"Youtube is busted!"
Yeh no shit! It's been that way for like, what? 8+ years now!
And absolutely nobody gives a shit for some stupid-ass reason!
Five minutes of hate news
- Thread starter PsihoKekec
- Start date
"Youtube is busted!"
Yeh no shit! It's been that way for like, what? 8+ years now!
And absolutely nobody gives a shit for some stupid-ass reason!
If you try to type in "Jordan Peterson" on youtube, it doesn't autofill, despite his name being very popular.
You can type in almost any other internet figure's name and it'll autofill for you, but not his name.
They also go into shadowbanning, which most normies are blissfully unaware of because they never trip the 'no-no word' detectors.
Really it's shocking how much of a disconnect there is between normies and actual humans on the internet, if you try making a reddit account nowadays you can't post on half of the popular subreddits because 'you don't have enough karma/your account is not old enough'. Annnnnnnnnnd even then you're very likely to be auto-shadowbanned on each subreddit unless moderators manually approve your posts.
Like, who'd make a new reddit account in 2024, am I right? Why didn't you just make one in 2014 or something like the rest of us redditors?
Sounds like they’re going to echo chamber themselves into obscurity. It’s something the right needs to take advantage of and direct people towards the Reddit alternatives. Ideally ones we control.
Reddit alternatives almost universally fail due to a few reasons.
1: It costs money, shockingly right wing viewpoints aren't popular within rich-people spheres
2: Even if you can get the money, your payment processor might can you because 'muh racists' (pattern recognition)
3: Even if your payment processor gets through, you end up DDos'd by endless hordes of very cheap leftist hackers and the like
4: ...Which you have to pay various groups to prevent like DDos protection and such
5: If you've made it thus far, congrats! Except almost universally your website is going to be full of people who scare the shit out of normies, so normies never show up, so your potential customer base is so small you might as well make a private discord chat or something
6: Then if you actually DO get normies, they overtake the site like cancer, making cliques and secret groups to mess up your site behind the scenes, expect child-porn, gore, all sorts of fucked up shit to get your site shut down if they don't like it
7: So you either make it hyper-censored (like reddit, but kinda the opposite?) to the point where you might as well not even bother, or it gets overrun by normies or 4chan-esque trolls.
Edit: Seen it happen to Voat, Ruqus and more. Only a handful of sites that are reddit-clones continue to exist, and they're uhh...Basically just elaborate 4chan boards.
mrttao
Well-known member
Shocked it took this long considering their rampant failure on all levels.
Not only have they completely and utterly fucked the economy.
But they also completely fucked the environment. what with replacing clean nuclear power with dirty coal power
mrttao
Well-known member
They mean busted as in "caught red handed" not as in "broken".
Even if they trip them, the shadow banners have learned and instead of completely isolating you, they give a very limited audience.
So you will see your comment getting that +1 upvote a week. but no more people than that will see it.
They've been caught doing shady shit for almost a decade though. It isn't something new.
There was a period of time when they shadowbanned comments but didn't remove the number of replies, so you'd see comment chains with '10 replies', and clicking it only showed 1-2.
Skallagrim
Well-known member
The only effective solution that I can see is the reclassification of what is essentially "public". I'd propose that certain services are so fundamental to living in a high-tech society that they are fundamentally a "public" service. This would include all basic payment services, and domain hosting / internet access. Similarly, any online forum (e.g. Facebook, Twitter/X, Reddit...) that exceeds a given size would be considered essentially a "public" space, and thereby beholden to guarantee freedom of speech.
By this I do not mean that these should be "rights" you get for "free", but rather that they are not allowed to discriminate, nor may they refuse service unless that should be the consequence of a binding judicial conviction (e.g. a paedophile might be forbidden from having access to the internet for the rest of his life).
Practically speaking, I'd propose:
-- Banks, payment processors, domain registrars and internet service providers may not deny service to any customer, unless it should be on an individual basis, as a result of a binding legal conviction that bans said person(s) from using such services.
-- Large, ostensibly public, online 'service providers' of various sorts (at minimum: Google, Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube, Reddit, Twitter/X) may not ban anyone unless the expression in question clearly violates the first amendment. (They may, however, qualify which content is 'adult', and such content must be marked as such. If not properly marked, it may be removed.) These companies will not be exempt from lawsuits over freedom of speech infringements. If they screw you over, you can sue them.
-- Such sites are forbidden from using algorithms as the standard. They can offer algorithms as a choice you can activate, but the standard 'front page' should always be purely chronological, with no algorithms applied. (So no cases of: "you get the algorithm unless you jump through a million hoops to turn it off".)
-- Such sites are forbidden from shadowbanning, and from artificially restricting or increasing anyone's 'reach'.
-- They must publically disclose all shadowbanning and reach manipulation they have undertaken in the past 25 years or so, and who they've done it to/for. Failure to disclose this information will result in forced liquidation of the company. If victims of these actions were paying customers, and have thus been defrauded, they are entitled to considerable restitution and compensation.
-- Additionally, all companies (regardless of size) will henceforth be forbidden from collecting personal data except the minimally required to make a site functional. Data must be anonymised wherever possible. No data may be kept longer than a given period. All data must be destroyed thereafter.
-- Sharing user information with third parties will be heavily restricted. Selling user information will be forbidden universally.
-- All companies must disclose how much user information they've shared with third parties, and how much they were paid for it, over the last 25 years. Whatever much they've made off this, they must pay out to the people whose information they have sold. (Failure to fully disclose this information, or pay restitution to their
-- Finally: no site will be allowed to hinder ad blockers in any way, nor may service/access be denied to, or restricted for, anyone who uses an ad blocker. (Even checking whether someone is using an ad blocker will constitute the kind of 'data mining' that is forbidden, because it's not absolutely necessary to know such things...)
That should solve most problems, restore freedom to the internet... and break most of the megacorps within a year. (Which is not a side effect, but actually one of the main goals.)
Last edited:
mrttao
Well-known member
The idea is not drastically new. I mean its basically the meme of
corporations are free to restrict our basic rights.
and in fact the govt knows and is working with the corporations to do it. as has been exposed already.
The main problem is not in finding the solution (forbid corporations from doing so), the main problem is in acquiring the political power to actually execute it.
It was literally the government doing this, through corporations, via threats, etc.
corporations are free to restrict our basic rights.
and in fact the govt knows and is working with the corporations to do it. as has been exposed already.
Why in hell would anyone want more government oversight? They will use that oversight to take further control. This isn't a new strategy, they do this over and over again: The left uses government to oppress, the right calls for/agrees to more government to save them from oppression, the left then uses that additional government to oppress. It's a tale as old as time, and you keep falling for it and pretending it's something new.
mrttao
Well-known member
False.
The corporations were doing it for years.
Then the govt decided to join in when they saw how effective it is.
And there was no need for threats, the corporations were all in on this.
You are vastly over simplifying to create this delusional narrative that only govt wants to oppress you and that the kind nice megacorps would never ever want to do it themselves.
And that we should never ever use govt power ourselves against the leftists, megacorps, or anyone else... because if we do it will somehow backfire.
You are then twisting "citizen protection laws" with "govt oversight".
This is not a question of "more" or "less" govt oversight. It is a question of who gets to use govt power, us or them.
If we amend the constitution to say "corporations are not allowed to violate your first amendment right either" it is not the same as creating a massive sprawling beurocracy to micromanage corporations.
The latter is what "govt oversight" implies.
Not to mention we LITERALLY have laws on the books already that are not being enforced that totally should be. Such as anti monopoly laws.
Which we have people arguing against enforcing because as usual "we can't use govt power. it is evil to do so!"
Lol no. We've seen the twitter files. In fact, the companies were even resisting calls for censorship before the government cracked down.
I'm vastly oversimplifying? You've completely strawmanned my argument with a sentence: that's oversimplification.
The "Citizen protection laws" you propose are as about as real as Biden's "Border Security Bill."
That you can't see the inevitable result of dancing to the left's music is sad and pathetic.
"What I think I'm advocating for" doesn't equal "What will actually be enacted". No, because to enforce that corporations aren't violating first amendment, you'll "need" a vast amount of bureaucracy and cops, and so such a bureaucracy will be created, even if you don't want one. They will constantly look and micromanage corporations. They'll pick and choose who to prosecute, and through this, control even more power.
They already did this with the civil rights act banning discrimination (but it was used to discriminate against white people). That you think a free speech law applied to corporations will be any different shows complete ignorance of history.
mrttao
Well-known member
That is not what the twitter files say at all.
The sad and pathetic part is that you truly genuinely believe no corporations will ever try to oppress you despite countless evidence to the contrary.
The issue is "leftists in power"
Of course leftists will selectively enforce such laws, they selectively enforce ANY and ALL laws.
What the laws actually say matters very very little when you have leftists in power. You are delusional if you think it does matter.
Also, no, you don't need a sprawling beurocracy with an army of enforcers. Lawsuits are literally a thing.
The right to not be silenced, and the right to not be discriminated are very different beasts. The latter is vastly more open to abuse. However, even if they were equally open to abuse it won't matterr.
You literally give as example the govt doing literally the exact opposite of what the law says. And pretend the problem is the law rather than corruption.
News flash, when there is no law at all, the govt still goes ahead and abuses its power.
Freedom is a never ending battle against the corrupt and evil. You cannot just solve it with well written laws, you need to constantly purge the cancer from the govt.
Last edited:
mrttao
Well-known member
You are literally taking the whole "defund the police" thing, but instead of police it is for govt.
