"Jim" / James Augustine née James Patrick O'Shaughnessy / Mister Metokur / Jim81Jim / Internet Aristocrat - His autistic videos and the gay beta "sweetie squad" who mindlessly suck his cock.

[Sanshain]

Jim weighs in on the new Youtube censorship program

At this point, why doesn't Youtube just make an entirely separate site for all the edgy videos they apparently don't want to be associated with?

 

[Trilby]

At this point, why doesn't Youtube just make an entirely separate site for all the edgy videos they apparently don't want to be associated with?

Perhaps they don't see it as profitable to have a standalone site to waste server space on all those vids.

 

[BrunoMattei]

At this point, why doesn't Youtube just make an entirely separate site for all the edgy videos they apparently don't want to be associated with?

Because they want to push an agenda. Same shit with Facebook and Twitter. These companies own our media and want to control that. As simple as that.

 

[CowReserach Inc.]

Because they want to push an agenda. Same shit with Facebook and Twitter. These companies own our media and want to control that. As simple as that.

They probably think reddit, Twitter, Youtube, are the reasons they didn't get HRC in the White House. This time, they won't leave the Presidency to stupid things like free and open exchange of information, or any of that shit.

 

[Hatoful Dandy]

At this point, why doesn't Youtube just make an entirely separate site for all the edgy videos they apparently don't want to be associated with?

You mean...like a ghetto?

 

[Trilby]

You mean...like a ghetto?

 

[Feline Darkmage]

vidme and dailymotion are already the youtube ghettos tbh.

 

[Dysnomia]

You mean...like a ghetto?

Ghettotube. Perfect.

I don't see them doing it because then even if they try to pass off the second site as something not related to the main Youtube they are going to REEEEed by proxy for supporting wrongthink. It would never work out and be a waste of server space, quickly turning into a retarded garbage dump. Probably overnight.

 

[Cosmos]

 

[Trilby]

Now that is VERY interesting!

 

[tehpope]

What do you guys think the answer is to Jim's question?

 

[millais]

What do you guys think the answer is to Jim's question?

Pray that the normies' disdain for the billionaire corporate web giants outweighs their susceptibility to the web giants' sociopolitical engineering. The lefties will probably win this round of the kulturkampf, but the war is far from over.

 

[BrunoMattei]

What do you guys think the answer is to Jim's question?

Open Source websites come into the forefront as alternatives. Similar to how Voat came after the Reddit purge. The main problem would be how these sites would be self-sustaining if they can't get the advertising necessary. It's possible that these sites can be supported via Patreon but, of course, Patreon can de-platform them without giving a reason. *

They could be supported through bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies but Goldman Sachs may now own the patent on that: https://www.ethnews.com/goldman-sachs-awarded-cryptocurrency-patent

So we may be fucked. But who knows? Maybe it'll be like Tor and servers will be hosted by the common man out of altruism? Maybe Trump will put through some legislation? BTW: Trump has said he will veto CISPA.

Edit: it's possible that altruistic billionaires could fund an alternative social media but there's a risk of it being slanted too. The Koch Brothers wouldn't fund it because they don't want another Trump either.

I think of it like hacking. Every company makes a big deal about shit being un-hackable only to proven wrong almost immediately after the product comes out.

*2nd Edit: they could of course create their own donation system similar to Patreon or Kickstarter. But Paypal and credit card companies can still fuck them over if they don't like the content. This happened to the graphic porn site Insex (a graphic bondage site, it didn't have CP or Bestiality or any of that shit) and how that site fell.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

What do you guys think the answer is to Jim's question?

Probably a bit of an internal civil war at Google. Which then spreads across the rest of the industry, and the internet itself.

If what Jim and the anonymous Google employee are saying is true. Then I'd say that unless they buy out all the news sites, we'd be seeing more about this going on from within the company.

The mere fact that people have their own individual viewpoints on anything offends people, and assuming Google does enforce this (or doesn't). We'll be seeing a fallout from this for quite a while after. The mass exodus @BrunoMattei mentioned might happen, the issue is where would everyone go? Neither Vid.me, Dailymotion or Vimeo are super popular, and if people move to those sites. They're not going to get more popular for quite a while. Youtube would still have the monopoly for years to come. Not only that, but Google is the most used search engine out there. It'd be interesting if everyone just moved over to Yahoo or Bing, but that too, isn't easy. Google is still very convenient to use for many people. If the backlash is great, as in worldwide hatred, then theoretically they might back down. But as I said, we're going to be in it for the long haul. And that exodus wouldn't be limited to the internet either. Again, if what's being said is true. I don't see many Google employees remaining with the company itself. be it employees getting shitcanned or leaving under their own volition.

Can't say much for Facebook, as I don't use it, other than Zuckerberg's an idiot for supporting this shit. It's one thing to take down things that are legitimately breaking content rules (anything sexual, racist or serial killer-level violent). It's another to just delete things just to censor the userbase from hearing other people's views.

 

[Strange Looking Dog]

What do you guys think the answer is to Jim's question?

The real issue with alternatives is that, after the purges, regular apolitical people will still stay on twitter, youtube, reddit, etc. the only people who will move are those who are being actively persecuted. So any alternative website will only be able to draw from a conservative audience, and become dedicated to the groups they took in, and hence will ultimately fail to gain mainstream appeal. The old sites on the other hand, will become an increasingly fragile mixture of apolitical content and leftist extremism.

This is very bad for a number of reasons, most obviously because this will suppress conservative thinking, yet, even if you think that that in itself is a good thing, it will also result in the further balkanization of the web, and polarization of discourse. The viciousness with which disagreement is expressed these days will only intensify under these conditions, and no progress will be made by either side.

I don't know how this is supposed to be fought. There really will be no beating google at their own game, they're just too big. Maybe if these practices turn out to be bad for business, they will stop, but unlike niche businesses, google & co are big enough that consumer revolt will probably go unnoticed.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

The real issue with alternatives is that, after the purges, regular apolitical people will still stay on twitter, youtube, reddit, etc. the only people who will move are those who are being actively persecuted. So any alternative website will only be able to draw from a conservative audience, and become dedicated to the groups they took in, and hence will ultimately fail to gain mainstream appeal. The old sites on the other hand, will become an increasingly fragile mixture of apolitical content and leftist extremism.

This is very bad for a number of reasons, most obviously because this will suppress conservative thinking, yet, even if you think that that in itself is a good thing, it will also result in the further balkanization of the web, and polarization of discourse. The viciousness with which disagreement is expressed these days will only intensify under these conditions, and no progress will be made by either side.

I don't know how this is supposed to be fought. There really will be no beating google at their own game, they're just too big. Maybe if these practices turn out to be bad for business, they will stop, but unlike niche businesses, google & co are big enough that consumer revolt will probably go unnoticed.

That part, unless the backlash is widespread enough that both the politcally charged and the casual people who use sites like YouTube get pissed, is sadly going to be correct.

I mean sure, there's always some hope that there'll be enough damage to Google and Facebook's reputations down the line (). But the truth of the matter is that it's not a big one. Even while being run at a loss, YouTube is still the big name in town when it comes to video streaming sites. And for the most part, the politically charged only make up a small fraction of the userbase in question. Same with Twitter and Facebook. Really, the only way this will begin to affect Google and Zuckerberg is when/if they begin inconveniencing the people who just want to post cat videos or simple selfies. And again, who knows whether or not that'll happen.

 

[BrunoMattei]

Not only that, but Google is the most used search engine out there. It'd be great if everyone just moved over to Yahoo or Bing, but that too, isn't easy. Google is still very convenient to use for many people. If the backlash is great, as in worldwide hatred, then theoretically they might back down.

I remember back in the day when Yahoo and Ask Jeeves were some of the most prominent search engines. Also: anyone remember Myspace? My point is that people will jump ship to a more popular alternative.

This is a good window of opportunity for Tor and it's community. But the problem is that they lack infrastructure.

The real issue with alternatives is that, after the purges, regular apolitical people will still stay on twitter, youtube, reddit, etc. the only people who will move are those who are being actively persecuted. So any alternative website will only be able to draw from a conservative audience, and become dedicated to the groups they took in, and hence will ultimately fail to gain mainstream appeal. The old sites on the other hand, will become an increasingly fragile mixture of apolitical content and leftist extremism.

This already happened with Minds.com (A Twitter alternative). The thing is that sites like VidMe and Minds need big people to come on over and bring new followers. It's like how Netflix got super popular when they turned to streaming: they were able to get contracts with the studios to get their movies on the platform before the movie channels. Plus they've been able to create very well received original content... Aside from those Adam Sandler movies of course.

I remember that I signed up to Twitter because a few Celebs I like have been using the platform. So these alternative sites just need big names to come on over. Maybe they should offer a cut of advertising?

 

[Strange Looking Dog]

I'm thinking that ultimately we just need to decentralize everything. Something along the lines of a system where the state of a particular site is stored between multiple users, and operations on that site are verified by multiple users. The locations where a site is hosted would also need to frequently migrate to ensure that no one gets an opportunity to sway things. No owners, no masters, no obligations.

This already exists in a few forms, but it's not accessible enough to gain a wide audience. The solution needs to be easy, fast, and basically undetectable. I'm thinking of a pattern something like bitTorrents, but automated, and for use with full websites. If everybody was in on it, it might work, but the cost of constantly storing and relaying files would be a pretty big roadblock, and would probably scare a lot of regular users off.

 

[BrunoMattei]

I'm thinking that ultimately we just need to decentralize everything. Something along the lines of a system where the state of a particular site is stored between multiple users, and operations on that site are verified by multiple users. The locations where a site is hosted would also need to frequently migrate to ensure that no one gets an opportunity to sway things. No owners, no masters, no obligations.

Jim said the same thing on Twitter: we need an open source social media.

 

[Y2K Baby]

Ugh, Jim's being boring again. :dumb::dumb::dumb: