• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PragerU v Youtube

dirtpoorchris

dirtpoorchris

King of Videos
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
11,655
Reaction score
3,612
Location
WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian


I guess theres a whole thing going on right now where people are claiming youtube is a public forum beholden to freespeech laws vs a publisher which allows it to set political tones.

Interesting to see that Youtube has already delisted over 100 PragerU videos.
 
dirtpoorchris said:


I guess theres a whole thing going on right now where people are claiming youtube is a public forum beholden to freespeech laws vs a publisher which allows it to set political tones.

Interesting to see that Youtube has already delisted over 100 PragerU videos.
Click to expand...


Actually under law it is considered a platform not a publisher. If I was Prager I would go after Youtubes platform status and make them a publisher in the eyes of the law. At that point YouTube would be subject to all the same rules and they would be open to everyone their dog cat and parakeet suing them.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
I guess theres a whole thing going on right now where people are claiming youtube is a public forum beholden to freespeech laws vs a publisher which allows it to set political tones.

Interesting to see that Youtube has already delisted over 100 PragerU videos.
Click to expand...

Conservatives, all for the free market...until they aren't.
 
dirtpoorchris said:


I guess theres a whole thing going on right now where people are claiming youtube is a public forum beholden to freespeech laws vs a publisher which allows it to set political tones.

Interesting to see that Youtube has already delisted over 100 PragerU videos.
Click to expand...


Tough call. Are they governed by free speech or are they responsible for the messages they put out?
If it was me, I'd call myself a publisher and vet what's posted, thinking the suit for free speech would hurt less than the possible suits from someone inciting violence.
 
dirtpoorchris said:


I guess theres a whole thing going on right now where people are claiming youtube is a public forum beholden to freespeech laws vs a publisher which allows it to set political tones.

Interesting to see that Youtube has already delisted over 100 PragerU videos.
Click to expand...


He is delisted because the videos are neutral to conservative educational videos. If you watch his videos, you will see there is nothing sinister. No violence, no vulgarity, no anti-alphabet of outrage.

He is in court against U-Tube and Google for not being adverse to free speech. The area of social media/freedom of speech is ripe for change.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
I guess theres a whole thing going on right now where people are claiming youtube is a public forum beholden to freespeech laws vs a publisher which allows it to set political tones.

Interesting to see that Youtube has already delisted over 100 PragerU videos.
Click to expand...

It is indeed.

The Supremes have yet to rule, but the day gets closer...
 
beefheart said:
Conservatives, all for the free market...until they aren't.
Click to expand...

I am most definitely for the free market, however YouTube and the rest were given specific legal carve outs that they are now abusing. They either platforms or publishers. Not both. If they are publishers then they are subject to lawsuit. If they are platform then lawsuits become far tougher. This is the conflict. If Youtube wants to be a publisher then more power to them, and let them play in the same legal framework as the every other publisher.
 
PragerU is a right-wing hack organization. They're as much of a "university" as is Trump "University."
 
PirateMk1 said:
Actually under law it is considered a platform not a publisher. If I was Prager I would go after Youtubes platform status and make them a publisher in the eyes of the law. At that point YouTube would be subject to all the same rules and they would be open to everyone their dog cat and parakeet suing them.
Click to expand...

If they were made a publisher, they would be legally mandated to be far more restrictive of content, not less.
 
Drawdown said:
If they were made a publisher, they would be legally mandated to be far more restrictive of content, not less.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Mainly just exposed to lawsuit as every other publisher.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Not necessarily. Mainly just exposed to lawsuit as every other publisher.
Click to expand...

That exposure is why they would have to be even more restrictive of content. Every upload would need to be screened for liable, etc.
 
dirtpoorchris said:


I guess theres a whole thing going on right now where people are claiming youtube is a public forum beholden to freespeech laws vs a publisher which allows it to set political tones.

Interesting to see that Youtube has already delisted over 100 PragerU videos.
Click to expand...


PragerU is for people who can't be bothered to think for themselves, and their videos are still available on youtube(though some are demonetized). So the free speech argument is already a huge ****ing failure. They are free to speech. Nowhere does the first amendment claim a right to profit from your speech. Secondly, the claim this is a first amendment issue is laughably bad. Youtube is not the government, nor is it a representative of the government, so the first amendment does not apply, as the first amendment protects speech from the government. To counter this, PragerU is claiming youtube is a "public forum", a claim which has already been laughed out of court once:

Defendants do not appear to be at all like, for example, a private corporation that governs and operates all municipal functions for an entire town, or one that has been given control over a previously public sidewalk or park, or one that has effectively been delegated the task of holding and administering public elections.
Click to expand...

