ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
doser reminds town that he's perceived by many to be a self-impressed pretentious fop:
:thumb:
I agree...
:thumb:
Last edited:
I agree...
Racists have even worse to say about me and I'm about as concerned with either (and for much the same reason).doser reminds town that he's perceived by many to be a self-impressed pretentious fop
Racist....
any other self-descriptive terms?
:thumb:
load of crap
any other self-descriptive terms?
load of crap
i'm sure there's some retards here
Just out of idle curiosity, who do you see as your core audience?
I'll let you rebut your own
Exactly.
I think he's going to be sued by Klein at some point for infringement. lain:Is the little guy still yapping about your heels?
Sad ain't it?
:sigh:
They've been doing both. And removing ad revenue is censorship if a channel has to close or reduce content even though they are following the rules.That would mean YouTube is not censoring, because they keep the stuff available.
What the company is doing is denying revenue.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
I would say they would have to be removing it entirely to justify calling it censorship.They've been doing both. And removing ad revenue is censorship if a channel has to close or reduce content even though they are following the rules.
I'd say stopping even in part would also qualify.I would say they would have to be removing it entirely to justify calling it censorship.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
Until that makes its way into your head you'll continue a variation on your "All Methodists and Muslims" mistake.
That would be to hand legitimacy to their implied claim to authority.I'd say stopping even in part would also qualify.
Yeah, it's how one defines "censorship". If we say it is stopping any speech anywhere under any condition, then censorship doesn't matter as everyone would agree there should be censorship and the threshold of good or bad censorship would be subjective.That would be to hand legitimacy to their implied claim to authority.
If they are just private companies doing as they please — or, in this case, acting possibly outside the law — then what they do is just style.
Or perhaps criminal.
Sent from my SM-G9250 using TOL mobile app
And I cannot make you see reason. So I suppose we are at an impasse.I can't make you stop repeating the mistake, so I suppose that leaves the conversation at an impasse.
And to claim I said "All" is the foundation that makes your claims wrong.... your "All Methodists and Muslims" mistake.
So how should we define it?Yeah, it's how one defines "censorship". If we say it is stopping any speech anywhere under any condition, then censorship doesn't matter as everyone would agree there should be censorship and the threshold of good or bad censorship would be subjective.
I think the government would be justified in censorship in some circumstances. Although given that governments are full of politicians, it's difficult to imagine one doing so without lying.So bad censorship would be censorship because of the government or born of lying.
OK.YouTube, FB, and Twitter all fall under the second one. As private companies they aren't the government (in the US), but they invited everyone to come and post anything so they could get ad money, and promised that the best content or trending content would be presented so more people would have access to it. And then when people made the content for YouTube and ad money was generated, they suddenly pulled the rug out from a host of people that tended right and a few people that tended left even though the people that tended right were following the rules. Lying isn't against the law in many cases, like this one, but it is bad enough that people should shame YouTube, FB, and Twitter.
In Europe, the government is getting involved with YouTube and how they censor.
No, that's just you playing at Sod's bit. You never raised the point in any respect until he waved it like a flag. I credited you with more sense than he exhibits and found your silence on the point confirmation, but that's life for you. And what follows is the rebuttal.And to claim I said "All" is the foundation that makes your claims wrong.
I can't see what you don't offer. Responding to my rebuttal on liberals, by way of example, wherein I noted the clear numbers contravening your claim, you attempted to read minds in lieu of utilizing that faculty.And I cannot make you see reason.