|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 21:21:20 GMT
What proof do you have that Logan Paul intended his channel to be for children? Did he come out and say anywhere that "my channel is a childrens channel"? Is it listed somewhere as a "childrens channel"? Well, it doesn't matter what his intention was, that's what it is - a children's channel. I suspect that Logan has the same access to YouTube Analytics as all of us. I suspect that he can read and knows that the YouTube age demography in analytics tends higher than it actually is. I suspect tagt Logan has answered a few comments and communicated with some with his fans, whereupon he doesn't need analytics to see that they are kids. Now if none of those clues led to him knowing that his viewers were kids... then I think we can end the discussion on another note: if you're too stupid to look up the rules and understand they apply to you too, then don't whine when you get in trouble. (which to be clear Logan didn't, he admitted that it was an unacceptable mistake) For the effects the knowledge that he's dealing with kids has on his work see my post on what freedom of expression actually means just previously. |
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 21:23:40 GMT
coffekanon - duuuuude - read my post. Racism is not protected by freedom of expression!!! That's not a leftist position, that's a legal position, ratified by a large part of the world's nations.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 21:47:04 GMT
coffekanon - duuuuude - read my post. Racism is not protected by freedom of expression!!! That's not a leftist position, that's a legal position, ratified by a large part of the world's nations. You're moving the goalposts. The issue here isn't that racism is not protected by freedom of expression. The issue here is that people are getting censored for mere ACCUSATIONS of being "racist" or expressing "racist" beliefs. Not at a single point during Lauren Southerns career has she EVER publicly said any racist statements at all. I may not agree with your position that you think that racism/hate speech should be banned or not protected by freedom of expression (i'm a fan of the free market of ideas, including racist ideas). But let's say that the legislation merely doesn't protect racist speech. Now the problem is that we have a hostile left-wing bloc that accuses ANYTHING of being racist. So what do you think happens to society and a platform like youtube when racism is banned BUT the definition of racism is being constantly changed in order to encompass more and more ideas, statements and opinions? Can't you see how such a situation will ultimately be abused? I am against the Black Lives Matter activist group. They accuse me of being racist because I oppose them (despite the fact that there's no racial motivations at all behind my opposition to them), are you then saying that it is the right thing to do to censor me because someone else, with an agenda or merely different opinion accuse me of racism? Can't you see that it's turning everything into the Salem witch trials where anyone can point an accusing finger, and expect to have their targets shut down because of it? |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 21:48:57 GMT
What proof do you have that Logan Paul intended his channel to be for children? Did he come out and say anywhere that "my channel is a childrens channel"? Is it listed somewhere as a "childrens channel"? Well, it doesn't matter what his intention was, that's what it is - a children's channel. I suspect that Logan has the same access to YouTube Analytics as all of us. I suspect that he can read and knows that the YouTube age demography in analytics tends higher than it actually is. I suspect tagt Logan has answered a few comments and communicated with some with his fans, whereupon he doesn't need analytics to see that they are kids. Now if none of those clues led to him knowing that his viewers were kids... then I think we can end the discussion on another note: if you're too stupid to look up the rules and understand they apply to you too, then don't whine when you get in trouble. (which to be clear Logan didn't, he admitted that it was an unacceptable mistake) For the effects the knowledge that he's dealing with kids has on his work see my post on what freedom of expression actually means just previously. I see that you're completely dodging my argument. Should I assume that you're doing so because you have nothing to refute it with? |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 21:52:24 GMT
Also I don't really care about your sources with perverted and incorrect definitions of freedom of speech and expression. Because all of them are fraudulent definitions of freedom of speech.
