• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


  • Birthday January 1

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Some where within the space-time continuom
  1. Big Tech Monopolies

    Which I think is the point. It was taken down because it was offensive to a group which Youtube champions and not because of the offensive nature of the content.
  2. Russia probe

    Europe "hesitated" prior to Brexit when the Russians murdered other ex-kgb agents that had defected and were living in England. If they can make a buck the europeans are not going to anything to rock the boat and that has been true for quite some time or less we forget the Iranian food for oil scandal, etc.
  3. Big Tech Monopolies

    The original video is back on Youtube: So all that was acomplished was that Youtube got egg on it's face, conservtives were given more evidence that Youtube is biased against them, and Crowder got a hell lot of free publicity.
  4. Russia probe

    Yia they have been using radiation and other type of nasty crap since the 1990's.
  5. Big Tech Monopolies

    "While I dont appreciate the attitude, then that settles it. Subject matter or audience aside, they were not allowed to film. That is the end of the discussion. Everything else is irrelevant." Not exactly, if they have such a policy but allow "friendly" videos of their events being posted then they are essentially legally estopped from attempting to have an "offensive" video pulled from Youtube. Also if you actually listen to the Crowder videos dealing with the pullling of the video you will learn that Youtube pulled the video on it's own, noone (especially not the Conference promoters are any participent) actually complained. Youtube decided it was offensive and against it's rules on its own. "Now the hypothetical you're getting at; if SXSW had been an open event w/o taping restrictions, and YT had pulled content because "they" disagreed with it's political message then, well, I mean, that's not how I mod, but I guess that's up to them? " Well they can certainly decide what there rules are for allowing or banning content. However, those rules have to be apllied across the board and not just on content they personally dislike or against people who hold views they do not agree with. Essentialy their Code of Conduct and Community Standards are part of the contract they make with content makers. If they show favoratism or pick and choose what "offensive" content they will deem as bannable they open themselves up for a lawsuit. Further, they will get exceedingly bad repurcussions as advertisers might pull their adverts so as not to be in the middle of a political battle.
  6. Russia probe

    "I think I was thinking more of diplomatic and economic muskle than military, but you may be right; different views should be considered." Russia does not care about diplomatic sanctions or outcomes. On the other hand the fact that economic sanctions would serious impact euopean economic interests isimportant. But then again that is one of the reasons why almost identical attacks by the Russians on persons in the UK which occured prior to the Brexit vote never led to serious economic sanctions.
  7. Russia probe

    It was the ex-Ukranian leader, but he was poisoned in the Ukraine so it was not an attack on a NATO member, which the posionings in London were which in and of themselves are considered acts of war.
  8. Big Tech Monopolies

    "Also isn't single party consent, not, um, consent? If I want to capture media of you and a host, then clearly the host has given consent, but the subject hasn't?" In some states you cannot not record a conversation unless both parties agree (two party consent state). In orther states one party can legally record a conversation whether or not the other party agrees to it (single party consent state). Texas is a single party consent state. "As for removing the video on grounds of privacy, yes, i'd say that unless everyone in that room consented to being on video, then it was an invasion of their privacy to post it, and therefore a breach of the ToS, independent of the laws of texas (which are, imo, bs and should change)." It was a public meeting. There is no such thing as an expectation of privacy when you attend a public meeting. "Re: Filming in public -> It's all about how the laws work, I am aware of places where unless you get the consent of everyone in the video, you aren't allowed (supposed) to publish it. " Yes, in cases where the video is taken in a two party consent state. " It's hilarious. If a non-trans person were to make those jokes, they would be offensive, in bad taste, and probably removable? But Erin is trans, so it's okay." Totally disagree. either a subject is so offensive or touchy that noone can talk about it or all discussions (and jokes) are permissable. I may agree with you that the Crowder skit was in poor taste and offensive, that does not mean that such jokes can be banned. Of course Youtube being a private party can do so, but it can do so according to their policies, and their policies have to be uniformly applied so that either Crowders skit is permissable or Erin's must also be banned. Otherwise Youtube is setting itself up for a major lawsuit. "Also, as we've agreed on before, YouTube's rules are YouTube's rules. If they have a rule that if someone in the video complains to them that they don't want their image online, an YouTube evaluates the claim and removes the video, then the poster doesn't really have any recourse, except, I guess, I to leave YouTube?" So you really think that if a member of the audience in Erin's skit was caught on video he could complain to Youtube and they would pull the video? That is not how it works, ever, unless it's a private conversation or the video was produced illegally. "It's allagous to groups "owning" "swear words" such as n-word, c-word, etc...the trans community owns jokes around identiy, which i'm fine with." Except that groups do not "own" swear words and noone has a right to being depicted only in the light that they prefer. "Also, SXSW is a private conference, to which tickets are sold which means that all attendee must follow the obligations of the ticket issuer, or face removal or persecution." That does not mean that SXSW specifically prohibits people who bought tickets from taking videos of the event. I am aware that in certain circumstances such policies apply (such as in concerts) but in such cases the policy is conspicuously posted and usually disclosed in the back of the ticket stubs. "So when Youtube takes down the video they're not saying "Well we can do whatever we want because it's our site". What they're saying is "We have a policy to allow legal videos under Fair Use but you Steven Crowder are an EXCEPTION to our policy and will be punished at our whim." Lenlo's reply is correct. "As for privacy, not really. At events like SXSW or PAX or any con really, recording panels and such has always been perfectly fine. It is assumed by being there that you consent to being filmed. Wouldnt be surprised if it was in the ToS for attending." Moreover, even if such a policy exisisted it would have to be nuetrally enforced. So that if a trans-gender person recorded a video of the conference it too would have to be taken down or both Yolutube and the conference organizer would be subject to a lawsuit. "Crowder would not have gone into an NAACP or BLM meeting and start trolling white power tag lines because that is not generally accepted behavior. Doing the same at an arts and culture fesitval is in equal bad taste." Sure, but you do not ban a video, a skit, a tv program, or movie because its is in bad taste. Almost all jokes by John Oliver, Samantha Bee, etc. are offensive to some group. The difference is that you do not like trans genders offended but allow Comedians to say things (religious jokes that are at the expense of the Catholic Curch or christianity in general) that members of other groups find deeply offensive. Comedy (if not free speech generally) requires that the Comedian have the latitude to offend. "
  9. Russia probe

    "I was thinking less the killing and more the expulsion of 23 Russian diplomats and Russias less than pleasant response to that." Same things happened a few years back when another former KGB agent was poisoned by Russian agents with a very lethal poison. "its become 100% clear there was indeed meddling in the election" Everyone but Trump conceded that point even before the election as the leaks of Clinton and the DNC emails by Wikileaks was almost universally excepted to be a Russian operation. We all remember that Trump even said that the Russians should relaease even more of the Clinton emails. "as of now it is (publicly atleast because there havnt been any statements issued on it) believed that it was independent of Trumps campaign." In order for it to amount to anything you would have to have evidence that Trump approved or at least knew of such collusion. Moreover as Derskowitz has stated several time it is highly unlikely that such an act is actually illegal under US laws. "
  10. Big Tech Monopolies

    "1st) You always get a strike for this kind of thing, so thats not unique to him." Except that you do not usually get a strike for that kind of skit. If you did then John Oliver, Samantha Bee and and every latenight host would have been banned years ago.
  11. Russia probe

    "Sorry, but for any Brit I'll make this absolutely clear: You leave an alliance. We won't be at war after that. that would take a declaration. So we are at peace. But no agreements are withstanding. All were done through EU. Some cooperation is expected. If you wish the EU's help on something, expect to have to pay for it. Russia here, why should we give a fig on what has happened in Britain. If Brexit does happen, of course." You are aware that the entirety of the EU membership is either part of the military alliance NATO or have mutual defense treaty's with NATO? Are you aware that the only European nations with a proper military are Germany, France, the UK, Italy and maybe Poland? Are you also aware that the only european nations that could put up much of a fight against Russia are France and Germany ( outside of the UK) and the whole strategy of NATO is that an attack on any member state would be seen by the United States as an attack on it? Are you aware that NATO knows that without US intervention the Russians would be in Paris inside of 96 hours? The UK need not worry about what the Europeans would do (since they combined could not do much to stop the Russians, except for France using it's nukes) it only has to ascertain if the US still has its back. "So not sure where else to put this but... Russia. UK. Sanctions. Boy, lots of people getting angry at Russia. WW3 anybody? Cold War mk2?" Nope, it's not the first time that the Russians have killed one of their old spies in Britain. More sanctions definately, but realisticly noone is going to go to war over the body of an ex-KGB agent.
  12. Big Tech Monopolies

    "The trust and safety council is a bunch of nobodies who somehow kun fu'd being professional victims into some sort of job. It really is bizarre. Anyway I don't think there's anyone who thinks Anita Sarkeesian is an unbiased party who isn't going to abuse her power as part of this "trust and safety council". It's a complete joke." It's worst then that the Southern Poverty law Center is part of it. Youtube actually hired them to be part of their council. Youtube took it down. They said it was violating peoples freedom of privacy. Of course it was filmed in Texas which is a single party consent state (means that anything can be recorded as long as one participant agrees to it). They also gave Crowder a Community strike for the video which is even more important. Since not only was his channel suspended for 12 hours for the strike but if you get 3 strikes (there is no time limit) you get perma-banned from youtube. "It's not though because, as I posted before in this thread, these websites are the new public square. It's where people get their news and spread their ideas and do activism etc. As I said before the solution here is for the Government to come in and make it's own website where people can communicate and do other stuff online where the promise of free speech is upheld by the law not just by a ToS that none of these companies actually adhere to anyway." NO! The last thing we want is a government controlled internet channel. I have serious problems with private entites determining what is free speech, I sure as hell would not want a government entity determining what videos get banned and which are edgy but within the limits. Plus, why the hell do you think that the government could pull such a channel off. It's history of engaging in competing with or replacing the free market should warn off that it would be a moonbogle of bad engineering, lousy administration and shody oversight. Plus, like Lenlo said no way would it be excepted by the internet community. Most of us are worried that the government is listening to what we are saying and watching on the internet and you propose that we make it easy for them by using a government controlled internet entity!
  13. Big Tech Monopolies

    Steven Crowder got suspended from Youtube and banned from twitter for essentially doing an edgy alternative gender comedy skit. So the evidence is staking up.
  14. More mass shootings...

    You can represent yourself technically called Pro Se, but not at all represented unless it's small claims court or the lowest level of criminal court (and I would not advice for anything other then a traffic violation), but the rules of evidence and procedure (which are quite technical) would still aplly. So unless you have the world's greatest charisma and personality it would be unadvisavble. Lawyers have a saying, a lawyer that represents himself has an idiot for a client. If you are not a lawyer you would be a dumb idiot to represent yourself.
  15. Mid-terms 2018

    He also has a not very liberal view on energy policy (which is not strange for the district). Well he won the District not the state. He's the only type of Democrat that would have a chance in that district.