4 ms·

But he's completely free to set up his own website or platform. YouTube doesn't owe him the right to host his content, given he's never paid YouTube a penny, no

But he's completely free to set up his own website or platform. YouTube doesn't owe him the right to host his content, given he's never paid YouTube a penny, nor FB/Insta/etc. A newspaper doesn't owe him the right to print articles by him either, yet he's still free to set up his own newspaper. I don't understand your argument at all.

theplumber 4y ago
The hosting company could deplatform him as well. If only self hosting would be easier...
- rvz 4y ago
  There you go. They are totally clueless on how far the de-platforming can go. The domain provider, hosting companies can do the same and de-platform them as well. Perhaps lets go far to de-platform them of their bank accounts, credit cards, etc since they are too private companies? Can we also contact their phone / energy provider(s) to shut off their electricity as well so they cannot access the internet? So what is their response? Don't like it? "BuILd yOur Own VISa / mASteRcArD paymeNtS pLATFORM", "buIlD yOUr oWN IsP", "BuiLD YOUr oWN doMain PRoviDER", etc, etc. As I said, creating a big tech dystopia on trying to get those you don't like to be de-platformed off of the internet which the point is anyone can get this same treatment. Not just this single user.
  - gizajob 4y ago
    Be nice then.
    - rvz 4y ago
      Is that what you will say after the Big Tech companies have de-platformed you as well? It is not just Andrew Tate, but they will do this to anyone they don't like, and they do not care and won't ever change and this was a coordinated ban. Why wait until a social media mob appears to execute this mass ban? Like I said, this is creating a big tech dystopia on trying to get those you don't like to be de-platformed off of the internet via a mob, which the point is anyone can get this same treatment. Not just this single user and perhaps you think it's OK for the banks, payment platforms, etc to do the same? So the next time someone you like gets the same co-ordinated mass ban; let's tell them to 'Be nice' to the big tech companies. So on to the next 'villain' of the week.
      - gizajob 4y ago
        Turn your computer/smartphone off, is also good advice in a similar vein. I don't make a living from going around shouting my mouth off saying offensive and derogatory stuff about women, designed to trigger and demean them, so being deplatformed isn't a risk for me. While I'm a follower of Voltaires "I hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" line of libertarianism, at the same time large companies I totally understand don't have the compunction to be forced to do business with you and promote your agenda if it doesn't fit with theirs. The man in question still has the right to shout his mouth off all over the internet. It's just that now Google/FB/TikTok have realised it's not in their interest to have such a negative presence on their services. He doesn't need or deserve airtime on the monopolistic BBC or NBC either but I think you'd find it ludicrous proposition that he should be given it, free of charge, to promote whatever agenda he likes. He's still free to set up a website, stand on the street and tell people about his mysoginy, organise public meetings,you name it. The serious issue in this case is that his "it's just a bit of fun honest" get-out clause doesn't wash, because his mysoginistic talk is backed up with actual physical violence against women, and controlling and coercive behaviour toward them in the real world. So it's not a case of "OMFG platform capitalist monopolies shutting people down judge jury executioner no oversight OMFG" this is a case of real people at those companies deciding it's in everyone's interest they don't do business with him. A book publisher would do the same thing. Behind every company are people with feelings and concerns, not blank evil algorithms out to shutdown random lives with no comeback. Do you think the women working at Google/FB/TikTok were impressed with his content and want to work for companies that promote it?
      - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
        andrew tate is a violent misogynist human trafficker, banning him from everywhere on earth is not anywhere near dystopia or censorship.
        theplumber 4y ago
        How is he "human trafficker" ? Is there any source?
    - theplumber 4y ago
      "Nice" could get you in some chinese censorship. Are we back on banning magazines because they are not christian and they degrade the pure souls of human beings?
heurisko 4y ago
Fair enough if Tate broke ToS. But the difference is that YouTube, FB etc. present themselves as platforms, avoiding the liability of being seen as a publisher. If they start making value judgements on certain content, then they can't claim they act as a neutral platform, and as such should be held liable for other content. https://review.gale.com/2021/01/13/platform-or-publisher/ https://review.gale.com/2021/01/13/platform-or-publisher/
- bradleybuda 4y ago
  That’s a common misunderstanding: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...
totony 4y ago
Monopoly and antitrust laws have yet to be enforced for tech giants, but that doesn't make it right.
AzzieElbab 4y ago
`given he's never paid YouTube a penny` - this is not how yt gets paid. One day someone will sue them for the income yt earned off a creator they demonetize/ban. ps - never actually heard about him
- gizajob 4y ago
  I realise completely this is not how yt gets paid... but virtually everything else in the economy works on contracts and payment. YouTube says "you don't owe us money, because we're freemium and are so good at the internet we'll handle all that, just accept these terms of service and it's a deal". It's a very non-standard way of doing business. I'm sure suing them for demonetising a creator would go absolutely nowhere and likely lose pretty quickly in court, because they don't owe you the right of doing business with you, or continuing to do business with you, should you fall foul of the terms set out. YouTube could also lucratively host content like pornography but that's just not the business they want to be in. Neither is hateful speech that has become obvious enough to upset enough of their customers to the point they will complain about it.
apostacy 4y ago
So called "private platforms" don't exist on the internet. If YouTube really wants to be completely private, than the government should physically sever any backbone connections over public land. Let Google pay for every inch of fiber, and negotiate with every single property owner, every step of the way. Then and only then will they actually have a private platform where they can ban anyone for any reason. Until then, they are imposing on the public, and the public has every right to require them to respect our most foundational values of freedom of speech.

theplumber 4y ago

The hosting company could deplatform him as well. If only self hosting would be easier...

rvz 4y ago
There you go. They are totally clueless on how far the de-platforming can go. The domain provider, hosting companies can do the same and de-platform them as well. Perhaps lets go far to de-platform them of their bank accounts, credit cards, etc since they are too private companies? Can we also contact their phone / energy provider(s) to shut off their electricity as well so they cannot access the internet? So what is their response? Don't like it? "BuILd yOur Own VISa / mASteRcArD paymeNtS pLATFORM", "buIlD yOUr oWN IsP", "BuiLD YOUr oWN doMain PRoviDER", etc, etc. As I said, creating a big tech dystopia on trying to get those you don't like to be de-platformed off of the internet which the point is anyone can get this same treatment. Not just this single user.
- gizajob 4y ago
  Be nice then.
  - rvz 4y ago
    Is that what you will say after the Big Tech companies have de-platformed you as well? It is not just Andrew Tate, but they will do this to anyone they don't like, and they do not care and won't ever change and this was a coordinated ban. Why wait until a social media mob appears to execute this mass ban? Like I said, this is creating a big tech dystopia on trying to get those you don't like to be de-platformed off of the internet via a mob, which the point is anyone can get this same treatment. Not just this single user and perhaps you think it's OK for the banks, payment platforms, etc to do the same? So the next time someone you like gets the same co-ordinated mass ban; let's tell them to 'Be nice' to the big tech companies. So on to the next 'villain' of the week.
    - gizajob 4y ago
      Turn your computer/smartphone off, is also good advice in a similar vein. I don't make a living from going around shouting my mouth off saying offensive and derogatory stuff about women, designed to trigger and demean them, so being deplatformed isn't a risk for me. While I'm a follower of Voltaires "I hate what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" line of libertarianism, at the same time large companies I totally understand don't have the compunction to be forced to do business with you and promote your agenda if it doesn't fit with theirs. The man in question still has the right to shout his mouth off all over the internet. It's just that now Google/FB/TikTok have realised it's not in their interest to have such a negative presence on their services. He doesn't need or deserve airtime on the monopolistic BBC or NBC either but I think you'd find it ludicrous proposition that he should be given it, free of charge, to promote whatever agenda he likes. He's still free to set up a website, stand on the street and tell people about his mysoginy, organise public meetings,you name it. The serious issue in this case is that his "it's just a bit of fun honest" get-out clause doesn't wash, because his mysoginistic talk is backed up with actual physical violence against women, and controlling and coercive behaviour toward them in the real world. So it's not a case of "OMFG platform capitalist monopolies shutting people down judge jury executioner no oversight OMFG" this is a case of real people at those companies deciding it's in everyone's interest they don't do business with him. A book publisher would do the same thing. Behind every company are people with feelings and concerns, not blank evil algorithms out to shutdown random lives with no comeback. Do you think the women working at Google/FB/TikTok were impressed with his content and want to work for companies that promote it?
    - FrenchDevRemote 4y ago
      andrew tate is a violent misogynist human trafficker, banning him from everywhere on earth is not anywhere near dystopia or censorship.
      - theplumber 4y ago
        How is he "human trafficker" ? Is there any source?
  - theplumber 4y ago
    "Nice" could get you in some chinese censorship. Are we back on banning magazines because they are not christian and they degrade the pure souls of human beings?

heurisko 4y ago

Fair enough if Tate broke ToS. But the difference is that YouTube, FB etc. present themselves as platforms, avoiding the liability of being seen as a publisher. If they start making value judgements on certain content, then they can't claim they act as a neutral platform, and as such should be held liable for other content. https://review.gale.com/2021/01/13/platform-or-publisher/ https://review.gale.com/2021/01/13/platform-or-publisher/

bradleybuda 4y ago
That’s a common misunderstanding: https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act/ https://www.techdirt.com/2020/06/23/hello-youve-been-referre...

totony 4y ago

Monopoly and antitrust laws have yet to be enforced for tech giants, but that doesn't make it right.

AzzieElbab 4y ago

`given he's never paid YouTube a penny` - this is not how yt gets paid. One day someone will sue them for the income yt earned off a creator they demonetize/ban. ps - never actually heard about him

gizajob 4y ago
I realise completely this is not how yt gets paid... but virtually everything else in the economy works on contracts and payment. YouTube says "you don't owe us money, because we're freemium and are so good at the internet we'll handle all that, just accept these terms of service and it's a deal". It's a very non-standard way of doing business. I'm sure suing them for demonetising a creator would go absolutely nowhere and likely lose pretty quickly in court, because they don't owe you the right of doing business with you, or continuing to do business with you, should you fall foul of the terms set out. YouTube could also lucratively host content like pornography but that's just not the business they want to be in. Neither is hateful speech that has become obvious enough to upset enough of their customers to the point they will complain about it.

apostacy 4y ago

So called "private platforms" don't exist on the internet. If YouTube really wants to be completely private, than the government should physically sever any backbone connections over public land. Let Google pay for every inch of fiber, and negotiate with every single property owner, every step of the way. Then and only then will they actually have a private platform where they can ban anyone for any reason. Until then, they are imposing on the public, and the public has every right to require them to respect our most foundational values of freedom of speech.