Conspiracy nonsense and hysteria("most important case"...:lamo) aside, PragerU has lost, and will probably continue to lose, and deserve to lose. Don't want to be demonitized, follow the rules the private company sets.
 
Drawdown said:
That exposure is why they would have to be even more restrictive of content. Every upload would need to be screened for liable, etc.
Click to expand...

And? It would be known they were a publisher. Someone else would take their place as a platform.
 
Oh noessssss! Whatever will the DP cons do if their free bullcrap university goes away?
 
PirateMk1 said:
And? It would be known they were a publisher. Someone else would take their place as a platform.
Click to expand...

they couldnt because they too would be a publisher
 
Drawdown said:
they couldnt because they too would be a publisher
Click to expand...

There is a specific carve out in the law which is under dispute currently by Prager U. A platform does very little curating its simply a site for publishers and or content creators to post their content. They present no or little content of their own. A publisher presents their own content.
 
Redress said:
PragerU is for people who can't be bothered to think for themselves, and their videos are still available on youtube(though some are demonetized). So the free speech argument is already a huge ****ing failure. They are free to speech. Nowhere does the first amendment claim a right to profit from your speech. Secondly, the claim this is a first amendment issue is laughably bad. Youtube is not the government, nor is it a representative of the government, so the first amendment does not apply, as the first amendment protects speech from the government. To counter this, PragerU is claiming youtube is a "public forum", a claim which has already been laughed out of court once:

Conspiracy nonsense and hysteria("most important case"...:lamo) aside, PragerU has lost, and will probably continue to lose, and deserve to lose. Don't want to be demonitized, follow the rules the private company sets.
Click to expand...
Mr. George is correct to point out that if YouTube isn't a public forum, it's a publisher, and should be legally liable for any of the content it publishes. As he explains in the video, PragerU is fine if the tech giants are public forums, they're fine if the giants are publishers, but they can't have it both ways. Private businesses with editorial control over their content--which is precisely what YouTube is if it engages in censorship--are legally liable for what they publish. They always have been.

This issue is one of several that sets true liberals apart from progressives. People who laugh off the issue as "conspiracy nonsense and hysteria" are no liberals. Many great men have carried that title, and you surely don't deserve it.
 
PirateMk1 said:
There is a specific carve out in the law which is under dispute currently by Prager U. A platform does very little curating its simply a site for publishers and or content creators to post their content. They present no or little content of their own. A publisher presents their own content.
Click to expand...

It would be almost impossible to nudge a change that gets youtube that doesn't get every other video hosting site.
 
Drawdown said:
It would be almost impossible to nudge a change that gets youtube that doesn't get every other video hosting site.
Click to expand...

If they are platforms, I agree.
 
Redress said:
PragerU is for people who can't be bothered to think for themselves, and their videos are still available on youtube(though some are demonetized). So the free speech argument is already a huge ****ing failure. They are free to speech. Nowhere does the first amendment claim a right to profit from your speech. Secondly, the claim this is a first amendment issue is laughably bad. Youtube is not the government, nor is it a representative of the government, so the first amendment does not apply, as the first amendment protects speech from the government. To counter this, PragerU is claiming youtube is a "public forum", a claim which has already been laughed out of court once:



Conspiracy nonsense and hysteria("most important case"...:lamo) aside, PragerU has lost, and will probably continue to lose, and deserve to lose. Don't want to be demonitized, follow the rules the private company sets.
Click to expand...

YouTube is supposed to be a platform. They either are, or they are not, and a therefor a publisher. They are trying to have it both ways. There is a legal carve out that protects platforms but not publishers. That is the crux of the matter. The "public forum" is another term for platform. The lawsuit should determine whether YouTube is acting as a publisher. If they are then they are going to be sued out of existence as they should be. A platform only curates just enough for public safety and that is it.
 
PragerU is dishonest right-wing propaganda.

It's often pointed out that the plutocrats want all the money and power, and that they use that money to protect that by buying government, propagandizing the people, and so on.

PragerU is no exception. As Wikipedia shows:

"Two of PragerU's largest donors are the hydraulic fracturing billionaires Dan and Farris Wilks.[7] Two members of the Wilks family are on PragerU's board.[7] The next-largest donor is the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation.[5][17] Other donors include the Morgan Family Foundation, Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund, Donors Trust, and the Minnesota-based Sid and Carol Verdoorn Foundation, led by former C.H. Robinson CEO Sid Verdoorn."

A list of the wealthy plutocrats to spend to propagandize to push plutocracy. These are the wealthy types that donate to all the usual suspects - not only PragerU but Heritage, Americans for Prosperity (Koch brothers), Hoover and more - propaganda and PACs. Money buying lies and power for plutocracy, it's that simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom