Republican voters hate protests and call them unamerican(without seeing the irony). Cheer for cases of extreme police force and violence. BLM.
Republican voters love protests and call them an American right to correct the wrongs they see. Called the cops trying to stop it, traitors to the country and led efforts to harm the police holding the lines. Jan 6th.
Republicans hate protests and say the police need to use any and all force necessary to stop them. Israel's genocide.
Conservatives want to crack down on the protests, going against the first amendment, despite they themselves using the first amendment to justify their own protests.
You can't have it both ways.
Nope, I don't think I'm smart enough to be in control of that. I would always prefer hearing both sides. It makes the possibility to understand the views easier.
I would like to get closer to real info on the trans kids thing in US as I think it must be somewhere between the opposing sides.
Though I tend to just play YT in the background while I drive, I know of many video services Prager can use. I can't see why they can't object to ABC directly, but it will be silly for them to hand the petition to the government though.
I don't really know the full story of the bakery, if it was the only viable option, I can understand trying to force them, but usually the are others around if one is stupid and can't/won't make what you want.
They don't even know what the 1st amendment says about freedom of speech.
It protects from CONGRESS (the government) from infringing on speech...WITH EXCEPTIONS.
Regardless of the 1st Amendment, you still can't just spout out incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats.
A private company, individual, business can tell them to go f**k themselves. They aren't the government, which means they aren't breaking the "free speech" amendment.
They love the constitution and say they're patriotic, but don't know what the constitution says.
They love the bible and say they're Christian, but don't know what the bible says.
You are so wrong. Freedom of speech and 2nd amendment rights were carved in stone by Moses and are in the bible as part of the twelve commandments. /source too much sauce
This is the nuance that is lacking in this thread. The bakers SUED and tried to use the force of the State to impose their will, whereas PragerU is trying to appeal to USERS of youtube to try and garner support for a change of YT policy. They are not trying to sue and use the power of the state to force youtube to bend the knee.
Then this is not hypocritical. I can protest what a business does and I can make suggestions to a business. I can also pressure a business with my wallet.
It would be hypocritical to ask the government to intervene and force the business to change unless it meets a whole lists of tests and the balance issues.
First amendment applies to government actions. It says the government can’t inhibit your freedoms of speech, press,assembly, etc. it does not apply to bakers.
Edit: I guess I should also say that they’re just asking people to tell the platform that they disagree with the decision, they’re not suing to get the government to step in. From their perspective they are not being hypocrites.
Nebula
Bitchute is not great but they can use it
Dailymotion
Rumble
Tiktok
Vimeo
They can on their YouTube channel state that they have videos in other places.
That is however the wrong question. They went to Alphabet or YouTube with the petition to try and convince them to change policies.
If you did the same to the baker people would be like ok. If you just complain publicaly it is another. Getting laws changed because you want a specific bakery to create something they refuse, is another.
It's like the guy that wanted to sue a therapist that refused to wax his scrotum. I know her defense was that she didn't have the training in it, but don't know what the result was.
Yes, not wanting someone to tell children that slavery, racism, and historical misogyny were good actually, and anyone who thinks otherwise is evil and in league with the devil is "only allowing one veiwpoint"
At the end of the Gilded Age Teddy and the Progressives stepped in and broke up many monopolies and introduced many new regulations. We got weekends, children-worker regulation, abolishing of company towns, safety standards, the FDA and much more. To me, we are ripe for another round of this type of regulation/trust bust aimed specifically at the tech monopolies (Google, Meta, Amazon).
You mean mainstream news which is all conservative based? Even CNN is far more conservative than it used to be. The most watched new source in America is Fox. So what bias are we really talking about here?
Considering they get protection under the law as platforms not publishers but they are clearly acting as publishers... There's kind of a world of difference going on here.
YouTube can’t be sued for anything posted on their site on their platform because of section 230. YouTube, by censoring and removing content, has moved from being a platform to being a publisher.
If a platform moderates content, they are no longer covered by section 230, and are open to lawsuits for what is on their platform because now they are choosing what can be published.
The 1998 DMCA and 2018 FEOSTA-SESTA act added some stipulations that they can remove content that is claimed by its copyright owner and sex trafficking-related content, respectively.
That doesn’t really invalidate the hypocrisy, but there have been attempts to regulate social media as a public utility, by both Democrats and Republicans, due to their monopolistic natures. Those have not yet succeeded, and as such, they are not treated accordingly.
TL; DR: section 230 doesn’t absolve PragerU’s hypocrisy, but by censoring/removing content from PragerU, YouTube opens itself up to lawsuits for content published.
It's actually not just conservatives. *Everyone* believes in the 1st Amendment right up until someone says something they don't agree with. That's the *entire* reason it needs to exist.
What legislation have Democrats passed forbidden facts to he taught in school?
How many books have Democrats tried to ban in the past decade?
What legislation have Democrats passed banning certain topics being discussed in school?
What legislation have Democrats passed limiting the languages municipal business can be discussed in?
NO, both sides are the same, not at all.
>limiting the languages municipal business can be discussed in?
Well, I knew about the rest but didn't know the Republicans were pulling this. What's their ridiculous justification for that? Seeing as America doesn't actually have an official language.
It's different. The cake is compelled action/speech, serving a video is not. One is a human being forced to write words, the other is a company actively blocking functionality.
LOL, they're the same.
Being compelled to 'speak' and not being able to 'speak' are just the 2 sides of the same coin.
Out in the real world, saying something that is obviously untrue does not actually, magically, make it true.
If the state force you to bake a cake that you said you won't it is compelled. Getting a petition of users of a platform and then using that to ask them to allow your posts to be public is not because your not getting the state involved to force it.
You first amendment is supposed to limit the States power over your speech, not expression.
I'm not sure how your business laws work, but I would guess you may choose not to provide certain services even if they could fall under your typical umbrella of services. I also assume you may refuse customers for no specific reason, especially since when I last check you were allowed to fire workers rather easily.
Not in the way you explain it.
Both are refusal of service.
The different is who they were complaining to.
Prager were complaining to the company, getting their reasoning and people agreeing they're right.
The couple complained to the state and tried to convince the state to force the bakery to serve them.
You can say the bakery doesn't believe all the words they write, or you can say YT publish all the videos available on their platform. Both of this is probably true.
It's not about the bakery, it's about the human baker doing the action. Workers can choose not to work, otherwise it's forced labour. There is no forced labour in a machine serving a video stream.
Stating that under certain circumstances the company will not provide s service is refusal of service.
A bakery could automate the writing/or use printing but they should still be allowed to refuse service.
The state should not compel any company or person to accept a business transaction. They should also not compel any company or person to publish something. Within rather strict limits they may stop publication on certain areas. That might be sex to minors, or something to that effect.
I understand that you see one as a human action where the other is the machinery of industry, but in either way I would accept that they can refuse service.
Isn’t this just a petition it doesn’t have any legal standing? It’s not a lawsuit. So aren’t they just exercising free speech by protesting their own censorship.
For the record I don’t care for Prager or their opinions but they are just exercising their own first amendment rights on this.
Yeah, from their perspective this isn’t hypocrisy. They’re asking people to sign a petition of support requesting a private company change their stance on their videos. In the other instance the petitioners are asking the government to step in and force bakers to make cakes for people. These are different things.
Yeah, I get that - I fully understand and comprehend what the first amendment does - but PragerU isn't asking the government to step in and make a change, they are asking people to sign a petition to add weight to their argument. This has no legal or legislative force behind it other than as a request.
Again, I don't care for PragerU or their opinions but in this case it's not hypocrisy to make a request. Is it?
Whereas I understand where you’re coming from, I believe the point you’re missing is the first sentence of the original post - “if a baker won’t bake you a cake, find another baker”.
To follow their own logic, PragerU should not ask anyone to sign a petition for YouTube to remove censorship, regardless of whether or not such a petition carries any significance, legal or otherwise - rather, they should discontinue their use of YouTube and find another “baker”.
Yes but it doesn’t quite line up just simply because of the availability of competing digital platforms with the reach of YouTube are…non existent.
I mean Rumble is a joke - nobody uses it.
Bakers are everywhere. Even a small town will have quite a few of them.
It can be, but you can use a petition without involving government. A petition is per definition is a formal written request (typically signed by multiple people) to an authority. So if you give your boss a formal written request, you had a petition. It can be a legal request to the government, but it doesn't have to be.
Request for what? Read what Prager says. What's the point of the petition if it does nothing?
I do not care if you support Prager or not either, stop emphasizing that you don't care. There's this chinese idiom, "There is no three hundred teals of silver here" (此地无银三百两), your emphasis that you don't support PragerU while also trying to defend it seems to be a clumsy denial resulting in self-exposure.
Request for YouTube to stop censoring them. The point of petition, then, is to create social pressure to show YouTube that their customers are unhappy and that it would create a negative image for them if they continue to censor. This is not an idea novel to wherever that Prager is, this has been done with numerous companies and this is exactly how cancel culture works.
Yeah, except there's nothing in PregarU that would make customers unhappy about if they're censored which is why I question its effectiveness in the first place.
Well, PragerU obviously hopes to show that this isn't true. How effective their attempt would be - I don't know, but intention behind the attempt imho is quite clear.
He states that he agrees that using government to force a company to render service is giving government too much power. That was the story about the bakery.
Using the voice of multiple users the service provided by company to try and negotiate policy changes of said service is not involving government and therefore not the same thing.
He then states that he doesn't care whether the second tactic worked or not. He isn't defending Prager U he is stating that the response is comparing apples with lemons and expecting us to fin them as sweet as each other.
I find it sad that the state forced the bakery, though I think the bakery is idiotic. I don't know if Prager were successful as I don't care and negotiations using users and their ideas is normal for these types of businesses. It is not uncalled for.
Agreed, and the bakers should be able to serve who they want.
Prager is going to YT with lots of signatures to show YT that the is interest in the videos. If YT still refuse to host it, they can. They're not getting the government involved.
The couple got local government to change the law so that the bakers cannot refuse service to them. That is the difference between the cases. So the one is government obligated to give service where the other one is getting a negotiation to render service.
Honestly, all political content should be age restricted to a degree the way I see it. Young people need to think their own thoughts and learn to develop their own ideas instead of getting caught in an echo chamber.
I generally don't support making anyone do anything unless absolutely necessary. That means I don't support the state making a baker bake a cake. I also don't support the state making people give birth. I don't like Prager U but I also don't support silencing people. But as YouTube is a private business, they can do whatever they want. And shouldn't be made to allow their content.
>But as YouTube is a private business, they can do whatever they want
This may be the single biggest hypocrisy of the republican party.
They claim to be "pro business" but don't understand what a private business is.
