Or just don't watch his cancerous content; problem solved.
[quote]This would actually make humanity a better place.[/quote]
Actually no. Supressing someone just because you don't like what they do/say instead of deciding for yourself not to pay attention to it is a prospect that would/has made humanity worse. Who you silence does not measure the value of humanity.
English
-
>Man violates laws and commits illegal activities and posts it on YouTube for likes and money violating the YouTube terms of service >His behavior may cause advertisers to leave YouTube and include a new program to demonitize videos to remove or prevent this behavior in the future, further affecting anyone who uploads to YouTube >People who upload similar videos often times have their accounts deleted or suspended since the video content is not part of a documentary. "THAT'S HIS FREE SPEECH!" You're not serious are you? He is in clear violation of both Japanese law and violation of YouTube's terms of service and you are okay with it because freedom of speech?
-
Bearbeitet von Slain: 1/8/2018 2:20:08 AM[quote]>Man violates laws and commits illegal activities and posts it on YouTube for likes and money violating the YouTube terms of service[/quote] Yes. That alone should do the damage; I don't see where a petition fits in. That was my point. [quote]>His behavior may cause advertisers to leave YouTube and include a new program to demonitize videos to remove or prevent this behavior in the future, further affecting anyone who uploads to YouTube[/quote] Again, he'a doing the damage to himself, as you've just described. I still don't see where a petition fits in. His foolery will destroy him without petty suppression bullshite. [b]That was my entire point.[/b] [quote]>People who upload similar videos often times have their accounts deleted or suspended since the video content is not part of a documentary.[/quote] Their accounts get deleted because of rules/regulations, not because of dumb petitions. Did you even read my post? [quote]"THAT'S HIS FREE SPEECH!"[/quote] I didn't even say that. Are you really about to make an argument based on a quote you just fabricated? -blam!- off [quote]You're not serious are you? He is in clear violation of both Japanese law and violation of YouTube's terms of service and you are okay with it because freedom of speech?[/quote] Again, that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. My entire point was that petitions to remove content are -blam!- because if the content really warrants removal, that will happen on its own, and if it doesn't warrant removal, people can just -blam!-ing deal with it. I never I was okay with it. Try re-reading my post, and not strawmanning it.
-
You're backpedaling. >That's not what I said -Just don't watch his cancerous content >That's not what I said -Thats suppressing! Lmao, the petition is for a call to action since absolutely none has been taken on YouTube's part. He clearly violated YouTube terms of service for over 24 hours, and YouTube did nothing. Now, users, and the YouTube community are banding together and demanding action be taken since many people have been in trouble for content that doesn't violate their terms of service, costing them revenue. Now here is a dude who got revenue, violated the terms of service, and then created a video to apologize, and is getting revenue for it, and he has yet to receive any repercussions for his behavior. Not even a small suspension. The video itself is enough for a termination, multiple other videos and vlogs he made are also in violation for strikes for their content, and he's walking around like it's nbd, and users like you are defending him.
-
[quote]>Man violates laws and commits illegal activities and posts it on YouTube for likes and money violating the YouTube terms of service[/quote] What illegal act did he perform? The video was horrible and offensive sure but illegal? I’m not even sure if it really violated the YouTube terms of service. Possibly it did but I’m not sure. YouTube moderators originally approved it after all. There are plenty of clips on YouTube that show dead bodies. Why aren’t they removed? [quote]>His behavior may cause advertisers to leave YouTube and include a new program to demonitize videos to remove or prevent this behavior in the future, further affecting anyone who uploads to YouTube[/quote] Money, profit and the concerns of advertisers should never come before freedom of speech and expression. Are you seriously advocating people consider the concerns of users that make money off YouTube when deciding what they upload? This is clearly a case of freedom of speech. The guy made an offensive video. I should be allowed to view that offensive video if I choose to. What gives you the right to decide what I’m allowed to watch as long as it’s legal? Nobody has the right to “not be offended”.
-
[quote]What illegal act did he perform? The video was horrible and offensive sure but illegal? I’m not even sure if it really violated the YouTube terms of service. Possibly it did but I’m not sure. YouTube moderators originally approved it after all. There are plenty of clips on YouTube that show dead bodies. Why aren’t they removed?[/quote] Do you even know what he did in Japan that day? He was stopped multiple times by authorities and warned for his behavior. His vlog shows him even trying to con a store owner by breaking something he just bought and trying to get a refund. Not to mention be was kicked out of multiple shrines for poor behavior and ran around town throwing things at people while recording them without their permission which violates Japanese law. [i]And that was BEFORE the dead body[/i]. He uploaded these vlogs of him violating the law. Have you even read up on this or are you too busy shouting "FREEDOM OF SPEECH!" to read or look into details? [quote]Money, profit and the concerns of advertisers should never come before freedom of speech and expression. Are you seriously advocating people consider the concerns of users that make money off YouTube when deciding what they upload?[/quote] What are you talking about? Other people, who use this website to make a living, are being affected by this kid's behavior and not making money because advertisers don't want to associate with a [i]video of a kid committing crimes all over Japan and making fun of a suicide victim.[/i] Therefore, content creators leave YouTube to find other sources of income to POST THEIR CONTENT since advertisers now avoid YouTube. [quote]This is clearly a case of freedom of speech. The guy made an offensive video. I should be allowed to view that offensive video if I choose to. What gives you the right to decide what I’m allowed to watch as long as it’s legal? Nobody has the right to “not be offended”.[/quote] The YouTube terms of service dictate [i]what he can upload to their website.[/i] YouTube has the right to restrict or remove your content if it violates their terms of service, [i]free speech is not a defense on a website where you agreed to their terms to not upload videos such as this.[/i] Do you understand terms of service? You seriously show a MASSIVE lack of understanding of what he did in Japan those few days. He violated Japanese laws [i]and then[/i] violated YouTube terms of service and hasn't received any punishment for his behavior. This isn't a "free speech" argument whatsoever.
-
I’m aware of the other videos. He behaved badly, he was offensive, he was culturally insensitive and was generally just an ass. These acts in themselves while bad aren’t breaking any laws. The only law he could potentially of broken is the privacy laws (although he did blur out the face of the dead body which prevents him from breaking the law in that case). But if you’re going to criticise him for breaking Japan’s privacy laws then you are going to have to arrest and charge every single tourist, documentary maker, or citizen of japan that films people in public. That would be literally hundreds of millions of people. Tell me what has he been charged with? Also tell me exactly how he broke the terms of use of YouTube? There are literally thousands of videos of dead bodies on YouTube. Many of them much more explicit than this one. The difference here is that he was laughing and being a dick. Being a dick is not a violation of YouTube terms of use. This is all getting into the weeds anyway. The petition is calling for the banning of all his videos and the deletion of his account. Videos that haven’t violated any terms of use at all. That is the suppression of free speech whether you try to talk your way around it or not. This petition is trying to prevent people from viewing content because they personally are “offended” by it. You have no right to tell me I can’t watch something just because you don’t like it.
