PragerU is also fighting censorship (YouTube in this case)

submitted by neovulcan from (youtube.com)

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Breadman 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

They lost this lawsuit:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/youtube-google-censor-court-prageru-first-amendment-2020-2%3famp

YouTube is a private platform, and isn’t bound by the 1st amendment.

Libertarians learning their first lesson about the terrible power of private property.

[–]neovulcan[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Libertarians learning their first lesson about the terrible power of private property.

This statement has me a bit confused. Is PragerU a libertarian platform? Do libertarians not respect private property? I didn't think either was the case.

[–]Breadman 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

PragerU is a libertarian platform yes.

Libertarians respect private property, and Google is private property. PragerU is complaining about the power of a private company, who wishes to censor their content. The irony is PragerU always complains about government interference in the 'private' sector, but now wishes for government intervention just to help itself.

[–]neovulcan[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

As one who identifies more libertarian than anything else, this makes sense. Always thought PragerU was a more right-leaning platform, but I identify more with the right than the left anyway, so this is acceptable.

As to the spirit of the lawsuit, I figured the predominant goal was reduced censorship, with actual government intervention being the thing neither party really wanted - with PragerU betting YouTube/Google would want government intervention even less.

Whether you agree with their views or not, they appear to fall well short of anything worth censoring (rationalizing racism, sexism, violence, etc), and they consistently present towards the top of the argument pyramid. For example, they posted this video claiming slavery was the cause of the US Civil War, which inspired this rebuttal. I'm not endorsing either video, but this kind of discussion is one of the reasons I come to the internet in the first place.

[–]Breadman 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

My point is, it’s censorship. But it’s not government censorship.

Under the libertarian ideology, private actors are able to censor on the private platforms they control.

That’s why it’s ironic that PragerU as a libertarian org, is suing a private company about being ‘censored’.

[–]Jesus 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

PragerU shilled the 9/11 government sanctioned narrative and covered-up the true perps; the neoconservatives and Jewish Likudniks who are thr founders of modern terrorism.

[–]EdwardGShitlordEsq 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So that includes when criticizing Israel, right?

[–]Breadman 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They lost this lawsuit:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/youtube-google-censor-court-prageru-first-amendment-2020-2%3famp

YouTube is a private platform, and isn’t bound by the 1st amendment.

Libertarians learning their first lesson about the terrible power of private property.

[–]Tortoise 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Mind giving a TLDW?

[–]neovulcan[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Basically, they outline that you can't be both a public forum and an independent platform, but YouTube is managing both. If PragerU's case prevails, YouTube should be forced to choose between censorship and their enhanced status as a public forum. Currently they're having their cake and eating it too.

[–]Tortoise 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What a shitty case then, they want to take away their section 203 immunity right?

This is terrible. First its youtube, then its fringe sites like raddle that get canceled by the law just because they don't allow all viewpoints.

[–]neovulcan[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, that's the worst case scenario. I'm sure they'd settle for their conservative videos getting unblocked. Most of their videos are reasonable from what I can tell, but they put them out so much faster than I can watch them.

[–]Tortoise 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That is literally what they are sueing for though. So thats a pretty fucking big worse case scenario.