The only one that applies and should apply, especially to youtube since they are an american based company, is the first amendment of the united states constiution. Which reads as follows:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There are no "exceptions" to "racism" or "hatespeech" or whatever. It's an open market place of ideas, where anyone, regardless of how heinous their opinions might be have the right to express themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 21:53:30 GMT
[regarding watching films above your age rating] Or should our parents have been the ones who stopped us from seeing them? Well... that's a tricky one. I've brought up a daughter to adult age and I sure as hell struggled with that question. In essence the answer is yes, but it's not a clear cut thing. There are also the age restriction systems in place keeping the industry to general standards, they vary from country to country As for the parenting issue. You need to help your kids grow up and still do your best to protect them from doing that too fast. It's a guidance issue and different kids react differently. You might be surprised at what we had to protect our daughter from watching: animal and nature films - she reacted with such trauma at seeing animals suffering that it was clearly not healthy for her (she still does as a grown up). We also restricted her television access when she was about nine years old and discovered that German nighttime TV shows soft porn and we discovered she was watching it. We restricted that, not because we think that porn is unilaterally bad for young people (fully knowing what she was going to be doing online a few years later anyway). We restricted it because the questions she was asking about sex were clearly showing that she was getting very, very confused about what it all meant. So we talked a lot about what sex means and then we lifted the TV restriction when we knew that she had grasped what it was about and why she shouldn't be watching it (yet), lo and behold - after that she didn't have any interest in sneak peeking at porn anymore. We always had and still have a very open relationship, our principle was "anything goes as long as you research it beforehand and know what you're doing, and if you talk to us about it - especially if you have questions." That worked for us, doesn't work for everyone. She's a healthy and sane adult, who used to be a successful YouTuber and and then went to work in the film industry on the production side BTW. What I'm saying with that anecdote is that child protection his not an issue that comes in black and white - it's the most difficult thing I've ever dealt with in my entire life - and I've dealt with some thorny issues in other areas I'll tell you. I think most parents will agree with me. |
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 21:56:48 GMT
You're moving the goalposts. The issue here isn't that racism is not protected by freedom of expression. ehhh?  You made that the issue by claiming that there was a conspiracy to curtail freedom of expression and offered up the refusal to let people in to the UK based on them distributing racist pamphlets in Lutton. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 22:00:18 GMT
[regarding watching films above your age rating] Or should our parents have been the ones who stopped us from seeing them? Well... that's a tricky one. I've brought up a daughter to adult age and I sure as hell struggled with that question. In essence the answer is yes, but it's not a clear cut thing. There are also the age restriction systems in place keeping the industry to general standards, they vary from country to country As for the parenting issue. You need to help your kids grow up and still do your best to protect them from doing that too fast. It's a guidance issue and different kids react differently. You might be surprised at what we had to protect our daughter from watching: animal and nature films - she reacted with such trauma at seeing animals suffering that it was clearly not healthy for her (she still does as a grown up). We also restricted her television access when she was about nine years old and discovered that German nighttime TV shows soft porn and we discovered she was watching it. We restricted that, not because we think that porn is unilaterally bad for young people (fully knowing what she was going to be doing online a few years later anyway). We restricted it because the questions she was asking about sex were clearly showing that she was getting very, very confused about what it all meant. So we talked a lot about what sex means and then we lifted the TV restriction when we knew that she had grasped what it was about and why she shouldn't be watching it (yet), lo and behold - after that she didn't have any interest in sneak peeking at porn anymore. We always had and still have a very open relationship, our principle was "anything goes as long as you research it beforehand and know what you're doing, and if you talk to us about it - especially if you have questions." That worked for us, doesn't work for everyone. She's a healthy and sane adult, who used to be a successful YouTuber and and then went to work in the film industry on the production side BTW. What I'm saying with that anecdote is that child protection his not an issue that comes in black and white - it's the most difficult thing I've ever dealt with in my entire life - and I've dealt with some thorny issues in other areas I'll tell you. I think most parents will agree with me. Well I'm also a healthy and sane adult. Certifiably so since I had to take mandatory psych exams in my youth, due to hormonal problems during puberty which resulted in a sleep disorder when I was a teenager (my sleeping disorders are gone now though once the shock of puberty had passed and my adult hormonal levels had mellowed out) Child protection should be a case by case matter, and it should fall to the parents responsibility. Not to media companies. And as you say yourself, there's already age recommendations in place. But even you can probably admit that it doesn't stop minors from watching stuff anyway. And there's no harm caused by it (at least not the predicted harm that moralists claimed that violent films, violent video games, porn, rock music, greaser rockabilly music and all other supposedly "harmful influences" that supposedly threatened to erode the "moral fiber of the youth") |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 22:02:50 GMT
You're moving the goalposts. The issue here isn't that racism is not protected by freedom of expression. ehhh? You made that the issue by claiming that there was a conspiracy to curtail freedom of expression and offered up the refusal to let people in to the UK based on them distributing racist pamphlets in Lutton. She hasn't distributed any racist pamphlets in Luton. The whole accusation is entirely baseless. And if racism is "criminal" as you say, then why has neither Lauren Southern nor Tommy Robinson or anyone of the people I mentioned been arrested, prosecuted and convicted for these "violations" of speech? If the state or an individual is going to call someone a criminal and treat them as a criminal, then they have to be able to cite an actual legal conviction of that person. If you just claim somebody is a criminal without a registered conviction, then that is a crime in itself. It's called defamation or slander. Also, you're dodging my argument again. What is your opinion about mere accusations of "racism" being enough to violate peoples rights over? |
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 22:07:02 GMT
The only one that applies and should apply, especially to youtube since they are an american based company, is the first amendment of the united states constiution. Which reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 1. Fine by me 2. You're just patently wrong here. The restrictions on the first amendment in the ICCPR also apply to the US. You can read a list here Wikipedia article on US free speech exceptions
Fighting words are included and thus racism is not protected by the first amendment. |
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 12, 2018 22:19:43 GMT
I think that's wrong, why do you even ask? It should be pretty obvious by now that I believe in the protection of human rights, one of them is the right to due process. I'm not familiar with the case in question so I have no opinion on it. You might want to note that laws in a country usually only apply fully to its citizens - something I disagree with, but that's way, way outside of our scope here. Again I do point out as above that racism is not protected by free speech though. And to get back on subject: nor is it protected in social media as these are private platforms were by US and international law, freedom of speech does not apply. Still I believe that YouTube is not infringing on it in the egregious way you claim. Take only the example of the anti-muslim bible recreation video a few years back, where even the US government leaned on YouTube to take it down and they refused as it didn't violate their policies. They claimed protection of free speech as an important part in their decision. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 22:20:26 GMT
The only one that applies and should apply, especially to youtube since they are an american based company, is the first amendment of the united states constiution. Which reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 1. Fine by me 2. You're just patently wrong here. The restrictions on the first amendment in the ICCPR also apply to the US. You can read a list here Wikipedia article on US free speech exceptions
Fighting words are included and thus racism is not protected by the first amendment. Then why hasn't every instance of these "fighting words" been prosecuted and seen people convicted? And what are "fighting words"? Racism sure doesn't count as "fighting words". If that was the case, then the KKK and various Neo-Nazi groups in the U.S wouldn't be able to exist in the confines of U.S law. They would all have been tried and convicted. If I want to, I can go up to any police station in the U.S and say openly that I believe in racist ideology (that races are different, and that my race is superior to all others etc.) and I would not get arrested, tried or convicted for it. I could do it every day of the week and nothing would happen. |
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 22:23:40 GMT
I think that's wrong, why do you even ask? It should be pretty obvious by now that I believe in the protection of human rights, one of them is the right to due process. I'm not familiar with the case in question so I have no opinion on it. You might want to note that laws in a country usually only apply fully to its citizens - something I disagree with, but that's way, way outside of our scope here. Again I do point out as above that racism is not protected by free speech though. And to get back on subject: nor is it protected in social media as these are private platforms were by US and international law, freedom of speech does not apply. Still I believe that YouTube is not infringing on it in the egregious way you claim. Take only the example of the anti-muslim bible recreation video a few years back, where even the US government leaned on YouTube to take it down and they refused as it didn't violate their policies. They claimed protection of free speech as an important part in their decision. And as I've pointed out, your claim that racism isn't protected by free speech (which is false, but I see no reason to debate the issue since you're staying cemented in your ignorance regardless) is still irrelevant to the issue. The issue at hand is that people are abusing the supposed "illegal" status of racist speech, by accusing anyone and everyone and their statements for being "racist" even in the most ludicrous situations where the speech in question is clearly not racist at all. It's getting quite tedious to debate this with such a dishonest debater like you who constantly ignore arguments that you can't refute, and instead go on to nitpick over irrelevant details that doesn't really pertain to the core issue. To use an analogy: Murder is also illegal. What if I merely accuse you of being a murderer, by changing the definition of what murder means? Do you think that it's okay then that you get arrested and imprisoned for murder merely because I came up with an inventive definition of what murder means? |
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 12, 2018 22:28:37 GMT
I don't think it has broken us. I have noticed some very rare examples of people refusing to cooperate if others do not share their opinion. For the most part though even when people disagreed they have recognised our mutual goals
|
|
|
|
Post by coffekanon on Mar 12, 2018 22:29:32 GMT
Prime example of what i'm talking about (and in this instance, a distnictly left-wing celebrity is even being targeted). Ellen DeGeneres, accused of racism for a photoshopped picture where she piggybacks on olympic runner Usain Bolt. According to your argument, Ellen is guilty of "racism" and should be punished by the law for it. youtu.be/htXonCGp0oE |
|
You made that the issue by claiming that there was a conspiracy to curtail freedom of expression and offered up the refusal to let people in to the UK based on them distributing racist pamphlets in Lutton.