-
[quote]I’m aware of the other videos. He behaved badly, he was offensive, he was culturally insensitive and was generally just an ass. These acts in themselves while bad aren’t breaking any laws. The only law he could potentially of broken is the privacy laws (although he did blur out the face of the dead body which prevents him from breaking the law in that case). But if you’re going to criticise him for breaking Japan’s privacy laws then you are going to have to arrest and charge every single tourist, documentary maker, or citizen of japan that films people in public. That would be literally hundreds of millions of people. Tell me what has he been charged with?[/quote] >Privacy violations >Disorderly conduct >Assault >Littering >Loitering >Harassment >Indecent exposure >Vandalism Not to mention the Japanese people let him into their country, and he just did everything in his power to disrespect and be a nuisance that many people in Japan have shown disgust towards his vlog of him [i]visiting Japan.[/i] That's even before the suicide video. This is on par with inviting someone into your home and wrecking the place and then saying "Man, I really loved your home!" Just because he said that doesn't mean he is in the clear. Those actions he committed DID break the law. Or otherwise [i]Japanese Authorities wouldn't have stopped him and asked him to quit multiple times.[/i] But oh man, the suicide video, jfc. If violating privacy laws and harassing someone who killed themselves isn't enough, wouldn't you know that Japan has a MASSIVE suicide rate. Could you imagine your kid killing themselves and then some random tourist from another country makes fun of your dead child and uploads it to a video website for profit after disrespecting your country all day? Not to mention Japan's culture is HEAVILY against disrespecting the dead. YOU DON'T DO THAT. So do tell me again that all he did was disrespect their culture and didn't break any laws. [quote]Also tell me exactly how he broke the terms of use of YouTube? There are literally thousands of videos of dead bodies on YouTube. Many of them much more explicit than this one. The difference here is that he was laughing and being a dick. Being a dick is not a violation of YouTube terms of use. [/quote] [url=https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802268?hl=en]Being a dick is a violation of YouTube terms of service.[/url] Poor argument. YouTube's system can't catch every video. 300 hours of content is posted every day, and it's not like when you upload it it has to be verified by YouTube team moderators. It's just impossible to do that. [i]That's why there's an AI that searches for this content and a report system. [/i] The AI only has keywords to work with, so if someone posts "happy little video" and the thumbnail is of a happy 3 year old but the video is of someone being ràped, it may take awhile. [quote]This is all getting into the weeds anyway. The petition is calling for the banning of all his videos and the deletion of his account. Videos that haven’t violated any terms of use at all. That is the suppression of free speech whether you try to talk your way around it or not. This petition is trying to prevent people from viewing content because they personally are “offended” by it. You have no right to tell me I can’t watch something just because you don’t like it.[/quote] You do understand that if you violate YouTube's terms of service 3 times your channel and all of it's content is removed, no ifs ands or buts, YouTube holds that right since you agreed to it in their terms of service to use their service. This isn't suppressing freedom of speech, you don't have freedom of speech when you agree to use a service that specifically says you [i]shouldn't upload these kind of videos.[/i] It's not because others don't like it either. This isn't a "special snowflake taking away my content" issue either. [i]THIS IS YOUTUBE NOT LIKING THE CONTENT ON THEIR WEBSITE SO THEY HAVE IT REMOVED.[/i] Here's what you don't understand. It's [i]their[/i] website, and they give you permission to upload videos on it as long as you follow their rules. If you fail to do so you have no right to upload content from that account. YouTube holds the rights to delete and remove your account and prevent you from further making accounts on their website. Just read the terms of service yourself, [i]it's pretty cut and dry in there.[/i] or do you just click "I have read and agree to YouTube terms of service" without second thought?
-
Yes he disrespected their culture. Yes he behaved terribly as a guest in their country. But please show me videos of him commiting [b]chargeable[/b] offences? I mean more than just acting like an idiot in public and being rude. The police haven’t charged him with anything as far as I’m aware and his antics are no worse than those performed in any number of practical joke videos on YouTube or in any jackass movie. None of which you would ever actually be charged with. Yes the dead body video went beyond that but technically that didn’t violate any privacy laws because he blurred out the face and didn’t identify the person. Horrible and disrespectful yes but not illegal. Why are you so concerned with YouTube’s terms of use anyway? Surely that’s something for YouTube to decide upon and care about isn’t it? It’s not your website that you should care if someone violated their rules. The only possible reason is that you personally find his videos offensive. Therefore you are using YouTube’s own rules to remove content you don’t agree with. Can you at least be honest about that? You don’t like his videos an you want them removed. Correct? I also don’t like his videos. I agree they’re terrible and insulting. But I’m not going to get all upset about YouTube’s terms of use and try and get them removed. If adults want to upload or watch offensive videos then that’s their choice. You keep saying this is not about free speech, it’s about YouTube rules. But you are only using YouTube’s rules as an excuse to ban videos you don’t like.
-
[quote]Yes he disrespected their culture. Yes he behaved terribly as a guest in their country. But please show me videos of him commiting [b]chargeable[/b] offences? I mean more than just acting like an idiot in public and being rude. The police haven’t charged him with anything as far as I’m aware and his antics are no worse than those performed in any number of practical joke videos on YouTube or in any jackass movie. None of which you would ever actually be charged with. Yes the dead body video went beyond that but technically that didn’t violate any privacy laws because he blurred out the face and didn’t identify the person. Horrible and disrespectful yes but not illegal.[/quote] You: I watched the videos Me: So you saw all the laws he broke and the times he was stopped by authorities You: SHOW ME THE VIDEO WHERE THIS HAPPENED. [url=https://youtu.be/wYQcU5VXde8]Lamo okay[/url]. If you're incapable of seeing the laws he violated, then you seriously are dense af. You also keep bringing it back to the suicide video when I keep telling you this includes the other videos as well. He violated Japanese laws in his vlogs and he violated YouTube terms of service in his suicide forest video. Is this concept too difficult for you to understand? [quote]Why are you so concerned with YouTube’s terms of use anyway? Surely that’s something for YouTube to decide upon and care about isn’t it? It’s not your website that you should care if someone violated their rules. The only possible reason is that you personally find his videos offensive. Therefore you are using YouTube’s own rules to remove content you don’t agree with. Can you at least be honest about that? You don’t like his videos an you want them removed. Correct? [/quote] It doesn't matter? You're the guy defending him tooth and nail about freedom of speech and when informed that freedom of speech has so say in it you have a temper tantrum. Wahhhhhh, his freedom of speech! Wahhhhh, you guys just don't like him! Are you a U.S. constitutional Lawyer? Then why do you care so much about someone else's freedom of speech? Are you on the United States debate team? Then why do you care so much about a comment I never made towards you? At this point you're grasping at straws for poor arguments. Like literally your next paragraph is repeating what you just said. Trying to reach a word count or something? Why are all these thing so difficult for you to understand?
-
I see him commiting very minor offences like throwing stuffed Pokémon balls at people and waving fish around. Technically they may be breaking the law but do you honestly think someone should be charged for petty things like that? If that she case we’d all be in prison. I don’t even care about that anyway. [quote]Then why do you care so much about someone else's freedom of speech?[/quote] Is this a serious question? Don’t you care about other people’s freedom of speech? I care deeply about free speech because it’s something I believe is being eroded slowly and surely over time by “outrage and offence” culture. And before you accuse me of being a conservative racist or something like that, I am in fact a liberal and I hate bigotry of all kind. But I also believe people have the right to say offensive things if they choose. And people also have the right to view offensive material if the choose. The reason I’m defending this video is not because I like it (I think it’s awful). It’s because if these sorts of petitions keep being successful then where will it end? What happens when there’s a petition to ban vidoes mocking Christianity for example? Or the clip I showed above? You’re such a stickler for the rules well it could be argued technically that they are a violation in that they are humiliating, harmful and abusive towards people of faith. The reason I defend this video is because you’ve got to draw a line in the sand somewhere. You’ve got to defend all speech even if it’s offensive.
-
Read the damn terms of service for the love of god THE VIDEO ISN'T BEING REMOVED BECAUSE IT OFFENDED SOMEONE IN TIMBUKTU! [i]IT'S BEING REMOVED BECAUSE IT IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE YOUTUBE TERMS OF SERVICE AND HE IS NOT BEING PUNISHED FOR SOMETHING THAT OTHERS ARE PUNISHED ALL THE TIME FOR. [/i] There is no "when will it end!" Whatever bat shit crazy future you're thinking of where anyone can start a petition to remove anyone, ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. Jfc
-
Bearbeitet von Dinklebrat: 1/8/2018 5:07:02 AMMy issue isn’t YouTube’s terms and conditions or the laws of japan. I’m well aware that YouTube can remove any video they like. I couldn’t care less about that though. My issue is with the petition. It’s with the people trying to ban something because they find it offensive. You think people want this clip banned because it breaks YouTube rules? Most people wouldn’t even know what those rules say. They want it banned because they find it offensive. Yes technically this video may of violated YouTube’s terms of use. But let’s assume for a moment it didn’t. Let’s assume it was just a really offensive video that still was within the rules. If there was enough public pressure to remove the video do you think YouTube would hesitate? Is this really beyond the realm of possibility? Nobody should be able to decide on my behalf what [b]I[/b] can watch based upon what [b]they[/b] find offensive. You argue like what I’m saying it completely unreasonable. Why is it so terrible to disssaprove of petitions that pressure companies into self censorship? I don’t like these public outrage campaigns I’m sorry. It’s smacks of mob mentality and it’s censorship.
-
[quote]My issue isn’t YouTube’s terms and conditions or the laws of japan. I’m well aware that YouTube can remove any video they like. I couldn’t care less about that though. [/quote] Apparently you do because I keep telling you he violated the terms of service therefore his account must be terminated or receive warnings, but yet he did it in multiple videos so therefore he violated the 3 strikes and you're having a hissy fit that his account being deleted violates his free speech! [quote]My issue is with the petition. It’s with the people trying to ban something because they find it offensive.You think people want this clip banned because it breaks YouTube rules? Most people wouldn’t even know what those rules say. They want it banned because they find it offensive.[/quote] He violated terms of service and received no punishment for his poor behavior. This petition is for this reason, NOT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES AND CAN'T HANDLE HIS CONTENT. [quote]Yes technically this video may of violated YouTube’s terms of use. But let’s assume for a moment it didn’t. Let’s assume it was just a really offensive video that still was within the rules. If there was enough public pressure to remove the video do you think YouTube would hesitate? Is this really beyond the realm of possibility? [/quote] Technically? It [i]DID[/i] violate the terms of service. Yes it is, unless the video violates the terms of service it's not getting taken down. It can be FLAGGED and DEMONITIZED but it won't be removed unless it violates the terms. It would be against YouTube's policy and could be used against them in a court of law. [quote]Nobody should be able to decide on my behalf what [b]I[/b] can watch based upon what [b]they[/b] find offensive. [/quote] That's not what's happening here, at all. How did you manage to come up with that? YouTube decides day-in and day-out what you are allowed to watch on their website, I don't see you crying about that. Where's the immense outrage against YouTube dictating what you can watch. [quote]You argue like what I’m saying it completely unreasonable. Why is it so terrible to disssaprove of petitions that pressure companies into self censorship? I don’t like these public outrage campaigns I’m sorry. It’s smacks of mob mentality and it’s censorship.[/quote] What the hell are you talking about? Logan Paul violated the terms, YouTube is doing nothing, everyone is pissed off, petition for them to do something. It even says in their terms of service that they can terminate your account for one offense. Look for yourself: [quote]Reasons accounts are terminated: Repeated violations of the Community Guidelinesor Terms of Service A single case of severe abuse (such as predatory behavior or spam) Accounts dedicated to a policy violation (hate speech, harassment, impersonation, etc)[/quote] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2802168?hl=en
-
[quote]Apparently you do because I keep telling you he violated the terms of service therefore his account must be terminated or receive warnings, but yet he did it in multiple videos so therefore he violated the 3 strikes and you're having a hissy fit that his account being deleted violates his free speech![/quote] Once again I have no issue with YouTube deleting this guy’s videos or his account. They can do what they like. What I do have an issue with is the concept of a petition forcing YouTube to delete videos based purely on some sense of moral outrage. This has nothing to do with the terms of service. [quote]He violated terms of service and received no punishment for his poor behavior. This petition is for this reason, NOT BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES AND CAN'T HANDLE HIS CONTENT.[/quote] Oh please. You think that petition exists because he violated the terms of service of YouTube? Absolutely nowhere in that petition does it even mention the terms of service. Like you said yourself most people aren’t even aware of what they say. What that petition does mention is this: [quote]It's not about YOU, Logan Paul. A man who had family and friends chose to end his life, and you chose to share his death to your millions of followers without thinking about how his family/friends felt? It's disgusting and shouldn't be tolerated. [/quote] In other words it’s moral outrage over his actions. Not some violation of the rules which 99% of people haven’t read anyway. Do you think the moral outrage wouldn’t exist if he hadn’t broken the rules? Do you think the petition wouldn’t exist? You’re kidding yourself if you do. There are many videos currently on YouTube that violate the terms of service. YouTube doesn’t seem all that interested in removing them. Nor does the average YouTube viewer. So what’s so different about this video? I’ll tell you what. People find it offensive and distasteful. That has absolutely nothing to do with rules and everything to do with their own personal morality. Like I said, even if it was within the rules people would still be calling for its removal. So basically, if you sign this petition, you are letting moral outrage and public witch hunts dictate to YouTube when a video or account should be deleted. You seem to be fine with this petition because you agree with it. But what about the next one? And what if the next petition calls for the removal of videos that are within the rules? Would you be okay with that too?
