9 ms·

I'm currently tickling my brain with the hypothesis that this is a next-level move by her team, to get her to publicly "emphasize the importance of free speech

I'm currently tickling my brain with the hypothesis that this is a next-level move by her team, to get her to publicly "emphasize the importance of free speech and the role that YouTube plays in protecting it", so that it will become more inconvenient for her (or for the rest of Youtube) to do more things that interfere with free speech. Analogize this to publicly praising a corrupt general for doing or planning something good that he hasn't actually been doing. It's difficult for him to turn down the praise ("No, I seriously haven't done anything to deserve this"), and meanwhile it focuses eyes on him and pressures him to actually do the thing. I read about the tactic in a fictional book once, I'm sure it works. :-)

cbozeman 6y ago
Well that won't work... former President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace prize but he went on to involve the United States in additional foreign wars and went ham with drone strikes.
- DSingularity 6y ago
  Perfect example. He also took programs to the next level — eg first president to authorize the US to assassinate its own citizens!
  - barbacoa 6y ago
    And signed a law authorizing indefinite detention of american citizens without trial. Surprised he didn't win any champion of due process awards.
    - pupdogg 6y ago
      Add let’s not forget the fact that he put digital surveillance on steroids! People tend to forget Snowden real easily nowadays
      - spicyramen 6y ago
        And allowed the war on drugs to escalate via fast and furious program
        adamrezich 6y ago
        yo but despite everything listed above, like, everyone loved him when he was the sitting President many still think he's one of the greatest Presidents of all time man what is up with that tho
        perl4ever 6y ago
        I saw an article recently where some school was being renamed for the sort of reasons people call "cancel culture" these days and they explicitly rejected renaming it after Obama, because he was an "oppressor" due to the (allegedly very vigorous) deportation of undocumented immigrants during his terms. For me, he's the greatest President because of the ACA.
        setpatchaddress 6y ago
        Greater than FDR? You sure about that? Obama sucked at his job. Like, nearly Carter-level blindness to political reality, but with more personal arrogance. Obama was better than Shrub. Shrub was a war criminal, so you'd have to hope Obama was better. The ACA was emblematic of Obama's unwillingness to lift a finger to help build the Democratic grassroots. The Democrats in Congress allowed the ACA to be loaded with poison pills due to Obama's insistence on a bipartisan vote. The result: no votes from the Gops, but it did cause the Democrats to lose the House since -- due to the Gop amendments -- the good parts didn't kick in until well after the midterm elections and the bad parts started immediately. So popular was the ACA, in the end, that it only survived the Trump years because McCain lost his temper on the day of the Senate vote to repeal it.
        perl4ever 6y ago
        I don't compare him to FDR, because I have no real perspective on presidents way before I was born. I don't know if he was better than Millard Fillmore either. I do know many people hated FDR with a passion and probably still do to the extent they are still alive.
  - Leparamour 6y ago
    It's easy to be evil when you have a benevolent press on your side. Still people think Obama's biggest scandals were wearing a tan suit and ordering Dijon mustard.
- specialist 6y ago
  Yup. Ditto Kissinger, Arafat / Ragin / Peres. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_la... To say nothing of the source of the prize itself.
- kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
  That's more the fault of the Nobel committee. You can't hamstring a leader by giving them an award for no reason and hoping that affects their decision making in the future.
- vkou 6y ago
  The Nobel peace prize was not for anything he did, it was the committee raising a large middle finger at the former Bush regime.
  - cbozeman 6y ago
    Bush started wars in two countries, Obama started wars in another five. The fact they didn't rescind the prize is disgusting, and shows you what a joke the committee is, as well as the award itself. What's most disgusting is that it was a political ploy based on the fact that President Obama was America's first black president. There's no other logical conclusion that any thinking person could arrive at, because at the time he received it, he had done, quite literally, almost nothing of substance.
    - vkou 6y ago
      As I said - it was a rebuke of Bush. The United States was at a very low point in world public opinion, thanks to his efforts at the time. None of this excuses the imperial adventures that followed. Libya's still in a civil war, by the way. (Although to be fair to Obama, Europe was chomping at the bit to go to war with it.)
ajxs 6y ago
> "...so that it will become more inconvenient for her (or for the rest of Youtube) to do more things that interfere with free speech." This is a good theory, I don't think it reflects the situation though. She used her 'acceptance speech' for this absurd accolade to emphasise the importance of censorship in ensuring freedom, that war is peace, freedom is slavery, so on so on. If this was the aim, it clearly didn't work. Given her speech, the irony is either totally lost on her, or she legitimately thinks that YouTube is such a monolithic entity that the truth is whatever she says it is.
- specialist 6y ago
  aka Freedom Speeches™
  - zo1 6y ago
    Censorship is Freedom!

cbozeman 6y ago

Well that won't work... former President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace prize but he went on to involve the United States in additional foreign wars and went ham with drone strikes.

DSingularity 6y ago
Perfect example. He also took programs to the next level — eg first president to authorize the US to assassinate its own citizens!
- barbacoa 6y ago
  And signed a law authorizing indefinite detention of american citizens without trial. Surprised he didn't win any champion of due process awards.
  - pupdogg 6y ago
    Add let’s not forget the fact that he put digital surveillance on steroids! People tend to forget Snowden real easily nowadays
    - spicyramen 6y ago
      And allowed the war on drugs to escalate via fast and furious program
      - adamrezich 6y ago
        yo but despite everything listed above, like, everyone loved him when he was the sitting President many still think he's one of the greatest Presidents of all time man what is up with that tho
        perl4ever 6y ago
        I saw an article recently where some school was being renamed for the sort of reasons people call "cancel culture" these days and they explicitly rejected renaming it after Obama, because he was an "oppressor" due to the (allegedly very vigorous) deportation of undocumented immigrants during his terms. For me, he's the greatest President because of the ACA.
        setpatchaddress 6y ago
        Greater than FDR? You sure about that? Obama sucked at his job. Like, nearly Carter-level blindness to political reality, but with more personal arrogance. Obama was better than Shrub. Shrub was a war criminal, so you'd have to hope Obama was better. The ACA was emblematic of Obama's unwillingness to lift a finger to help build the Democratic grassroots. The Democrats in Congress allowed the ACA to be loaded with poison pills due to Obama's insistence on a bipartisan vote. The result: no votes from the Gops, but it did cause the Democrats to lose the House since -- due to the Gop amendments -- the good parts didn't kick in until well after the midterm elections and the bad parts started immediately. So popular was the ACA, in the end, that it only survived the Trump years because McCain lost his temper on the day of the Senate vote to repeal it.
        perl4ever 6y ago
        I don't compare him to FDR, because I have no real perspective on presidents way before I was born. I don't know if he was better than Millard Fillmore either. I do know many people hated FDR with a passion and probably still do to the extent they are still alive.
- Leparamour 6y ago
  It's easy to be evil when you have a benevolent press on your side. Still people think Obama's biggest scandals were wearing a tan suit and ordering Dijon mustard.
specialist 6y ago
Yup. Ditto Kissinger, Arafat / Ragin / Peres. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_la... To say nothing of the source of the prize itself.
kevin_thibedeau 6y ago
That's more the fault of the Nobel committee. You can't hamstring a leader by giving them an award for no reason and hoping that affects their decision making in the future.
vkou 6y ago
The Nobel peace prize was not for anything he did, it was the committee raising a large middle finger at the former Bush regime.
- cbozeman 6y ago
  Bush started wars in two countries, Obama started wars in another five. The fact they didn't rescind the prize is disgusting, and shows you what a joke the committee is, as well as the award itself. What's most disgusting is that it was a political ploy based on the fact that President Obama was America's first black president. There's no other logical conclusion that any thinking person could arrive at, because at the time he received it, he had done, quite literally, almost nothing of substance.
  - vkou 6y ago
    As I said - it was a rebuke of Bush. The United States was at a very low point in world public opinion, thanks to his efforts at the time. None of this excuses the imperial adventures that followed. Libya's still in a civil war, by the way. (Although to be fair to Obama, Europe was chomping at the bit to go to war with it.)

ajxs 6y ago

> "...so that it will become more inconvenient for her (or for the rest of Youtube) to do more things that interfere with free speech." This is a good theory, I don't think it reflects the situation though. She used her 'acceptance speech' for this absurd accolade to emphasise the importance of censorship in ensuring freedom, that war is peace, freedom is slavery, so on so on. If this was the aim, it clearly didn't work. Given her speech, the irony is either totally lost on her, or she legitimately thinks that YouTube is such a monolithic entity that the truth is whatever she says it is.

specialist 6y ago
aka Freedom Speeches™
- zo1 6y ago
  Censorship is Freedom!