root_axis

215 ms·

1. 2821.▲
   by root_axis 7y ago

   They're obviously a search engine and not a publisher since the content is already published by definition.
2. 2822.▲
   by root_axis 7y ago

   > Each of those people engaging in uninformed conversations gets a vote that matters just as much as the vote of the people that built these platforms. I agree. Getting banned from YouTube doesn't prevent you from voting. YouTube
3. 2823.▲
   by root_axis 7y ago

   > Good joke. First of all, this site actively tries to ban political discussion Yet here we are. Are you banned yet? YouTube also bans certain types of political discussion as you are well aware... so what? > . Second, it's ti
4. 2824.▲
   by root_axis 7y ago

   > Which platforms in particular are you referring to? HN, reddit, twitter, facebook, instagram, voat, snapchat, tumblr, livejournal, gab, vimeo, dailymotion, metacafe and many others. > because it's where a substantial part of t
5. 2825.▲
   by root_axis 7y ago

   This is wrong. The law very explicitly states that companies are not liable for content uploaded by users and are also legally able to moderate their platform as they see fit. Google section 230.
6. 2826.▲
   by root_axis 7y ago

   > Outsized in comparison with what? With any of the other hundreds of platforms that cater to political discussion. > Political videos on youtube have billions of views So what? I'm not suggesting that YouTube isn't popu
7. 2827.▲
   by root_axis 7y ago

   > Are you suggesting that their impressionable young minds are uninfluenced by what they see on YouTube? They will be influenced by hundreds of factors, YouTube perhaps among them, but YouTube is not of any particular our outsized impo
8. 2828.▲
   by root_axis 7y ago

   The impact would be negligible, not only because the YouTube demographic skews very young (i.e. people who don't vote), but also because most of the content on YouTube is not political content. https://en.wikipedia.org/
9. 2829.▲
   by root_axis 7y ago

   > I'm saying that this behavior shouldn't be acceptable for a company that has such a strong grip on societal discourse YouTube doesn't have "a strong grip on societal discourse", it's a glorified video sh
10. 2830.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    By "free" I mean "at no cost to the user". If I wanted to host my videos on AWS or bare metal I'd have to pay for the privilege.
11. 2831.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    The same way we prevent small kids from visiting pornhub: through responsible supervision.
12. 2832.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    YouTube is just not that important. It's not some type of important political fixture, it's pretty universally regarded as a cesspool with regard to political discussion and most of the content is non-political anyway.
13. 2833.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    > No it's totally not a violation of anyone's rights, but that doesn't stop me from being able to oppose the idea. Well, I think everyone in this thread can at least agree that nothing should stop anyone from being able
14. 2834.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    If you believe that YouTube unjustly engages in censorship on their platform then boycott YouTube and encourage others to do so. Just because YouTube is popular doesn't mean YouTube is obligated to host your videos for free. In reality
15. 2835.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    Getting banned from YouTube is not a violation of individual rights. Forcing a company to host videos for free sounds like a violation of individual rights though.
16. 2836.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    That's their choice. If they don't like YouTube they should boycott YouTube, not leverage the government to force YouTube to host arbitrary videos for free.
17. 2837.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    > They have a huge monopoly on our time and attention and that's extremely disturbing. You mean that you willingly give them control over your time and attention.
18. 2838.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    Youtube is the most popular video website on the internet. This makes it a fundamental human right. I am being sarcastic.
19. 2839.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    > reflects the indisputable reality of the proposal No, it reflects your stubborn partisan viewpoint which I'm uninterested in debating. https://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan..
20. 2840.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    Your proposed wording is disingenuous partisan spin that encodes your own point of you into the question. Fortunately, even partisan polling organizations wouldn't waste their time with such a stilted questionnaire.
21. 2841.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    I love RN, but it's the wrong tool for the job if you only care about one platform.
22. 2842.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    > Politicians do what their constituents want now? That's new. Clearly there is a strong correlation between political identity and the politicians that are elected to represent those identities since democrats overwhelmingly vote
23. 2843.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    Sounds to me like you're just disregarding anything that doesn't fit your narrative of "both sides support NN". A bunch of subreddit posts are not evidence of anything except the trends of a reddit bubble, however, if yo
24. 2844.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/search/?q=net%20neutrali... So is that anecdotal or QED proof that republicans hate net neutrality?
25. 2845.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    > What is your evidence? I cited mine above. My evidence is the congressional record which indicates republican politicians overwhelmingly oppose NN and democratic politicians overwhelmingly support it. I wouldn't regard a single
26. 2846.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    Huh? red & blue definitely don't agree on NN. I know some might point to poll numbers that suggest a majority of republicans support NN, but its important to remember that republicans are ideologically opposed to politicians that
27. 2847.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    Forcing Facebook to give up competitor platforms seems reasonable, but doesn't really solve the problem of the Facebook platform. We need to tackle Facebook at a cultural level or come up with laws that will protect privacy from a
28. 2848.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    A house is absolutely an asset, otherwise you couldn't leverage a house's equity as liquid capital, while you also continue to live in the house.
29. 2849.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    Material objects cannot be hashed. It is physically impossible.
30. 2850.▲
    by root_axis 7y ago

    > Hide annoying ads and protect against malware on the web Damn, that is some duplicitous ad copy, especially in light of recent events.