-
Bearbeitet von Sainyule: 1/8/2018 9:24:44 AM[quote]Once again I have no issue with YouTube deleting this guy’s videos or his account. They can do what they like. What I do have an issue with is the concept of a petition forcing YouTube to delete videos based purely on some sense of moral outrage. This has nothing to do with the terms of service.[/quote] Not what you said earlier, in fact: [quote]This is all getting into the weeds anyway. The petition is calling for the banning of all his videos and the deletion of his account. [b]Videos that haven’t violated any terms of use at all. That is the suppression of free speech whether you try to talk your way around it or not.[/b] This petition is trying to prevent people from viewing content because they personally are “offended” by it. [b]You have no right to tell me I can’t watch something just because you don’t like it.[/b][/quote] Here I repeat myself for the final time. [i]The petition is for YouTube to take action against someone who violated the terms of service.[/i] And as I've shown, [i]through YouTube terms of service,[/i] that his account must be punished by a strike or a termination, whatever YouTube views fit for this violation. [quote]Oh please. You think that petition exists because he violated the terms of service of YouTube? Absolutely nowhere in that petition does it even mention the terms of service. Like you said yourself most people aren’t even aware of what they say. What that petition does mention is this: [quote]It's not about YOU, Logan Paul. A man who had family and friends chose to end his life, and you chose to share his death to your millions of followers without thinking about how his family/friends felt? It's disgusting and shouldn't be tolerated. [/quote] In other words it’s moral outrage over his actions. Not some violation of the rules which 99% of people haven’t read anyway. Do you think the moral outrage wouldn’t exist if he hadn’t broken the rules? Do you think the petition wouldn’t exist? You’re kidding yourself if you do.[/quote] The petition doesn't have to state "yeah, Logan Paul violated the terms of service [insert exert from terms of service]" Not to mention this was written by Peaches. A user from this website that trolls and shitposts. Of course he's going to persuade people to sign the petition. As I said, does "he violated the terms of service, delete his account pls" sound better to sign, or this heartfelt, outrage, describing the whole situation and those he hurt make people want to sign. It's freaking psychology, he's playing with people's emotions who would gladly agree. Plus, all this petition is going to do is force YouTube to respond in some manner. Jfc it's not like if this petition reaches 3 million signatures Logan Paul is removed. Do you even understand how to speak to your audience and how petitions work? [quote]There are many videos currently on YouTube that violate the terms of service. YouTube doesn’t seem all that interested in removing them. Nor does the average YouTube viewer. [/quote] I've already explained the AI, 300 hours of video per day, and the flagging system. This argument has already been addressed, you're grasping at straws for arguments yet again. [quote]So what’s so different about this video? I’ll tell you what. People find it offensive and distasteful. That has absolutely nothing to do with rules and everything to do with their own personal morality. Like I said, even if it was within the rules people would still be calling for its removal. [/quote] What's so different about it was that it had 6 million views in under 24 hours and reached top of trending and no disciplinary action was taken. [i]He made money off this video, broke the terms of service, and gave a half ass apology that he is currently making money off of rn.[/i] So yeah, sure, [i]this has nothing to do with rules.[/i] Explain to me how Pewdiepie breaks the rules and he gets a strike, his videos are demonitized, loses his sponsers, loses contracts with companies, and has a [i]war with the wall street journal.[/i] Explain to me how Markiplier has a dead body from a video game in his thumbnail, and he is immediately demonitized. H3H3 had his videos demonitized, received copyright claims, and [i]had to go to court to fight fair usage rights[/i] for almost [i]2 whole years before the case closed.[/i] Do explain to me how Logan Paul gets no disciplinary action, and those content creators do? Go on. Not everyone likes these users, there's dislikes on there videos all the time. Explain to me how this is just moral outrage and people are trying to censor what you watch. [quote]So basically, if you sign this petition, you are letting moral outrage and public witch hunts dictate to YouTube when a video or account should be deleted. You seem to be fine with this petition because you agree with it. But what about the next one? And what if the next petition calls for the removal of videos that are within the rules? Would you be okay with that too?[/quote] Stop fear-mongering because it's not going to happen. You are not standing up for some future petition apocalypse, seriously, shut up about this fake future you keep whining about.
-
Bearbeitet von Dinklebrat: 1/8/2018 11:09:44 AMYou really are quite insulting to people you don’t agree with. Tell me do you find that often works for you? I don’t really care of course. I just find it amusing you feel you need to resort to aggressive insults to get your point across. [quote]The petition is for YouTube to take action against someone who violated the terms of service. And as I've shown, through YouTube terms of service, that his account must be punished by a strike or a termination, whatever YouTube views fit for this violation.[/quote] You readily admit that the petition makes absolutely no mention of breaking YouTube’s terms of service. You just created this narrative of psychology and appealing to people’s emotions to suit your own argument. There is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. And you expect me to just take your word for it that you somehow know the mind and intention of the petitions author? All either of us have to go on is the wording of the petition itself. Are you seriously going to tell me with a straight face that this whole outrage is based upon some technical violation of YouTube’s rules? That the moral dimension of filming a suicide victim is irrelevant? [quote]Stop fear-mongering because it's not going to happen. You are not standing up for some future petition apocalypse, seriously, shut up about this fake future you keep whining about.[/quote] You think if this petition is successful it won’t encourage more petitions or boycotts in the future? You didn’t answer my question about this. Would you be okay with YouTube removing videos due to public pressure if they didn’t violate the terms of service?
-
[quote]You really are quite insulting to people you don’t agree with. Tell me do you find that often works for you? I don’t really care of course. I just find it amusing you feel you need to resort to aggressive insults to get your point across.[/quote] Because I'm getting tired of repeating myself over and over again and you continue to ignore everything I say because you're too busy fear-mongering and coming up with bullshit arguments that can easily be disproven by [i]a Google search.[/i] Why you insist on the same arguments over and over, after I have answered them over and over, begins to get incredibly annoying. Your refusal to listen nor understand has pushed me to the point that you will not learn either way. You want to live in your own fantasy where some special snowflakes can delete all of your content because they want. You ever bash your head against a wall until it busts open and you pass out? This argument with you is the equivalent of that. [quote]You readily admit that the petition makes absolutely no mention of breaking YouTube’s terms of service. You just created this narrative of psychology and appealing to people’s emotions to suit your own argument.[/quote] Don't give me that childish bullshit. I've already explained how appeal works. [i]You[/i] create this narrative that the world is going to end because of this one petition to suit your arguments and beliefs this whole entire time. You have ignored every single source I've provided just so you could continue to live in your fantasy world and control the narrative. [i]Now[/i] you claim I'm doing it when I'm again telling it like it is. Your back is against the wall, so you start jumping at anything you can because it isn't clear enough for you. You need it to say "hey guys, I'm using psychology to appeal to you so prepare to lean in favor of this petition!" [quote]There is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. And you expect me to just take your word for it that you somehow know the mind and intention of the petitions author? All either of us have to go on is the wording of the petition itself. [/quote] [i]YOU ARE FEAR-MONGERING AND HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF SAID FEAR-MONGERING, YET YOU EXPECT ME TO TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.[/i] Jfc have you ever been called a hypocrite before? I have uses your own words against you countless times already, and you keep coming up with bullshit reasons that you think derail my arguments but instead just make you continuously look foolish. There is [i]nothing[/i] in the text that implies if this is successful then we will petition to delete Markiplier, H3H3, Roosterteeth, etc. because they we didn't like their video on candy bars. [quote]Are you seriously going to tell me with a straight face that this whole outrage is based upon some technical violation of YouTube’s rules? That the moral dimension of filming a suicide victim is irrelevant? [/quote] Now here you go trying to control my narrative. Wow, bravo. You have this idea that people are only signing it because they're offended, that thus has nothing to do with him not receiving disciplinary action for his videos. Didn't I share with you the terms of service that said his account could be terminated for a single instance of something? Did you ignore that part too? [quote]You think if this petition is successful it won’t encourage more petitions or boycotts in the future? You didn’t answer my question about this. Would you be okay with YouTube removing videos due to public pressure if they didn’t violate the terms of service?[/quote] It won't. End of story. This narrative is absolutely the STUPIDEST thing I've heard. YouTube doesn't have a monopoly on streaming services. You think if a YouTube channel gets taken down that is it, no more, it's over, the videos can't be uploaded anywhere else. Why is this a difficult concept for you to comprehend? Plus, don't give me shit for not answering it but calling out your bullshit. I asked for several explanations that you neglected to explain to me in this text. You do NOT have the ability to call out my neglect to say "no" when [i]you can't even answer or respond properly to 90% of my text and arguments.[/i] You see, you make me want to bash my head against a wall so much with your victim carding, living in fear and under a rock mentality. You are an idiot. End of story. I am done with this conversation.
-
[quote]You readily admit that the petition makes absolutely no mention of breaking YouTube’s terms of service. You just created this narrative of psychology and appealing to people’s emotions to suit your own argument. [quote]Don't give me that childish bullshit. I've already explained how appeal works.[/quote][/quote] It’s childish to expect you to back up your claims? That’s an argument? You’re “explanation” consists of saying that you psychically know the mind of the author and I should just believe you when you say that the actual text of the petition is all a lie. Your argument that the petition is not at all based upon the belief that what Logan Paul did was morally wrong but all about a technical violation of the terms of service is beyond ridiculous. The author of the petition, the people who signed the petition, and the media are all focused on the moral aspect of laughing at a suicide victim and filming it. I don’t know why you would try to deny this. Perhaps because you feel uncomfortable with the idea of a moral witch hunt? I don’t know what your reasoning is. [quote]You create this narrative that the world is going to end because of this one petition to suit your arguments and beliefs this whole entire time.[/quote] “The world is going to end” is a narrative you’ve created yourself. Nowhere have I said that this petition will lead to the end of western civilisation, free speech and the deletion of all videos on YouTube. You seem to want to create this narrative that my arguments are just fear mongering hysteria when all I said was that this petition, if successful, will probably inspire more petitions of a similar nature in the future. A reasonable statement I would of thought seeing as there are new petitions on change.org all the time. I find it quite ironic you accuse me of hysteria when all you’ve done is hysterically insult me and fabricate hyperbolic arguments I never made in the first place. My only argument, as I’ve said many times, is that I dislike the idea of one group of people campaigning for the removal of someone’s else’s content because they find it morally distasteful. In other words they are trying to suppress someone’s free expression because they don’t like what he has to say. You can bang on about terms of service all you like. The fact is that’s what this debate is all about. It’s in the wording of the petition, it’s in the comments here and elsewhere, it’s in the media reporting on this issue. People are campaigning for the removal of his account because they are morally outraged over it’s content. I find that distasteful.