Every city that defunded the police is now a hellhole full of rampant crime.
Instead of defunding police, it needs to be cleaned up.
1. get rid of crooked cops
2. clean up the legal code
3. hold cops accountable
Instead of "get rid of all govt", it needs to be cleaned up
A. get rid of crooked govt (and all leftists)
B. clean up the legal code
C. hold govt drones accountable.
We know it can be done because it has been done before.
Not all of human history has been total nonstop corruption and dystopia.
Carrot of Truth
War is Peace
We need far less government than we currently have. Like 90% of it is useless bullshit. Hell at this point a nuke hitting D.C. would be a net positive for the country.
Literally they do. Read them or remain ignorant, your choice. Twitter initially cared about free speech, and there was some push back, but more and more government pressure changed stuff.
No, it's you trying to put words in my mouth. I never said that. I said, that government certainly will do this if you give them control over corporations.
No. You don't understand if this is your statement. It's not that leftists are in power. Those in power don't care about being left or right. The issue is the managerial class, who (right now) is of the left, but it doesn't need to be. They are the people CS Lewis warned about when he said a robber baron is better than a theocrat: by trying to decide what is good for you, there's no evil they will not sink to, no haven they will not track you down to. "Who cares about cost? It's for your own good."
They can just as easily shift to being of the right, and do the same bullshit, and nothing will be gained.
"Civil Rights law worked out great, and didn't lead to mass discrimination against Whites and Men"
You are just exporting the bureaucracy to companies. HR departments, specifically. The managerial class is the problem. You are giving the managerial class more power.
Agreed. So don't make a new cancer, you imbecile. What do you think my problem with you is? You are advocating for more cancer.
But that's not what you advocated. You advocated for "Let's set up more bureaucracy and give government more control" while calling it something else. Seriously, why would this end any different than the civil rights act?
mrttao
Well-known member
Absolutely. which is what I advocate too.
Don't be deceived by abhorsen's strawman.
I literally said for example, that AFTER we completely purge all liberals from the govt and trim govt way way down, we also put in a constitutional amendment that says the first amendment extends to businesses not being allowed to censor speech they dislike. This is designed to slow down the rise of corruption again in the future. But slowing down is all it can do, no law can magically stop corruption.
And abhorsen straw manned it into
A. somehow passing such a law without purging the liberals first
B. me advocating we create a massive beurocracy to enforce it, instead of just allowing private citizens to sue corporations who censor them. Thus an enlargement of govt.
mrttao
Well-known member
I did.
Twitter was censoring people long before any govt involvement.
And nowhere does it show that twitter was fighting back against the govt censorship of conservatives
The twitter files show twitter in bed with the govt to censor conservatives.
Govt always has and always will have control over corporation.
This comes from being the govt.
You are speaking entirely in platitudes to justify your ancap stupidity
There is no such thing as a magically perfect system that is immune to corruption.
Some systems are more resilient to corruption than others, but you always have to fight corruption.
Your entire ancap delusion is that megacorps are all saints who just want to be good and the govt is the source of all evil.
That we just need to abolish the govt to have utopia.
That no law can ever be a good idea.
Those delusions are just that, delusions.
Eyerolls. There are multiple different enemies of freedom.
There are the leftists / communists.
There are the robber barons.
It is hilarious that you think that robber barons control ONLY the govt and NOT business.
Your problem with me is that I don't ascribe to your "abolish the police" view.
Because you have been proven wrong by history repeatedly.
Stop doubling down on your lies
mrttao
Well-known member
1. the civil liberties act is vastly more sweeping and vastly more open ended.
2. you are intentionally ignoring the part about purging and trimming down the govt first.
3. you are intentionally ignoring the part about liberty being a never ending battle.
Of course if you have an oversized govt full of commies, utopian statists, LGBTQPs, genocidal racists (anti-white), and other such folk a law of "corporations may not restrict a persons right to speech" would be abused.
But, literally ANY law can and WILL get abused this way too.
That is a problem of having a govt full of corruption.
Not having laws gets abused by them too.
The question is not "can a sufficiently corrupt govt abuse it".
The question is "after the latest round of purging corruption, will this law slow down or accelerate future corruption".
Of course I can foresee a future where some LGBTQP judge goes "not letting a convicted child molester into your kindergarten is restricting his right to speech. as he wants to speak to the children".
In fact they basically already do this with the tranny story hour bullshit.
The right to free speech is not the problem here.
You show your delusion that all corruption stems from laws, instead of from the govt being taken over. That if we just "abolish the police" suddenly all will be well forever. When in fact we immediately spiral into a hellhole.
Corruption stems from people, and must always be fought against.
You also double down on the lie of me wanting to expand govt just because I said that I want to add 1 single law while removing thousands of others