 

 Who exactly is being censored tho?

I cant use the dislike button, for example. You can't say mean words online anymore.

You can use the dislike button, you just don't see the numbers for it. The creator still gets the notification that it was disliked. You can still say mean words online, you just can't use hate speech on platforms that have a term of service that specifically state not to use hate speech. You can still use mean words just don't be surprised if people call you out on it.

Trump was banned off twatter the moment he was not the president, such pretentious cocksuckers at twatter, didn't have the balls to ban him while he is the president and did it instantly right after. That's is so incredibly weak. And anyone that reposts his tweets was banned too apparently, if that is not a monopoly on thought, idk what is:

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57018148

Hahaha, i think that it was cos of the Jan 6th stuff.

Tommy Robinson was banned from FB:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/26/tommy-robinson-banned-from-facebook-and-instagram

The allegations against him are fake, there was never shown any proof of them ever. He just had a different opinion than the mainstream social networks. And after that, idk if it's still in power, anyone posting his name in a post, or even having his face in a pic (including accidental ones) were automatically removed from FB. They literary tried to erase him from the internet.

Idk about this one, i don't really have any opinion here nor am I knowledgeable about it enough to really comment.

Alex Jones was banned from multiple platforms at the same time. His ban was the most legit, but you can tell they collaborate and use their power at anyone with a different opinion. And even tho it's legit, in terms of TOS, it is still BS lol.

A comedian was forbidden from using the internet at all, for teaching his pug to do a nazi salute, as a joke:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2018/03/21/for-weeks-he-trained-a-dog-to-do-a-nazi-salute-the-man-was-just-convicted-of-a-hate-crime/

"The court should seek to acquit Mr Meechan for no other reason but to show it is 2018 and not 1984." Lmao shitty lawyer 

Was he banned from using the internet? I can't find that at all, only that platforms are banning him from use due to racial slur memes and antisemitic vids and sayings. Maybe i missed it

AUS made it so each platform is responsible for what people post online, so if someone says slander, it's not on him, it's on the platform. A lot of media sites banned AUS from posting comments altogether. They also made a law where the police are allowed to log into your media accounts and post or delete while in there, by law, without a warrant lol. They need a warrant to charge you... but they can in fact incriminate you first and then get it lmao.

Hahahahahahahaha ahahaha

Milo Yanopolis was also banned off twatter, just for being conservative. But his book was canceled because of slander from a journalist painting him as a pedo. They used a clip from a podcast, that I actually watched before that and it was taken out of context intentionally. They sat on this for months too, they prepare for these actions, its not just for clicks, it's malicious and intentional.

Milo was banned for targeted harassment and racist transphobic tweets. If you're implying that conservatives hold racist, transphobic beliefs and targeting certain people to harass is all by and by normal conservative behavior then yes. Milo was banned for his very conservative beliefs

During the gamergate controversy, there were emails leaked that also showed how gaming journalists collaborate on who to slander and who to praise, based on political and personal views (progressive leftist views ofc).

This is just off the top of my head. This is not new and I have stopped watching it in detail about a year or more ago. So I forgot a few and there are probably many new cases.

 Right, NGL i never really got around to gamer gate stuff so idk what that's about

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Lenalee said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

 

Yeah... I really hate that trend. As someone who purposely goes out of their way to find videos with surprisingly high dislike counts they've just shut off an entire venue of intrigue for me. Now the only fail-content seeking I can do as readily are low view counts. 

There's some browser add-ons like this one that plan on using retired dislike data as well as those integrated through their own network, but this is just a bandage at best. At this point why even have the dislike button, for just the uploader and Youtube to see? 

Spatial is right about the censorship and it's all in the name of feefees. The dislike button is an example.

We are creating a generation of weak spoiled brats that will ruin everything and I will enjoy it as it burns. There is still room for it to go well, but I won't enjoy that nearly as much.

I don't see it as being all that different from where we were before, albeit over different subject matter. 

Same problem, different labels. 

 Who exactly is being censored tho?

Alex Jones is a prime example that signaled that this could happen to anyone, but largely the 'Hate Speech' types and those who'd push for more regressionist values of intolerance. Whether I agree with the content itself that's being taken down or not though is independent of if I think it ought to be taken down, as while I don't necessarily like people learning those things I do see it as otherwise opening the conversation. We even see people who aren't pushing intolerant ideas being flagged over corporate concerns over the website's image, like some of Contra's older videos. 

Usually they'll take videos down over matters of race, but over matters of gender they have more room to get away with it for some reason. Even Seinfeld doesn't quite translate the same now as it used to. Netflix even took down the episode 'Advanced Dungeons and Dragons' from the show Community over how it has Chang wearing Black Face (as a Drow), and their use of black face was meant to mock the concept of it rather than anything related to IRL races beyond a tongue-in-cheek referential. 

 Alex Jones isn't being censored. There are still plenty of platforms to use.

That doesn't mean he isn't being censored, that just means that other platforms exist. 

This was true when it was the religious right gripping the censor before as well in the same way. When you couldn't publish your ideas on TV or in Magazines back in the day people had Zines and Cult Theaters, does this mean there was no censorship in the past? If we go back to The Red Scare, writers and actors who were believed to be a risk were blacklisted from working with most companies, but not all, so were they not censored? If we go even further back in history to when people were being stoned to death for painting Christian media, they were able to get away with it by painting rings of light and fish, so were those artists not censored? 

He was was on Periscope for one and censorship is mostly done through government mean. YouTube and Facebook aren't government platforms. YouTube states through it's ToS the following in regards to Hate Speech: 

Youtube to match up with the times, over fears of their sponsors and other side-profit margins, changes their ToS and then has to clean off former content that once matched up with their guidelines. 

Youtube meanwhile is an extremely centralized platform, it's built into Smart TV's, game consoles, tons of means of accessibility. They are a major platform that, with the use of their Youtube TV service, stands in as a replacement for Cable. To say they don't count as a source of censor is to say Cable didn't count either. 

Facebook though, while it was once more centralized... that's mostly boom-tube now with the occasional free upload of something like Buffy. 

You as a content creator that monetizes videos must read through all terms of service if you want to continue to use the service/platform. Alex Jones still has the ability to whine and honk about his conspiracy theories elsewhere he's just mad that he no longer has the YouTube algorithm working for him and that he no longer receives that google paycheck. These people aren't being censored. 

This is censorship, even when it's over 'whining and honking' it's policing what they feel can and can't be shown on their centralized, google-syndicated platform. How they respond to problems has ripples in how other websites feel they should respond to things as well, showing where levels of present and future practices are liable to go if corporate keeps sinking it's claws in while too concerned over it's viewers sensibilities. 

 Its literally not censorship as it's a service you've agreed to use in agreement with their Terms of service. That's the market baby. Platform can and will and have the right to police what you say while using their platforms to make sure they cannot be hurt financially if someone decides to take them to court. Its not just Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. Most of the alternative sites for these platforms have been changing their terms of service once there realized that people can be vile when given free reign, not that that really matters- until there's a lawsuit against them. 

Money is what matters, not one of them care that you hate the Jews, but they do care if you've suddenly found a way to hit their wallet. Its easier to enforce their own rules than to defend your views. 

tony, tommy robinson was giving out addresses of underage muslim kids so they could be attacked by racist groups. a 15 year old child tony. do you think that's appropriate? he made false claims that this boy was assaulting british girls, knowing that him being an asylum seeker would incite racist attacks...how is that ok? he's dangerous and should probably be in jail if he isn't currently

natasha87 said: 

tony, tommy robinson was giving out addresses of underage muslim kids so they could be attacked by racist groups. a 15 year old child tony. do you think that's appropriate? he made false claims that this boy was assaulting british girls, knowing that him being an asylum seeker would incite racist attacks...how is that ok? he's dangerous and should probably be in jail if he isn't currently

 Jesus Christ what

the "it's a private company, it can do what it wants cuz that's the law" argument falls apart when we enter new frontiers where the law isn't figured out yet, like what do we do when 5 or less companies control discourse

nestle is a private company following the law too, does that make it cool when it causes droughts in cali

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/tommy-robinson-gets-five-year-stalking-ban-after-harassing-journalist

falsely claiming a journalist is a pedophile...pedo confirmed lmao

Tommy Robinson loses Jamal Hijazi libel case

English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson has been ordered to pay £100,000 in libel damages to a Syrian schoolboy. The anti-Islam activist, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, published two Facebook videos in response to a viral clip of Jamal Hijazi being attacked.
He failed to convince the High Court his claims, such as Mr Hijazi attacking "young English girls", were true. Mr Justice Nicklin found in Mr Hijazi's favour after a trial earlier this year.
The judge also ordered Mr Yaxley-Lennon to pay legal costs understood by the BBC to amount to about £500,000.

Tryptamine said: 

the "it's a private company, it can do what it wants cuz that's the law" argument falls apart when we enter new frontiers where the law isn't figured out yet, like what do we do when 5 or less companies control discourse

nestle is a private company following the law too, does that make it cool when it causes droughts in cali

 they're going to potentially be held financially liable if they allow people to incite violence or hatred on their platforms. i don't get the confusion over that

Tryptamine said: 

the "it's a private company, it can do what it wants cuz that's the law" argument falls apart when we enter new frontiers where the law isn't figured out yet, like what do we do when 5 or less companies control discourse

nestle is a private company following the law too, does that make it cool when it causes droughts in cali

 Sorry, when did we switch from talking about what is or isn't censorship and dive into talking about the shitty companies with child labor, unsustainable practices, pollution and all sorts of other mafioso like shit that actually affect the real world? 

Getting banned on Twitter and crying about it is not the same thing as Nestle draining natural water supplies and contributing to wastes.

You ignorant slut.

natasha87 said: 

Tryptamine said: 

the "it's a private company, it can do what it wants cuz that's the law" argument falls apart when we enter new frontiers where the law isn't figured out yet, like what do we do when 5 or less companies control discourse

nestle is a private company following the law too, does that make it cool when it causes droughts in cali

 they're going to potentially be held financially liable if they allow people to incite violence or hatred on their platforms. i don't get the confusion over that

i'm not talking about the robinson guy or people like him, if he did what you said. i'm talking more the stuff like banning project veritas from twitter or lil girl soph from youtube. they say hate isn't allowed, but that's politically arbitrary. there's plenty of anti white stuff big on all the major tech platforms, but it flies because there's a narrative that there can't be racism against a majority group. imagine if netflix put out a "dear black people" as a counterpart to "dear white people"

Lenalee said: 

Tryptamine said: 

the "it's a private company, it can do what it wants cuz that's the law" argument falls apart when we enter new frontiers where the law isn't figured out yet, like what do we do when 5 or less companies control discourse

nestle is a private company following the law too, does that make it cool when it causes droughts in cali

 Sorry, when did we switch from talking about what is or isn't censorship and dive into talking about the shitty companies with child labor, unsustainable practices, pollution and all sorts of other mafioso like shit that actually affect the real world? 

Getting banned on Twitter and crying about it is not the same thing as Nestle draining natural water supplies and contributing to wastes.

You ignorant slut.

platforming and content exposure is extremely important in the current arrangement of our society. hence the whole fiasco with russia and facebook some years back where our government said russia was interfering with our election process