There we go

[killacross]

In a sense, I guess. They never meant defund to mean do away with police, but the that's also a meaning of defund so their opponents ran with it. Police would have been safer and less stretched, but nope. If they had just chosen a better slogan that didn't also mean abolish the police it probably would have been much better received.

Oh no no no, it was co-opted internally. Same with BLM. That's why it's divisive. If the slogan was Black Lives Matter TOO! -- I bet even DM would support and get behind it (I know I would). But nope - words are powerful and words have meaning. There was a gamut of what they were asking for...but like always, the loudest won out. They said exactly what they meant.

I GET that the intent was to take resources from say more "police with guns" ...and shift it to hire more "crisis negotiators"...but words are powerful and words have meaning. They said exactly what they meant.

The result were they slashed billions from police budgets or closed down departments. The net-net of it all is that in certain cities -- crime exploded. But then again, that was only because people were hungry and stealing loaves of bread (IIRC).

[Digital Masta]

In a sense, I guess. They never meant defund to mean do away with police, but the that's also a meaning of defund so their opponents ran with it. Police would have been safer and less stretched, but nope. If they had just chosen a better slogan that didn't also mean abolish the police it probably would have been much better received.

Oh no no no, it was co-opted internally. Same with BLM. That's why it's divisive. If the slogan was Black Lives Matter TOO! -- I bet even DM would support and get behind it (I know I would). But nope - words are powerful and words have meaning. There was a gamut of what they were asking for...but like always, the loudest won out. They said exactly what they meant.

I GET that the intent was to take resources from say more "police with guns" ...and shift it to hire more "crisis negotiators"...but words are powerful and words have meaning. They said exactly what they meant.

If they were BLMT it wouldn't work because people would confuse them for the sandwich...bacon, lettuce, tomato.

I would be more inclined to be okay with it but for me it was always more about it actually being about black lives...in all aspects. If they were saying all this while going, "and so we're also going to work to reduce single motherhood, abortions, and fatherless homes in the black community." they'd have my respect but the movement as been taken over by an organization that is specifically against the family and is just a good ol' communist organization in a newer CRT (Critical Race Theory) form.

The result were they slashed billions from police budgets or closed down departments. The net-net of it all is that in certain cities -- crime exploded. But then again, that was only because people were hungry and stealing loaves of bread (IIRC).

Speaking of words having meaning she recently added another gem to her greatest hits:

"Anyone who's using the word 'surge' around you, consciously, is trying to invoke a militaristic frame. And that's a problem. Because this is not a surge, these are children," she said. "And they are not insurgents. And we are not being invaded, which, by the way, is a white supremacist idea, philosophy, the idea that if an 'other' is coming in the population, that this is an invasion of who we are."

She is truly a moron.


Also, anyone else got any opinions on Facebook/Instagram vanishing Trump from their platform. You risk getting shut down even if you interview him and put it up on your account.

Then there's the new YT situation with Steven Crowder which according to Tim Pool, Crowder literally did nothing wrong and broke no YT rules.

[xandorxerxes]

Also, anyone else got any opinions on Facebook/Instagram vanishing Trump from their platform. You risk getting shut down even if you interview him and put it up on your account.

Then there's the new YT situation with Steven Crowder which according to Tim Pool, Crowder literally did nothing wrong and broke no YT rules.

For Facebook, it looks like they're treating things like interviewing him as a loophole. His account is banned, so if you give him a platform to speak through your account instead they're treating it as if it was his account. It doesn't look like they're perma-banning people that do it, but giving warnings and will probably do so if the behavior is repeated.

YouTube is just a wonky place in general. It's easy to get banned or demonetized for a variety of reasons, but in this guy's case it seems like it was his video challenging the Nevada election. According to platforms that don't care for what he says he's already been way beyond their partnership guidelines for a long time and they were more surprised that he actually got pulled this time instead of just allowing it like usual.

Though we should note in YT's case they're not removing him from the service - just from their partnership.

And of course, the general principle: they're a private business, so they can do whatever they want unless it violates a law.

[xandorxerxes]

Speaking of Facebook:

https://www.businessinsider.com/stolen- ... ine-2021-4

500M+ users' data leaked, apparently from an old breach.

[San Goku]

@DM who is this "she" person that made this surge comment?

[Cane_The9lives]

Cane writes a Cane post.

I still think manslaughter is more likely to stick than any of the murder charges.

Oh I agree completely, I just don't think its completely out of the realm of possibility that a competent prosecutor could cogently argue third degree murder. And when you consider that Minnesota is one of only a couple of states that even defines murder in the third degree, coupled with the bullshit "Racist/white supremacist" narrative the media pushed almost immediately after the incident, it was a foregone conclusion that they were at the very least going tack on some kind of murder charge, it's a unique statute.

I'm simpatico on this with you and Xander, it's an uphill battle for sure.
I don't even want to think about what's inevitably going to happen if he's acquitted.(But obviously that's not a good reason to convict, just to avoid a riot).

But my god, it will be Rodney king on steroids.
I remember the news of the LA riots when it hit Belfast airwaves, they didn't even want to show it on T.V out of fear that it would inflame tensions (The IRA had bombed the British Prime minister on Downing street only a year prior, no deaths thankfully).

[killacross]

I'm 'bout to lose my mind. Up in here, up in here!!

[San Goku]

Space Jam 2 trailer: https://youtu.be/RM6rwlI1a4Y

I like what I see.

[xandorxerxes]

Space Jam 2 trailer: https://youtu.be/RM6rwlI1a4Y

I like what I see.

It was the rabbit, wasn't it.

[Digital Masta]

Space Jam 2 trailer: https://youtu.be/RM6rwlI1a4Y

I like what I see.

It was the rabbit, wasn't it.

They toned down Lola Bunny...lol.

Not interested because we already have a film where the toons teamed up with the GOAT.

[Digital Masta]

Also, anyone else got any opinions on Facebook/Instagram vanishing Trump from their platform. You risk getting shut down even if you interview him and put it up on your account.

Then there's the new YT situation with Steven Crowder which according to Tim Pool, Crowder literally did nothing wrong and broke no YT rules.

For Facebook, it looks like they're treating things like interviewing him as a loophole. His account is banned, so if you give him a platform to speak through your account instead they're treating it as if it was his account. It doesn't look like they're perma-banning people that do it, but giving warnings and will probably do so if the behavior is repeated.

YouTube is just a wonky place in general. It's easy to get banned or demonetized for a variety of reasons, but in this guy's case it seems like it was his video challenging the Nevada election. According to platforms that don't care for what he says he's already been way beyond their partnership guidelines for a long time and they were more surprised that he actually got pulled this time instead of just allowing it like usual.

Though we should note in YT's case they're not removing him from the service - just from their partnership.

And of course, the general principle: they're a private business, so they can do whatever they want unless it violates a law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJy8ZzE5RTM&t=888s

Here is what Tim Pool was talking about based on his actual conversations with google/Youtube.

Again as killa has mentioned before in the past (myself as well) it's consistency. If you have a ToS and I'm following your ToS why are you messing with my shit? Why are you messing with my income? Not only is it wrong because I didn't break your rules, but you're also not applying it consistently.

It's becoming more and more apparent that places like YT and FB are moving more towards what the corporate media wants. Not even far left or anything like that because some far left channels get demonetized or banned for no apparent reason as well.

It's becoming pretty clear that the corporate media is freaking out over not being able to control things anymore and the fact that people's trust in them is lower than it's ever been so now they want to reestablish the gatekeepers. Back to those 3 channels.

I wonder if ToS can start to be looked at as a form of contract in future legal battles. Meaning the user is agreeing to the ToS so like a contract the platform has to uphold their end of it as well. If the user doesn't break the ToS then they may have legal recourse. I dunno.

[Digital Masta]

@DM who is this "she" person that made this surge comment?

The illustrious, amazing, perfect AOC.

I'm 'bout to lose my mind. Up in here, up in here!!

DMX can't catch a break yo.

[xandorxerxes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJy8ZzE5RTM&t=888s

Here is what Tim Pool was talking about based on his actual conversations with google/Youtube.

Again as killa has mentioned before in the past (myself as well) it's consistency. If you have a ToS and I'm following your ToS why are you messing with my shit? Why are you messing with my income? Not only is it wrong because I didn't break your rules, but you're also not applying it consistently.

It's becoming more and more apparent that places like YT and FB are moving more towards what the corporate media wants. Not even far left or anything like that because some far left channels get demonetized or banned for no apparent reason as well.

It's becoming pretty clear that the corporate media is freaking out over not being able to control things anymore and the fact that people's trust in them is lower than it's ever been so now they want to reestablish the gatekeepers. Back to those 3 channels.

I wonder if ToS can start to be looked at as a form of contract in future legal battles. Meaning the user is agreeing to the ToS so like a contract the platform has to uphold their end of it as well. If the user doesn't break the ToS then they may have legal recourse. I dunno.

Got too long again. TL;DR:

1) Dude wasn't censored. He wasn't following ToS, most everyone isn't, they just cite the ToS when there's something they don't like. Otherwise it makes them money so they look away.

2) ToS are enforceable - part of why Parler is flailing in court. ToS can also be changed at any time, and since pretty much everyone violates them there's nothing really to do about it.

3) Trust in corporate media is low because it should be by default but also because everyone else is saying "you can only trust us." That's why things like NPR were created - the idea was with no outside funding there's no motivation to play on emotions or otherwise sell ideas.

Wall time!

[SHOW]

So the problem is that he wasn't following the ToS, they just ignored it because it was bringing them money. Once it got to the point where it risked their money, he got the axe because they suddenly cared about following the ToS. As you pointed out, it's like Killa noted - it's not applied equally to everyone. That's because it's not in their financial interests to apply it to anyone by default, it just gives them an out when they want to boot someone.

