YouTube Free Market

>>138478363

Making internet videos isn't a job.

If you don't want advertisers to control your speech, you have to not have sponsors and just take donations.

>>138478363
Sorry cant hear you. Was busy posting "whites" and "colored" signs on the water fountains. Oh you don't like it? Well its a private business.

>>138478363

YouTube should be allowed to censor whoever they want. Promote whoever they want. It's the users who have to take a stand and decide that enough is enough, if you dont change platforms then dont complain

Don't like it? Build another platform. That's the beauty of the free market. If you don't like the reduced exposure, maybe try having less repugnant views.

>>138478436
>making bread that people want to eat isn't a jobe
>making clothing that people want to wear isn't a job
>creating anything where there's a demand for it isn't a job

The kikes running these companies collude with each other to push the same ideology / no platform the same people, while at the same time influencing the government to protect their monopolies so no competitors can arise. It's not a free market. These technocrats and billionaires want communism because they're the ones that control the government. Do retarded leftists think the loudest, richest shills for leftism like Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffet are going to have their wealth redistributed? Because they're not, instead they're suddenly going to be party leaders.

>>138478436
Who cares if it's a "real job" if it can bring you thousands of euros?

>>138478363
So long as leftists see their own hypocrisy (they won't) it would be fine.

>>138479138
>>138478963
What do you say to the argument that these places are pretty much monopolies, and a lot of commerce, government, and personal networking takes place on these?

These are the new 'common's or 'town squares' if you will. Government free speech is almost meaningless, because social media has taken over the town squares.

>>138478363
Its objectively correct, however doing this kind of passive aggressive maneuvers against even run-of-the-mill cuckservative channels is laughable

>>138478848
Like the cake makers that have to bake cake for homos?

>>138478363
Google funding politicians and government actions isn't free market. In a free market politics is independent from trade, which automatically also means that business will not take political stances unless it is their specific business model.

File: 1503132184816.gif (949KB, 155x173px) Image search: [Google]

949KB, 155x173px

>muh free market

>>138479527
I was being ironic in my post actually. I think we need to invoke some anti trust laws because companies like Google and Amazon et al have such strangeholds as to constitute 21st century monopolies, even if one were to make a 'competing platform' it could never truly compete in any meaningful way because of the already established influence of places like Google. Look at what happened to Gab, an attempt at 'our own platform'.

>>138478363
If bakeries have to serve fags then advertisers have to suck my dick when i'm on youtube.

Also, it's not even the advertisers choosing, it's google and a few community libshita who mass flag everything demonetizing basically any channel that isn't far-left or already has millions of followers ( like h3h3). Many non political channels keep getting their stuff defunded. It's destroying the ability to grow without google's approval. Oh, and they're removing many channels from searches and things like that. So flat out censoring.

>>138478363
The far right doesn't put the free market above all.

More libertarian minded "right" wingers think materialism is God and should therefore be unimpeded.

>>138478363
>hey guys, that company over there used government connections to become a monopoly, so even though they shit on free market principles to get there, let's respect their rights in the free market now that no competition not in the pocket of the government is allowed to exist.

Communists aren't people.

>>138479527

They may be de facto monopolies, but that's only because the users won't change. It's not like De Beers with diamonds where they literally control the whole supply. As long as we have the potential freedom to change platforms we have to uphold the rights of a company to do what they want

>>138478363
But liberals are complaining about the ads too.

File: 532.png (72KB, 1619x426px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 1619x426px

>>138479527

>>138478363
This is why we're against "free market capitalism" you stupid yank

>>138478963
>>138478363
>>138480991
>owning a server means you can violate basic human rights on said server
Nope. OP's post is a perfect example of why all major internet companies should be regulated as utilities so that they can't do unethical things like this.

File: 1486416308270.png (2MB, 619x600px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 619x600px

>>138478436
I think it is, especially if its a form of journalism. My issue is that its also entire sites that are being taken down by their hosts, not just videos on YouTube. I wonder how long it will be until ISP's won't let you even go to a site because of "hate speech."

>>138478963
>>138479138
I think that companies should have the right to run their business how they please so long as they aren't doing anything illegal. However, when I see companies like YouTube who say they are for free speech only to turn around and censor, remove, or demonetize things they don't like, some of which aren't even political, I think that's horse shit.

The other issue is that YouTube is a monopoly. I would say the fix here is to just go and make our own video hosting site but who the hell will ever see it? On top of that, the site would probably get taken down because it "promotes hate speech." I mean look at Tor, Gab, and Stormfront. I feel like we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

>>138478363
Who cares, this is a war now. Jewtube is an enemy. Fuck principles, winning is all that matters.

>>138478363
The best revenge is a good ad blocker. Don't give google or YouTube a penny

And whatever you do don't ever use their products. We're dealing with a very dangerous company that will retaliate against you. Who knows what other ways the company plans to target conservative individuals? These are dangerous times