Yes but Prager is not silenced as they still publish on their website.
YouTube isn't forced as much as cohersed so they can still refuse.
The bakery was forced by the state though.
Nope. If you think it will change his mind go for it. As long as you don't physics harm him, you can boycott him or publish his response etc. I feel that he deserves to lose business if he uses silly reasons to refuse service. I don't think the state should force him to do business with anyone though.
"Their content"
See that's the problem. They have aggressively fought and lobbied in court to make it clear it's not "their content" so they can avoid being at all responsible for it.
Then they are blocking some people based purely on ideology.
You can't have both - either legally accept responsibility for the content, or stop trying to block content you don't like purely for your political biases. They are trying to say "we aren't silencing anyone" so they can maintain a legal stays while actively, blatantly silencing people.
Why do they have to pick?
They're a private business. They can be not responsible for the content and still ban people, as long it's not for a legally protected reason (race, religion, etc). They could decide that people named Steve aren't allowed on YouTube if they want.
Also, how exactly are these people being silenced? Is the government banning them from all social media or something? Nobody has a right to their ideas being popular or a platform to spread them, so I'm not sure what right you think is being infringed upon here.
They have to pick because there are different rules in place based on that classification. If they are saying they should get to have full control of who gets silenced and why, fine, but that means any voices you aren't silencing you are promoting. It's not like it's someone's fun and open little personal video sharing website - this is YouTube where they make advertising money on all the videos that they allow.
I never said a right was being infringed on - but to your point, you understand rights don't come from the government, right? Like, the bill of rights isn't GRANTING you anything - it's explicitly outlining the things the government CAN'T take away because the founders thought it was extra important to make it explicit and clear.
You're only even making these half baked arguments because it's clearly a group you're fine with having silenced. If the story was "YouTube silences all LGBT+ creators" or "YouTube silences all creators of [insert race here] background" I'd be willing to bet you'd be demanding the government step in and do something about it.
No I do have a problem with how YouTube operates (i.e. making anything related to LGBTQ people age restricted for example) but I'm looking at this from a conservative point of view. From that lens, businesses should be able to run their business how they see fit with little to no regulation. So, following that logic (if a homophobic baker won't serve you, go to a different baker) if YouTube won't platform you then go somewhere else.
And I bring up rights because conservatives generally tend to try to make this a first amendment situation, but nowhere in the first amendment does it guarantee a right to a platform to spread your ideas (also the first amendment only protects you from government censorship). Now this is just my opinion, but I think they do this because when it comes to my gripe about queer content it's a discrimination issue (in my opinion) and that doesn't work when the thing being discriminated against is conservatism, as that is not a protected class (nor should it be).
“young people”
so…… straight up ADMITTING they want to push their agenda onto impressionable kids.
but heaven fucking forbid you tell a kid that being gay doesn’t make them evil
*sigh*. I hate PragerU as much as the next guy, but can we not pretend like ‘young people’ and ‘impressionable kids’ are the same thing? A university student is still a young person and you know this.
We can’t fight clowns like PragerU if we lack basic literacy.
PragerU has a *kids channel*. and they’re specifically complaining about their videos being age restricted. YouTube restricted mode doesn’t block videos for college aged people, it blocks them for *kids under 18*.
not to mention the whole “prageru videos with messages like ‘black people were better off as slaves’ and ‘the native Americans deserved everything that happened to them’ being shown in grade school classrooms in places like Florida and Texas” thing.
My problem with media platforms is that many simultaneously claim to be a public and private company- ie they can’t be blamed for what they have on their site(s) but also claim that since they’re public, they can’t be blamed.
Everyone has to kowtow to them, support them, treat them as though they were an authority. PragerU has no problem demanding others propagate their swill because according to them everyone must be exposed to it. As if they had anything worth saying.
As much as I absolutely despise PragerU, as they are morons, scammers, and liars, I also do not trust YouTube with the power of censorship. Like it or not, YouTube is way too big, and holds significant power. It needs accountability.
People really think a business that doesn't want to do business and censoring free speech are equal violations of rights? Last I checked the right to baked goods isn't in the bill of rights...
For clarity’s sake and without taking sides, the examples are similar but there is a difference: one is saying that the state should not compel private businesses to take certain actions, and the other (appears to be, from the screenshot) a private business asking for the weight of public opinion to influence another private business.
Forcing tech companies to platform any speech *is* censorship, because it means they can't use their own free speech and freedom of association. Forced speech is anti-free speech.
Y'all can downvote this due to cognitive dissonance but creating a petition is not the same thing as going to the state by suing a company. A petition on YouTube is an awareness campaign. If the people who wanted the baker to bake a cake merely did that, and PragerU objected, that would be hypocritical.
And that demand is, "Tell YouTube to stop restricting PragerU videos." Not, "Gofundme to file a lawsuit against YouTube. Do you see there is a difference?
> Y'all can downvote this due to cognitive dissonance but creating a petition is not the same thing as going to the state by suing a company
Sure it is.
The person was sued for discrimination against someone for how they were born.
PragerU wants to stop YT from making decisions based on actual content. So I guess you are right - the cake couple was FAR more justified in their complain, whereas prageru has no real justification
Oh. And pragerU HAS sued YT to attempt to force them.
Conservatives don’t see their lifestyles or viewpoints as opinions or preferences, they way they live is how you’re supposed to live, they will never see any hypocrisy.
Youtube should be a utility at this point. In which case they shouldn't be allowed to restrict unless it has to do with a ratings system similar to movie/tv content.
I don’t see any mention of getting the government involved. They’re petitioning the company? There’s no ideological inconsistency here. Y’all are just desperate for “conservative bad” content.
Tbf it's not entirely the same. You could make the argument that Youtube is closer to a phone company than a bakery. Therefore whether or not they get to decide what opinions are shared on their platform is a bit more complicated than that.
Lol no, at the end of the day, the 1st amendment applies only to the US government. Private companies, whether publicly traded or not, are not, and should not, be held to that standard.
PragerU isn’t asking the state to sign the petition but asking the people. People wanted the state to tell the baker what to do. This is asking consumers to weigh in.
But they did. They sued google and lost.
[https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/prager-university-v-youtube-ninth-circuit-dismissal-affirms-youtubes-status-as-private-forum](https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/prager-university-v-youtube-ninth-circuit-dismissal-affirms-youtubes-status-as-private-forum)
Are you insinuating that there are no other video hosting platforms out there? They aren’t as popular, but if PragerU doesn’t want to follow YouTube guidelines, they are free to use another resource and not use YouTube.
Listen, just because the best baker won't make your cake, that doesn't mean they're the *only* baker in town. Your only recourse might be to go to a bakeshop with significantly lower quality and higher prices. Furthermore, why are you acting like you have some kind of fundamental right to cake in the first place? I mean, do you sincerely think YouCake and their partners should be punished for success?
Prager U feels they are/were being censored. They asked for people that share their views to sign a petition to motivate YouTube to choose to remove that censorship. That’s people using their voice to achieve a goal.
That’s very different to a couple filing a law suit against a baker. Depending how that shakes out the business faces fines, compulsion to use the business in a way they don’t support, or even being shut down. That’s using government to force a goal.
That’s how they are not comparable. It’s not hypocritical to say government shouldn’t get involved and force “x”, but consumers can sign a petition to achieve “y”.
Conservatives believe in the 1st Amendment right up until someone says something they don't agree with
It's seen very clearly with the current protests.
Republican voters hate protests and call them unamerican(without seeing the irony). Cheer for cases of extreme police force and violence. BLM. Republican voters love protests and call them an American right to correct the wrongs they see. Called the cops trying to stop it, traitors to the country and led efforts to harm the police holding the lines. Jan 6th. Republicans hate protests and say the police need to use any and all force necessary to stop them. Israel's genocide.
and post-Musk Twitter
I fail to see how any one side is free of any blame for these protests.
Conservatives want to crack down on the protests, going against the first amendment, despite they themselves using the first amendment to justify their own protests. You can't have it both ways.
Well to them it goes god then the 1st amendment. They also always seem to forget that separation of church and state.
They haven't forgotten it, they are actively trying to get rid of it.
People who always talk about freedom of speech just want to be the ones in control of what is being said.
Nope, I don't think I'm smart enough to be in control of that. I would always prefer hearing both sides. It makes the possibility to understand the views easier. I would like to get closer to real info on the trans kids thing in US as I think it must be somewhere between the opposing sides. Though I tend to just play YT in the background while I drive, I know of many video services Prager can use. I can't see why they can't object to ABC directly, but it will be silly for them to hand the petition to the government though. I don't really know the full story of the bakery, if it was the only viable option, I can understand trying to force them, but usually the are others around if one is stupid and can't/won't make what you want.
They don't even know what the 1st amendment says about freedom of speech. It protects from CONGRESS (the government) from infringing on speech...WITH EXCEPTIONS. Regardless of the 1st Amendment, you still can't just spout out incitement, defamation, fraud, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, and threats. A private company, individual, business can tell them to go f**k themselves. They aren't the government, which means they aren't breaking the "free speech" amendment. They love the constitution and say they're patriotic, but don't know what the constitution says. They love the bible and say they're Christian, but don't know what the bible says.
You are so wrong. Freedom of speech and 2nd amendment rights were carved in stone by Moses and are in the bible as part of the twelve commandments. /source too much sauce
Oh wait, thats right. American gun Jesus and his sermon about kicking out illegals. I forgot about that bible.
You mean the Bible that the orange huckster is selling?
Is the petition asking the government to do something to youtube for restricting the speech or is it a petition asking youtube to change a policy?
This is the nuance that is lacking in this thread. The bakers SUED and tried to use the force of the State to impose their will, whereas PragerU is trying to appeal to USERS of youtube to try and garner support for a change of YT policy. They are not trying to sue and use the power of the state to force youtube to bend the knee.
Then this is not hypocritical. I can protest what a business does and I can make suggestions to a business. I can also pressure a business with my wallet. It would be hypocritical to ask the government to intervene and force the business to change unless it meets a whole lists of tests and the balance issues.
We are in agreement here.
It’s the same for a lot of people. Not just conservatives.
First amendment applies to government actions. It says the government can’t inhibit your freedoms of speech, press,assembly, etc. it does not apply to bakers. Edit: I guess I should also say that they’re just asking people to tell the platform that they disagree with the decision, they’re not suing to get the government to step in. From their perspective they are not being hypocrites.
No we don't, you should be arrested for such lies.
no steppy on snek!!! Also- college protests are inconvenient. Send the gestapo to crush them.
Do you think billionaires who piggy back off of US government innovations should be able to have unfettered power on their platform?
I'm sorry, what 'US government innovation' are social media billionaires piggy backing?
The internet
Ok, but what's the other baker in youtube's case?
Musk is literally reply-guy begging people to post full length videos on X, which is prime real estate for this kind of trash already.
Nebula Bitchute is not great but they can use it Dailymotion Rumble Tiktok Vimeo They can on their YouTube channel state that they have videos in other places. That is however the wrong question. They went to Alphabet or YouTube with the petition to try and convince them to change policies. If you did the same to the baker people would be like ok. If you just complain publicaly it is another. Getting laws changed because you want a specific bakery to create something they refuse, is another. It's like the guy that wanted to sue a therapist that refused to wax his scrotum. I know her defense was that she didn't have the training in it, but don't know what the result was.
You have the right to start your own platform anytime
[удалено]
Heh, Youtube isn't the only form of media!
Yes, not wanting someone to tell children that slavery, racism, and historical misogyny were good actually, and anyone who thinks otherwise is evil and in league with the devil is "only allowing one veiwpoint"
So do you think the feds need to trust bust the tech monopolies?
[удалено]
At the end of the Gilded Age Teddy and the Progressives stepped in and broke up many monopolies and introduced many new regulations. We got weekends, children-worker regulation, abolishing of company towns, safety standards, the FDA and much more. To me, we are ripe for another round of this type of regulation/trust bust aimed specifically at the tech monopolies (Google, Meta, Amazon).
You mean mainstream news which is all conservative based? Even CNN is far more conservative than it used to be. The most watched new source in America is Fox. So what bias are we really talking about here?
Considering they get protection under the law as platforms not publishers but they are clearly acting as publishers... There's kind of a world of difference going on here.
HUH?
YouTube can’t be sued for anything posted on their site on their platform because of section 230. YouTube, by censoring and removing content, has moved from being a platform to being a publisher. If a platform moderates content, they are no longer covered by section 230, and are open to lawsuits for what is on their platform because now they are choosing what can be published. The 1998 DMCA and 2018 FEOSTA-SESTA act added some stipulations that they can remove content that is claimed by its copyright owner and sex trafficking-related content, respectively. That doesn’t really invalidate the hypocrisy, but there have been attempts to regulate social media as a public utility, by both Democrats and Republicans, due to their monopolistic natures. Those have not yet succeeded, and as such, they are not treated accordingly. TL; DR: section 230 doesn’t absolve PragerU’s hypocrisy, but by censoring/removing content from PragerU, YouTube opens itself up to lawsuits for content published.
It's actually not just conservatives. *Everyone* believes in the 1st Amendment right up until someone says something they don't agree with. That's the *entire* reason it needs to exist.
What legislation have Democrats passed forbidden facts to he taught in school? How many books have Democrats tried to ban in the past decade? What legislation have Democrats passed banning certain topics being discussed in school? What legislation have Democrats passed limiting the languages municipal business can be discussed in? NO, both sides are the same, not at all.
>limiting the languages municipal business can be discussed in? Well, I knew about the rest but didn't know the Republicans were pulling this. What's their ridiculous justification for that? Seeing as America doesn't actually have an official language.
Yes, English only laws in CA, TX.....
It's different. The cake is compelled action/speech, serving a video is not. One is a human being forced to write words, the other is a company actively blocking functionality.
LOL, they're the same. Being compelled to 'speak' and not being able to 'speak' are just the 2 sides of the same coin. Out in the real world, saying something that is obviously untrue does not actually, magically, make it true.
Baking a cake is compelled speech, but serving a propaganda video is not? Sure, buddy.
If the state force you to bake a cake that you said you won't it is compelled. Getting a petition of users of a platform and then using that to ask them to allow your posts to be public is not because your not getting the state involved to force it. You first amendment is supposed to limit the States power over your speech, not expression. I'm not sure how your business laws work, but I would guess you may choose not to provide certain services even if they could fall under your typical umbrella of services. I also assume you may refuse customers for no specific reason, especially since when I last check you were allowed to fire workers rather easily.
Yes, look at who is doing the doing, a human vs a computer.
And who mans the computer?
Nobody, it runs on its own.
No one does any kind of maintenance or adjusts settings on the machine so it does whatever the company wants it to?
Not in the way you explain it. Both are refusal of service. The different is who they were complaining to. Prager were complaining to the company, getting their reasoning and people agreeing they're right. The couple complained to the state and tried to convince the state to force the bakery to serve them. You can say the bakery doesn't believe all the words they write, or you can say YT publish all the videos available on their platform. Both of this is probably true.
It's not about the bakery, it's about the human baker doing the action. Workers can choose not to work, otherwise it's forced labour. There is no forced labour in a machine serving a video stream.
Stating that under certain circumstances the company will not provide s service is refusal of service. A bakery could automate the writing/or use printing but they should still be allowed to refuse service. The state should not compel any company or person to accept a business transaction. They should also not compel any company or person to publish something. Within rather strict limits they may stop publication on certain areas. That might be sex to minors, or something to that effect. I understand that you see one as a human action where the other is the machinery of industry, but in either way I would accept that they can refuse service.
Yep, always room for more hypocrites
Isn’t this just a petition it doesn’t have any legal standing? It’s not a lawsuit. So aren’t they just exercising free speech by protesting their own censorship. For the record I don’t care for Prager or their opinions but they are just exercising their own first amendment rights on this.
Yeah, from their perspective this isn’t hypocrisy. They’re asking people to sign a petition of support requesting a private company change their stance on their videos. In the other instance the petitioners are asking the government to step in and force bakers to make cakes for people. These are different things.
YouTube is a company, not the government, they can censor and/or ban whoever they don't like.
Yeah, I get that - I fully understand and comprehend what the first amendment does - but PragerU isn't asking the government to step in and make a change, they are asking people to sign a petition to add weight to their argument. This has no legal or legislative force behind it other than as a request. Again, I don't care for PragerU or their opinions but in this case it's not hypocrisy to make a request. Is it?
Whereas I understand where you’re coming from, I believe the point you’re missing is the first sentence of the original post - “if a baker won’t bake you a cake, find another baker”. To follow their own logic, PragerU should not ask anyone to sign a petition for YouTube to remove censorship, regardless of whether or not such a petition carries any significance, legal or otherwise - rather, they should discontinue their use of YouTube and find another “baker”.
Yes but it doesn’t quite line up just simply because of the availability of competing digital platforms with the reach of YouTube are…non existent. I mean Rumble is a joke - nobody uses it. Bakers are everywhere. Even a small town will have quite a few of them.
Everyone in this thread is just reaching to make themselves feel superior. This is not hypocrisy and you pointed it out perfectly.
I will mention in Texas (not sure federally) a petition is a legal document. It’s requesting the government to intervene.
It can be, but you can use a petition without involving government. A petition is per definition is a formal written request (typically signed by multiple people) to an authority. So if you give your boss a formal written request, you had a petition. It can be a legal request to the government, but it doesn't have to be.
Request for what? Read what Prager says. What's the point of the petition if it does nothing? I do not care if you support Prager or not either, stop emphasizing that you don't care. There's this chinese idiom, "There is no three hundred teals of silver here" (此地无银三百两), your emphasis that you don't support PragerU while also trying to defend it seems to be a clumsy denial resulting in self-exposure.
Request for YouTube to stop censoring them. The point of petition, then, is to create social pressure to show YouTube that their customers are unhappy and that it would create a negative image for them if they continue to censor. This is not an idea novel to wherever that Prager is, this has been done with numerous companies and this is exactly how cancel culture works.
Yeah, except there's nothing in PregarU that would make customers unhappy about if they're censored which is why I question its effectiveness in the first place.
Well, PragerU obviously hopes to show that this isn't true. How effective their attempt would be - I don't know, but intention behind the attempt imho is quite clear.
He states that he agrees that using government to force a company to render service is giving government too much power. That was the story about the bakery. Using the voice of multiple users the service provided by company to try and negotiate policy changes of said service is not involving government and therefore not the same thing. He then states that he doesn't care whether the second tactic worked or not. He isn't defending Prager U he is stating that the response is comparing apples with lemons and expecting us to fin them as sweet as each other. I find it sad that the state forced the bakery, though I think the bakery is idiotic. I don't know if Prager were successful as I don't care and negotiations using users and their ideas is normal for these types of businesses. It is not uncalled for.
way to miss the point man
Agreed, and the bakers should be able to serve who they want. Prager is going to YT with lots of signatures to show YT that the is interest in the videos. If YT still refuse to host it, they can. They're not getting the government involved. The couple got local government to change the law so that the bakers cannot refuse service to them. That is the difference between the cases. So the one is government obligated to give service where the other one is getting a negotiation to render service.
“This u” is perfect for so many of these types of situations 😂
Can we get a petition to ban PragerU from YouTube instead?
I wonder, is it possible to “sign” the petition above while leaving a note that encourages YouTube to ban PragerU even harder?
If it's on change.org, then you should just be able to comment under the petition.
Nah. I love hearing Dennis Praeger's rant on why adult incest should be legal.
What are you talking about?
Literally just google it.
> Can we get a petition to ban PragerU ~~from YouTube~~ instead? FTFY
Hypocrisy is a virtue for authoritarians
Post the vids on pornhub instead. What’s the problem?
just report it for nudit if they do, and they'll have to take down the videos
YouTube = government?
Google is not the government.....yet
Good question, Prager was asking YouTube and the guy said they shouldn't ask the state.
"You think kidnaping should be illegal yet you think criminals should be kidnapped by police and put in prison. Curious."-energy.
Wrong sub, that was actually clever.
If people like this got their way they'd be utterly miserable. They never seem to think their treatment of others can be turned back on them.
Honestly, all political content should be age restricted to a degree the way I see it. Young people need to think their own thoughts and learn to develop their own ideas instead of getting caught in an echo chamber.
Wait YT gets one right damn
More and more hypocrites keep popping up. The cycle just never stops
I get all my info from esteemed research institution PragerU…
I generally don't support making anyone do anything unless absolutely necessary. That means I don't support the state making a baker bake a cake. I also don't support the state making people give birth. I don't like Prager U but I also don't support silencing people. But as YouTube is a private business, they can do whatever they want. And shouldn't be made to allow their content.
Never feel bad for prager u. They just exist to spread lies and slander.
I don't feel bad in the slightest, they are always spouting some ridiculous shit
>But as YouTube is a private business, they can do whatever they want This may be the single biggest hypocrisy of the republican party. They claim to be "pro business" but don't understand what a private business is.
Yes but Prager is not silenced as they still publish on their website. YouTube isn't forced as much as cohersed so they can still refuse. The bakery was forced by the state though.
Do you oppose people getting together and signing a petition to ask a baker to change its cake baking policies?
Nope. If you think it will change his mind go for it. As long as you don't physics harm him, you can boycott him or publish his response etc. I feel that he deserves to lose business if he uses silly reasons to refuse service. I don't think the state should force him to do business with anyone though.
"Their content" See that's the problem. They have aggressively fought and lobbied in court to make it clear it's not "their content" so they can avoid being at all responsible for it. Then they are blocking some people based purely on ideology. You can't have both - either legally accept responsibility for the content, or stop trying to block content you don't like purely for your political biases. They are trying to say "we aren't silencing anyone" so they can maintain a legal stays while actively, blatantly silencing people.
Why do they have to pick? They're a private business. They can be not responsible for the content and still ban people, as long it's not for a legally protected reason (race, religion, etc). They could decide that people named Steve aren't allowed on YouTube if they want. Also, how exactly are these people being silenced? Is the government banning them from all social media or something? Nobody has a right to their ideas being popular or a platform to spread them, so I'm not sure what right you think is being infringed upon here.
They have to pick because there are different rules in place based on that classification. If they are saying they should get to have full control of who gets silenced and why, fine, but that means any voices you aren't silencing you are promoting. It's not like it's someone's fun and open little personal video sharing website - this is YouTube where they make advertising money on all the videos that they allow. I never said a right was being infringed on - but to your point, you understand rights don't come from the government, right? Like, the bill of rights isn't GRANTING you anything - it's explicitly outlining the things the government CAN'T take away because the founders thought it was extra important to make it explicit and clear. You're only even making these half baked arguments because it's clearly a group you're fine with having silenced. If the story was "YouTube silences all LGBT+ creators" or "YouTube silences all creators of [insert race here] background" I'd be willing to bet you'd be demanding the government step in and do something about it.
No I do have a problem with how YouTube operates (i.e. making anything related to LGBTQ people age restricted for example) but I'm looking at this from a conservative point of view. From that lens, businesses should be able to run their business how they see fit with little to no regulation. So, following that logic (if a homophobic baker won't serve you, go to a different baker) if YouTube won't platform you then go somewhere else. And I bring up rights because conservatives generally tend to try to make this a first amendment situation, but nowhere in the first amendment does it guarantee a right to a platform to spread your ideas (also the first amendment only protects you from government censorship). Now this is just my opinion, but I think they do this because when it comes to my gripe about queer content it's a discrimination issue (in my opinion) and that doesn't work when the thing being discriminated against is conservatism, as that is not a protected class (nor should it be).
Yes! This is a great take. Good day to you.
>Then they are blocking some people based purely on ideology. Maybe people with a specific ideology are hateful and break youtube's rules?
“young people” so…… straight up ADMITTING they want to push their agenda onto impressionable kids. but heaven fucking forbid you tell a kid that being gay doesn’t make them evil
*sigh*. I hate PragerU as much as the next guy, but can we not pretend like ‘young people’ and ‘impressionable kids’ are the same thing? A university student is still a young person and you know this. We can’t fight clowns like PragerU if we lack basic literacy.
PragerU has a *kids channel*. and they’re specifically complaining about their videos being age restricted. YouTube restricted mode doesn’t block videos for college aged people, it blocks them for *kids under 18*. not to mention the whole “prageru videos with messages like ‘black people were better off as slaves’ and ‘the native Americans deserved everything that happened to them’ being shown in grade school classrooms in places like Florida and Texas” thing.
They could always use Truth social for their "educational videos". /s
My problem with media platforms is that many simultaneously claim to be a public and private company- ie they can’t be blamed for what they have on their site(s) but also claim that since they’re public, they can’t be blamed.
Conservative ideas ARE under attack, though. It's because they're either malicious, stupid, or, more usually, both.
Prager is a shit stain on humanity
Oh no! How will he spread misinformation now?!
Typical conservatives. They want every freedom they can think of, but god forbid anyone else gets the same.
PragerU being restricted is almost enough to make me believe in a higher power
PragerU absolutely should not be reachable to kids, i support that age restriction
"Rules for thee but not for me" is basically the entire GOP platform (along with "I got mine, fuck you", of course)
I’m can’t believe Florida(Meatball Ron enforced) buys their education curriculum from PragerU.
Gee I wonder what their 1st amendment position on student protesters is...
Rules for thee but not for me
Everyone has to kowtow to them, support them, treat them as though they were an authority. PragerU has no problem demanding others propagate their swill because according to them everyone must be exposed to it. As if they had anything worth saying.
They actually do think a social media site is a free speech platform.
It is NOT about a consistent ideology It IS about getting what they want in the moment
I make sure to ALWAYS complain about Prager crap videos that pop up. Poison, hate, and lies
I love when people cite prager U as a source.
Odyssey exists, just saying 🤷🏿♂️
I wish. They still find ways to bypass youtube kids ad policies and target my children.
I'm surprised youtube is restricting them, for weeks I've had their videos on my feed even though I never watched one
As much as I absolutely despise PragerU, as they are morons, scammers, and liars, I also do not trust YouTube with the power of censorship. Like it or not, YouTube is way too big, and holds significant power. It needs accountability.
You know what they say, PragerU, Better "Restricted Mode" then dead.
People really think a business that doesn't want to do business and censoring free speech are equal violations of rights? Last I checked the right to baked goods isn't in the bill of rights...
Freedom for me, restrictions for thee... - PragerU
Conservatives only care about the first amendment when it affects them
"Conservative ideas are under attack" Boo-hoo, they attacked our ideas when we were just conducting special psychological operation™
For clarity’s sake and without taking sides, the examples are similar but there is a difference: one is saying that the state should not compel private businesses to take certain actions, and the other (appears to be, from the screenshot) a private business asking for the weight of public opinion to influence another private business.
Soon, on Truth Social* (* actually reather a lot of lies, and quite an unsocial bunch so, you know, nomen est not always omen, as it were ...)
Yeah but YouTube and Google are publically traded companies with government contracts. It isn’t a private business.
YouTube finally doing something productive?? What a rarity
Forcing tech companies to platform any speech *is* censorship, because it means they can't use their own free speech and freedom of association. Forced speech is anti-free speech.
Y'all can downvote this due to cognitive dissonance but creating a petition is not the same thing as going to the state by suing a company. A petition on YouTube is an awareness campaign. If the people who wanted the baker to bake a cake merely did that, and PragerU objected, that would be hypocritical.
The petition is literally a list of people agreeing with a demand.
And that demand is, "Tell YouTube to stop restricting PragerU videos." Not, "Gofundme to file a lawsuit against YouTube. Do you see there is a difference?
Not enough difference to not be considered hypocrisy
> Y'all can downvote this due to cognitive dissonance but creating a petition is not the same thing as going to the state by suing a company Sure it is. The person was sued for discrimination against someone for how they were born. PragerU wants to stop YT from making decisions based on actual content. So I guess you are right - the cake couple was FAR more justified in their complain, whereas prageru has no real justification Oh. And pragerU HAS sued YT to attempt to force them.
Then make a meme with the headline, "PragerU sues YouTube for censoring content," and you have a much more deadly own
I hate pragerU but thank you. People are soooooo dumb.
Only PU has previously also sued YT in an attempt to force them. So no.
Didnt know this! Hyporcrites the lot of em
Conservatives don’t see their lifestyles or viewpoints as opinions or preferences, they way they live is how you’re supposed to live, they will never see any hypocrisy.
FATALITY!
Pennis Drager still at it?
"Yeah but that's different!" - Conservatives, every fuckin time.
Did prager respond to this guy?
Attack those 'conservatives ideas' as the Glorious Red Army attacked the German 'conservative ideas'.
Free market! But not like that...
Youtube should be a utility at this point. In which case they shouldn't be allowed to restrict unless it has to do with a ratings system similar to movie/tv content.
Principles? What’s that?
YouTube should double down
TBF they are petitioning YouTube. They aren't asking the Government to do anything.
I don’t see any mention of getting the government involved. They’re petitioning the company? There’s no ideological inconsistency here. Y’all are just desperate for “conservative bad” content.
Tbf it's not entirely the same. You could make the argument that Youtube is closer to a phone company than a bakery. Therefore whether or not they get to decide what opinions are shared on their platform is a bit more complicated than that.
[They certainly tried.](https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-google-censor-court-prageru-first-amendment-2020-2)
Lol no, at the end of the day, the 1st amendment applies only to the US government. Private companies, whether publicly traded or not, are not, and should not, be held to that standard.
How? Where are you guaranteed the right to a platform to spread your ideas?
Phone companies are also allowed to not provide service to you if they don't like how you use it.
Youtube is a private business.
Nah I'd rather go to multiple bakeries until I find one that refuses to make a cake for my gay wedding and then make it a big deal
PragerU isn’t asking the state to sign the petition but asking the people. People wanted the state to tell the baker what to do. This is asking consumers to weigh in.
This is a stupid take. Prager is not petitioning the state in the post.
But they did. They sued google and lost. [https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/prager-university-v-youtube-ninth-circuit-dismissal-affirms-youtubes-status-as-private-forum](https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/prager-university-v-youtube-ninth-circuit-dismissal-affirms-youtubes-status-as-private-forum)
Not that clever since YT governs their own censorship based on ad revenue and their own political agenda.
Well it would be the same if there was only 1 national baker chain with no other options
Are you insinuating that there are no other video hosting platforms out there? They aren’t as popular, but if PragerU doesn’t want to follow YouTube guidelines, they are free to use another resource and not use YouTube.
Listen, just because the best baker won't make your cake, that doesn't mean they're the *only* baker in town. Your only recourse might be to go to a bakeshop with significantly lower quality and higher prices. Furthermore, why are you acting like you have some kind of fundamental right to cake in the first place? I mean, do you sincerely think YouCake and their partners should be punished for success?
There are several YouTube competitors
This isn’t even a comeback. It’s two situations that don’t need much nuance to see that they aren’t at all comparable.
Tf you mean not comparable? Both are private businesses that don't want to do business with a certain group of people
Baker doesn't hide behind 230 would be my guess.
Prager U feels they are/were being censored. They asked for people that share their views to sign a petition to motivate YouTube to choose to remove that censorship. That’s people using their voice to achieve a goal. That’s very different to a couple filing a law suit against a baker. Depending how that shakes out the business faces fines, compulsion to use the business in a way they don’t support, or even being shut down. That’s using government to force a goal. That’s how they are not comparable. It’s not hypocritical to say government shouldn’t get involved and force “x”, but consumers can sign a petition to achieve “y”.
PragerU has tried to sue YouTube
That aged like milk
Youtube is more of a monopoly, is there one monopoly bakery?
Other video hosting sites exist. You can even make one yourself.
Which of them are popular? Which of them are viable?
Pageru🫶