I think the question of why they waited so long and then all banned him around the same time is much ado about nothing. It's a copycat industry. Once one domino fell it's easy to see why the others followed.

The idea that Apple and Google would have coordinated on this is kind of laughable. I'd be more likely to believe that Apple tried to patent the idea of banning Alex Jones and then sued Google for copying them than there being coordination between the two.

Teague wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Alternate hypothesis/question...

Could Youtube be held liable for not enforcing its TOS if it is demonstrable that Alex Jones's actions via Youtube caused harm?

Now that's an interesting question but I would think not because how can you work that back? iow if you make a vid and somebody goes and kills someone, well only now can you get banned after the fact. Until the line is crossed you can't ban someone and when it's crossed it's too late and I'd imagine it would be a total mess in court.

“It would be a total mess in court” would be enough for Google’s lawyers to can the account. A Corporation’s behaviour can often be assessed by perceived risk.

felltoearth wrote:

Teague wrote:

felltoearth wrote:Alternate hypothesis/question...

Could Youtube be held liable for not enforcing its TOS if it is demonstrable that Alex Jones's actions via Youtube caused harm?

Now that's an interesting question but I would think not because how can you work that back? iow if you make a vid and somebody goes and kills someone, well only now can you get banned after the fact. Until the line is crossed you can't ban someone and when it's crossed it's too late and I'd imagine it would be a total mess in court.

“It would be a total mess in court” would be enough for Google’s lawyers to can the account. A Corporation’s behaviour can often be assessed by perceived risk.

It also speaks to why other companies followed Apple's lead. So long as all the major players let him go on they could hide behind "everybody is doing it". But once one dropped it the inevitable question to the others is "why haven't you?".

purplerat wrote:I think the question of why they waited so long and then all banned him around the same time is much ado about nothing. It's a copycat industry. Once one domino fell it's easy to see why the others followed.

The idea that Apple and Google would have coordinated on this is kind of laughable.

I think the point being made is that they copied, not that they coordinated or did it because he broke the rules now instead of before. If you think industries banning people because they copy each other's decisions for optics instead of an actual reason, don't you think that could be a problem? Not with AJ, he's nobody's loss. But do you really have no problem with the precedent it sets?

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:I think the question of why they waited so long and then all banned him around the same time is much ado about nothing. It's a copycat industry. Once one domino fell it's easy to see why the others followed.

The idea that Apple and Google would have coordinated on this is kind of laughable.

I think the point being made is that they copied, not that they coordinated or did it because he broke the rules now instead of before. If you think industries banning people because they copy each other's decisions for optics instead of an actual reason, don't you think that could be a problem? Not with AJ, he's nobody's loss. But do you really have no problem with the precedent it sets?

It's not a matter of one or the other. They had reason to take action against him but hadn't, likely because it would have caused a stink from Jone's supporters, but once one did that changed where the others were most likely to get pressure from.

I'm not too worried about it because I don't buy into the idea that the major social media players have some sort of monopoly on free speech over the internet or that they could effectively limit anybody's right to free speech on the internet.

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:I think the question of why they waited so long and then all banned him around the same time is much ado about nothing. It's a copycat industry. Once one domino fell it's easy to see why the others followed.

The idea that Apple and Google would have coordinated on this is kind of laughable.

I think the point being made is that they copied, not that they coordinated or did it because he broke the rules now instead of before. If you think industries banning people because they copy each other's decisions for optics instead of an actual reason, don't you think that could be a problem? Not with AJ, he's nobody's loss. But do you really have no problem with the precedent it sets?

It's not a matter of one or the other. They had reason to take action against him but hadn't, likely because it would have caused a stink from Jone's supporters, but once one did that changed where the others were most likely to get pressure from.

Glad you cleared that up. I wasn't buying the "He's breaking the rules now" nonsense either.

I'm not too worried about it because I don't buy into the idea that the major social media players have some sort of monopoly on free speech over the internet or that they could effectively limit anybody's right to free speech on the internet.

They obviously don't, but they clearly provide greater publicity and access. I wouldn't argue that this publicity and access should be unlimited, but it should be done in a clear and consistent way instead of the whim of optics. That could have some pretty negative results, don't you think?

SafeAsMilk wrote:
They obviously don't, but they clearly provide greater publicity and access. I wouldn't argue that this publicity and access should be unlimited, but it should be done in a clear and consistent way instead of the whim of optics. That could have some pretty negative results, don't you think?

These are businesses. The only negative results they are worried about are the ones that hurt their bottom line. I'm not saying that's good or bad, it's just what it is. But it's also never really been hidden away from the public that they operate this way.

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
They obviously don't, but they clearly provide greater publicity and access. I wouldn't argue that this publicity and access should be unlimited, but it should be done in a clear and consistent way instead of the whim of optics. That could have some pretty negative results, don't you think?

These are businesses. The only negative results they are worried about are the ones that hurt their bottom line. I'm not saying that's good or bad, it's just what it is. But it's also never really been hidden away from the public that they operate this way.

I don't know, pretending that they're doing it for rules being broken certainly seems to have fooled some folks in this thread.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
They obviously don't, but they clearly provide greater publicity and access. I wouldn't argue that this publicity and access should be unlimited, but it should be done in a clear and consistent way instead of the whim of optics. That could have some pretty negative results, don't you think?

These are businesses. The only negative results they are worried about are the ones that hurt their bottom line. I'm not saying that's good or bad, it's just what it is. But it's also never really been hidden away from the public that they operate this way.

I don't know, pretending that they're doing it for rules being broken certainly seems to have fooled some folks in this thread.

Again, it's not one or the other.

They have those rules so that they can protect their business interest. It should come as no surprise that they will enforce their rules when it best serves their business interest and look the other way when it doesn't.

If you thought these companies have TOS agreements out of some benevolent desire to make the world a better place then you are sorely mistaken.

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
They obviously don't, but they clearly provide greater publicity and access. I wouldn't argue that this publicity and access should be unlimited, but it should be done in a clear and consistent way instead of the whim of optics. That could have some pretty negative results, don't you think?

These are businesses. The only negative results they are worried about are the ones that hurt their bottom line. I'm not saying that's good or bad, it's just what it is. But it's also never really been hidden away from the public that they operate this way.

I don't know, pretending that they're doing it for rules being broken certainly seems to have fooled some folks in this thread.

Again, it's not one or the other.

They have those rules so that they can protect their business interest. It should come as no surprise that they will enforce their rules when it best serves their business interest and look the other way when it doesn't.

If you thought these companies have TOS agreements out of some benevolent desire to make the world a better place then you are sorely mistaken.

If you don't act on someone breaking the rules until it becomes an optics issue, then it is one and not the other. Again, I'm not the one here pretending the TOS is the reason for the action.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:
These are businesses. The only negative results they are worried about are the ones that hurt their bottom line. I'm not saying that's good or bad, it's just what it is. But it's also never really been hidden away from the public that they operate this way.

I don't know, pretending that they're doing it for rules being broken certainly seems to have fooled some folks in this thread.

Again, it's not one or the other.

They have those rules so that they can protect their business interest. It should come as no surprise that they will enforce their rules when it best serves their business interest and look the other way when it doesn't.

If you thought these companies have TOS agreements out of some benevolent desire to make the world a better place then you are sorely mistaken.

If you don't act on someone breaking the rules until it becomes an optics issue, then it is one and not the other. Again, I'm not the one here pretending the TOS is the reason for the action.

It is though. Because once it becomes an optics issue and people point to the TOS and say "hey, this guy is clearly in violation of your rules why aren't you doing anything about it?" it forces the move.

Alternatively, if he wasn't in violation of their TOS they could hide behind that as an explanation for not banning him. Which is exactly what Twitter did.

But that is not the ToS or Youtube's moderation, but rather YouTube not wanting to deal with potential lawsuits over its content creators not following the rules.

For example, YouTube had an explicit restriction against copyrighted material and yet look how many uploads of music and media there are on YouTube. The ONLY way YouTube takes them down is if enough reports are generated. That is not YouTube engaging in strict moderation as if they care about copyrights, but they do care about potential lawsuits and damages to their brand. They take action AFTER official complaints.

It goes back to what I said earlier. YouTube is not interested in combating hate speech. They are not interested in helping minorities in a systemic oppressed society. They are interested quite simply in the value of their brand and their image. The dollar speaks louder than ethics.

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
I don't know, pretending that they're doing it for rules being broken certainly seems to have fooled some folks in this thread.

Again, it's not one or the other.

They have those rules so that they can protect their business interest. It should come as no surprise that they will enforce their rules when it best serves their business interest and look the other way when it doesn't.

If you thought these companies have TOS agreements out of some benevolent desire to make the world a better place then you are sorely mistaken.

If you don't act on someone breaking the rules until it becomes an optics issue, then it is one and not the other. Again, I'm not the one here pretending the TOS is the reason for the action.

It is though. Because once it becomes an optics issue and people point to the TOS and say "hey, this guy is clearly in violation of your rules why aren't you doing anything about it?" it forces the move.

Alternatively, if he wasn't in violation of their TOS they could hide behind that as an explanation for not banning him. Which is exactly what Twitter did.

You mean delete the Tweets that break their TOS.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/10/media/infowars-twitter-alex-jones/index.html

Or in the case of Trump, change their TOS to acommodate.

https://gizmodo.com/trump-is-never-getting-banned-from-twitter-1818764901

As is the case of all companies involved, the TOS is sufficiently wooly to cover their asses either way, depending on which they feel is more in their best interest.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

purplerat wrote:
Again, it's not one or the other.

They have those rules so that they can protect their business interest. It should come as no surprise that they will enforce their rules when it best serves their business interest and look the other way when it doesn't.

If you thought these companies have TOS agreements out of some benevolent desire to make the world a better place then you are sorely mistaken.

If you don't act on someone breaking the rules until it becomes an optics issue, then it is one and not the other. Again, I'm not the one here pretending the TOS is the reason for the action.

It is though. Because once it becomes an optics issue and people point to the TOS and say "hey, this guy is clearly in violation of your rules why aren't you doing anything about it?" it forces the move.

Alternatively, if he wasn't in violation of their TOS they could hide behind that as an explanation for not banning him. Which is exactly what Twitter did.

You mean delete the Tweets that break their TOS.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/10/media/infowars-twitter-alex-jones/index.html

Or in the case of Trump, change their TOS to acommodate.

https://gizmodo.com/trump-is-never-getting-banned-from-twitter-1818764901

As is the case of all companies involved, the TOS is sufficiently wooly to cover their asses either way, depending on which they feel is more in their best interest.

Yup. And that's why these companies have TOS and similar agreements and why they word them to be sufficiently flexible to whatever suits them at the moment.

Their only purpose is for these companies to protect themselves both legally and optically which is exactly what they did here. I guess if you want to say it has nothing to do with the TOS agreement because all TOS agreements are basically bullshit then fair enough.

willhud9 wrote:For example, YouTube had an explicit restriction against copyrighted material and yet look how many uploads of music and media there are on YouTube. The ONLY way YouTube takes them down is if enough reports are generated. That is not YouTube engaging in strict moderation as if they care about copyrights, but they do care about potential lawsuits and damages to their brand. They take action AFTER official complaints.

Correct. Youtube takes no action on copyright infringements on its own accord. Says so in its ToS, Section 6 G:: "YouTube will remove all Content if properly notified that such Content infringes on another's intellectual property rights." It does have software trawling through clips which use algorithms that detect copyright infractions, but only those, who pay a subscription fee for its use benefit from it.

willhud9 wrote:It goes back to what I said earlier. YouTube is not interested in combating hate speech. They are not interested in helping minorities in a systemic oppressed society. They are interested quite simply in the value of their brand and their image. The dollar speaks louder than ethics.

Right again. Youtube is only interested in covering its arse. Nothing matters except for the bottom line. I said as much in this post, and so have numerous other posters. You'll need to find someone who denies that if you wish to turn your statement into an argument. Good luck.

It is all about money and nothing else.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:

Not at all - Matt B had all the information and we all know why AJ was banned as we read the same information everyone else did which is why nobody else has an issue. Youtube are not at the mercy of Matt B's ridiculous calls for more transparency.

The rules might have existsed before but he got banned now because he broke the rules now. Why are you both trying so desperately to make this bigger than it is?

Because you keep contradicting yourself, and making the same point as Matt_B. You said:

The real surprise and conspiracy here is why did it take so long? Who's dick was AJ sucking to stay in YT?

If we have all the information and AJ wasn't breaking the rules until just now, then why are you wondering why he wasn't banned for so long?

I said it once and so what? I'm not making the same point as MB and that comment is one sentence out of a couple of hundred proving him wrong - what of it?

I said quite clearly what of it. If you didn't mean it then you can just say so. But if you did, then it completely contradicts everything else you've been saying and most of your criticisms of MB, which is strange.

When you learn how to read, come back and join in a conversation. Nobody else is having issues comprehending what's going on except you, as always. I'm not going to explain it.

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Because you keep contradicting yourself, and making the same point as Matt_B. You said:

If we have all the information and AJ wasn't breaking the rules until just now, then why are you wondering why he wasn't banned for so long?

I said it once and so what? I'm not making the same point as MB and that comment is one sentence out of a couple of hundred proving him wrong - what of it?

I said quite clearly what of it. If you didn't mean it then you can just say so. But if you did, then it completely contradicts everything else you've been saying and most of your criticisms of MB, which is strange.

When you learn how to read, come back and join in a conversation. Nobody else is having issues comprehending what's going on except you, as always. I'm not going to explain it.

I read and comprehended you just fine, including your feeble attempts at hand-wave away what you said. Come back when you learn how to keep your story straight.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:


I said it once and so what? I'm not making the same point as MB and that comment is one sentence out of a couple of hundred proving him wrong - what of it?

I said quite clearly what of it. If you didn't mean it then you can just say so. But if you did, then it completely contradicts everything else you've been saying and most of your criticisms of MB, which is strange.

When you learn how to read, come back and join in a conversation. Nobody else is having issues comprehending what's going on except you, as always. I'm not going to explain it.

I read and comprehended you just fine, including your feeble attempts at hand-wave away what you said. Come back when you learn how to keep your story straight.

Feel free to continue showing off your ignorance if you want. The thread has all the information you need

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Teague wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
I said quite clearly what of it. If you didn't mean it then you can just say so. But if you did, then it completely contradicts everything else you've been saying and most of your criticisms of MB, which is strange.

When you learn how to read, come back and join in a conversation. Nobody else is having issues comprehending what's going on except you, as always. I'm not going to explain it.

I read and comprehended you just fine, including your feeble attempts at hand-wave away what you said. Come back when you learn how to keep your story straight.

Feel free to continue showing off your ignorance if you want.

Feel free to keep attacking me because I pointed out that you can't keep your story straight. I'm sure it totally distracts someone from your inability to do so.

The thread has all the information you need

Yeah, I know. If you go to the top of the page and read, you can see after you left I started talking to someone who could actually keep his story straight. Go away, adults are talking.