ToS's are enforceable contracts - it's part of why Parler's had no success in court. The problem is that they're written in a way that's extremely skewed to them (after all, you want to use their services in the first place). You can pretty much think of it as "at-will employment" and if I recall correctly, many have terms that essentially say "we can cut you if we want to." If not they all definitely say "we can update this at any time" so all they have to do is update the ToS.

Those guys started talking about banning conservatives and the bans being unconstitutional, but the constitution doesn't do jack all for private business. There are millions of conservative voices on YT and FB that aren't getting banned. Facebook auto-creates groups for whatever reason - they got called out a few days ago because they're still auto-generating white nationalist groups and inviting people to them. Section 230 is what protects these companies and it's been brought up for butchering by both parties in Congress. After the Jan 6th insurrection that was facilitated through their services you better believe they're cracking down on anything major that might be construed as related. It's just a "see? We're playing nice, I promise. Please don't change 230?" It STILL frustrates me that Congress doesn't realize that changing 230 literally MAKES them 'censor' people. "We don't like that you're censoring people, so we're going to make you censor people." OK.gif.

And just to re-emphasize, this guy wasn't banned. No one is censoring him. YouTube just isn't partnering with him. Yeah, that screws his bottom line, but are we really going to argue that YT should be forced into a business relationship it doesn't want?

People don't trust corporate media because they've been told to not trust corporate media by... corporate media. Trump piled on. I'd think he was emulating 20's fascists if I thought he actually knew history. Corporate media though is designed to make money. If spewing shit makes them money, they're going to spew shit. How do you prevent said spewing of shit? Any government action is going to immediately hit 1st amendment issues. The truth doesn't sell well. That's the whole point behind things like NPR, though NPR itself is having to rely more and more on outside donations thanks to lack of funding.

[killacross]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-IvLGUOWM

[Digital Masta]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-IvLGUOWM

See...no chill whatsoever, lol.

[San Goku]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-IvLGUOWM

VidyVid
This is unironically Demi Lovato. She recently made an ig post stating that gender reveal parties are transphobic. So yeah, according to her, a mom that doesn't refer to her baby as "they" is transphobic.

YouTube comment, Lmfao!!!

[xandorxerxes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI-IvLGUOWM

VidyVid
This is unironically Demi Lovato. She recently made an ig post stating that gender reveal parties are transphobic. So yeah, according to her, a mom that doesn't refer to her baby as "they" is transphobic.

YouTube comment, Lmfao!!!

Apparently she linked someone else's comments, so I looked at the link in the slides/images she copied over and it's another rabbit-hole full of reading that I really don't feel like doing right now.

My brain decided to think of the parties as "hey, are you going to the party to find out the genetalia of so-and-so's baby?" and now everything just seems awkward. I guess I never understood the point of the parties anyways, so I'm biased.

[San Goku]

So more politics seeping in to my sports. MLB boycotting Georgia All-Star weekend for their new voting laws.

[killacross]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8xCGrXZ_8E

[xandorxerxes]

So more politics seeping in to my sports. MLB boycotting Georgia All-Star weekend for their new voting laws.

I used to care about shit like that, but then after Citizens United my employer wanted me to donate my salary to their super pac. After that I stopped giving a shit about sports organizations and musicians doing this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8xCGrXZ_8E

It'd be nice if he addressed the *actual* problems with the law instead of the low hanging fruit/sound bites that more left publications can latch on to as well in order to appear more balanced. He also snuck a few misfires of his own in there. Nothing too terribly off, I'd chalk it up to his slant versus malicious intent.

The new law cuts the time to request early ballots more than half, cuts the time before the ballots are sent in just under half, and increases the time that they must be received in. So in the new law, absentee ballots aren't sent out until 29 days before the election instead of 49 and have to be received by 11 days before the election instead of 4. Better hope there's no an issue with the mail... oh right it's worse in cities.

It also limits the number of drop boxes, the hours they can be open, and the locations where they can be placed. It does guarantee a minimum hours that polls are open, but it's exactly what the youtuber pointed out - they were already open for those hours. It allows for counties to go up to 7 to 7 (that is not default in GA), but it also caps it at 7 to 7. Counties can't decide to extend it. It makes 1 drop box mandatory, but also limits the maximum number of boxes per county. So... the places that maybe didn't have drop boxes before (more rural areas) now have to have one, and the places that need lots of drop boxes (urban areas) have fewer. It's a blatant push for GOPers. Don't get me wrong - forced drop boxes are a good thing - why do we need a limit on them?

There's random other shit too, like any voter being able to challenge as many voters' legitimacy as they want and holding runoffs within a MUCH closer time period now (before GA finished counting last election, lulz).

And of course the real fun one - stripping the power over elections from the Secretary of State to instead a board appointed by the legislature. The board then has the power to remove superintendents and put in their own superintendents who can in turn put in their own personnel. The limitation - this can only happen in up to 4 counties at once. Oh, that's how many they need to do for the biggest Democratic areas of the city? Go figure.

The law is more classist than racist, it's just that the people that it's impacting in this particular case are much, much more likely to be black. It's even more just a power grab by the GOP, but again - that disproportionately affects blacks than whites.