/dev/null Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 https://womenintheworld.com/2018/08/24/republican-transgender-youtuber-takes-on-notions-of-identity-both-political-and-sexual/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 6 minutes ago, /dev/null said: https://womenintheworld.com/2018/08/24/republican-transgender-youtuber-takes-on-notions-of-identity-both-political-and-sexual/ Just wondering...…….uh...………..why were you on a site that explains the "benefits" of a lapadictomy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 That sucks that Youtube has de-monitized all her videos. Sure, they're not actually censoring anyone by doing that, but a lot of vloggers and youtubers use the income to help support their channel, so it does have an effect on their ability to keep new material coming. There is another channel, one that I subscribe to called Spectre Media Group which has effected by Youtube's policy changes. SMG has had old videos de-monitized years after the fact due to language, specifically the frequent F-bombs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 The demonetize anyone that disagrees with their orthodoxy. I wouldn't mind antitrust legislation being used on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 Why aren’t these Internet companies considered “common carriers”? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 On 8/25/2018 at 5:46 AM, joesixpack said: The demonetize anyone that disagrees with their orthodoxy. I wouldn't mind antitrust legislation being used on them. On 8/25/2018 at 7:19 AM, Nanker said: Why aren’t these Internet companies considered “common carriers”? There's no doubt that certain Youtube channels are treated differently because of their content. If Youtube penalizes certain users by taking away their ability to earn money from their posted material, then I'm inclined to believe that they should have to make a legitimate case as to why they do so, especially if someone (Youtube) will continue to profit from the clicks. But we also have a situation where a media company is deciding what type of content they approve of, which seems to me to be well within their right to do. Do we really want to cede the type of power to the government to force companies like twitter and youtube to comply with a government-defined version of fairness? Can't the market bring balance to social media, at least as an eventuality? I'm involved in a couple Youtube channels, and have a vested interest in how this plays out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 (edited) I don’t care which party it’s affiliated with. Transvestites can wear whatever underwear they want, but it’s either XY, or XX, and I will not cater to some snowflakes delusions. Edited August 27, 2018 by The_Dude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts