how am I avoiding your question? I am showing you how it could have come about. I don't know how google runs youtube, but I know most companies don't explain themselves on advice from legal council.
what question did I avoid?
Also, Peterson is raking it in online, so not exactly a penniless champion of free speech.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...nto-free-speech-crowdfunding/article35174379/
I am not disputing Peterson is telling the truth as he sees it. He doesn't believe he violated any rules. And Google could also be right since the lecture ownership issue is murky they decided to go the safe route. Automated system doesn't do nuance.
I don't know the details, do you?
I asked you to assume that Peterson was telling the truth and then asked...
"Do you think its a good thing for google to claim TOS breech when in fact there does not appear to be any?"
What does Peterson's youtube income have anything to do with anything?
Does my post not address your question?
As to youtube income, if he is profiting from youtube but not sharing the income with the university, which could own the rights fully/partially to the videos, there is an issue.
Lol that is not assuming the premise. That is coming up with a situation where you feel they could both be right. It also does not make sense because it was reviewed and upheld, then the accounts reinstated without change. If they were being careful then why change their minds? Why not explain what happened? But no, you did not assume the premise was true and thus it does not make it an answer, just a response to something I did not ask.
Again, you are coming up with speculation which is not supported by evidence. He may have an agreement that allows him to do this. You have no basis for your argument because you have no evidence.
and your evidence that he has permission? Like I said, I don't have all the facts. So why would I judge? You are dealing with lawyers on Google side, who knows what the hell they'll do to protect corporate interest.
...That was an example of unfounded speculation...
I am asking a very specific question to see where you stand. Also, lawyers are not usually involved with the initial takedown.
I am asking if given what we do know and what Peterson has said, do you believe that Google deleting his accounts and claiming TOS breech is good or bad. I believe, that even though you have not yet said this, your stance might be that you cant judge good or bad given the assumed premise.
I cannot since I don't have all the data. But let's assume there is no more facts than Peterson presented, then Google was in the wrong and should reinstate. Which they already did.
Wrong because he did not break the TOS, or wrong because using TOS violations to invoke censorship is bad?
I wouldn't know. Do you know he was banned to censor him?
No I don't, but that is why I established the premise. I don't know all the details yet, and google may have had a reason, but so far it does not look like it.
If it is true that it was because they did not like what he said, I would be very upset with google.
If it is true that it was because they did not like what he said, I would be very upset with google.
Shrug. Everyone has a position on a particular issue, it is private property, so not a Freedom of Expression issue.
*if
And who gives a shit? They're free to conduct their business they way they choose. If you don't like it, don't use them.
Why does private property mean its not freedom of expression? I agree that private firms do not have to allow or promote speech they do not want. But surely private firms can expression on their platforms.
You don't have the right to free expression on private property. You can stand on the sidewalk and rail at the company, but not inside their building.
You are correct and again I will agree with you that you do not have a right to express yourself on private property. I think you can put that to bed now. I am not talking about getting the government involved in anything with regard to this situation. Well, unless Peterson made this all up and it was to defame google.
What I am saying is that I personally would not like google doing it for the reason that they dont like his speech, and I think others should let google know by speech and or with their feet.
I'm also not anti-Google. I have always been Android, use Gmail exclusively, Youtube daily, and was considering switching to Google home from Alexa because my girlfriend and I both have nexus devices on project fi. But if google supports what seems to have happened and this the start of something larger I will make many changes and I do not support that.
Does this go just for Google or for everyone?What I am saying is that I personally would not like google doing it for the reason that they dont like his speech, and I think others should let google know by speech and or with their feet.
Does this go just for Google or for everyone?
That is my point though. If this is what google did, then I would start changing my habits, and I would argue why people should do the same. So saying who gives a shit seems weird if you agree that its bad. If you dont agree its bad then I can see not caring.
Ah, so morality is always subjective. As I already explained, people try to justify their actions as being moral. Spreading the gospel by fire might have support in the religion, but it is objectively immoral because it is forcing things upon people who may not want to be forced into the religion. Not all things are subjectively moral. That is a very lazy argument indeed.
If the parent of a child is okay with sexual abuse, and the abuser is okay with sexual abuse, its still immoral to sexually abuse the child.
In terms of google censorship I do believe that it was wrong because the appearance is that they censored Peterson because they did not like his speech. Speech which is not hateful but that of a different opinion. When people start censoring differences of opinion that does not inherently become immoral, but I do think that it starts people down a path that can lead to immorality. A path that so far as I can see is not productive for anyone.
I don't think it's good or bad, I'm indifferent to a company conducting itself the way it chooses.
Google's not sitting on your street corner smacking you down when you exercise free speech.
Everyone.
Yes you do and that is silly to make such an absolute statement. You would care if a company started promoting slavery. You might agree that they have the freedom to do so, but you would not want to support that company and I would bet you would tell others to do the same.
Nope, not even close. To pretend that this type of action if continued would not effect public discourse would also be silly to argue. Youtube is a huge part of our current society and if google starts limiting ideas on there that they do not like it will have a large impact.
Right now, you're trying to enforce your ideals of morality based on what you personally feel is moral/immoral. You feel that a private organization censoring content from a free individual is immoral, or at least can lead down a path of immorality. Your logic itself is bent by your own moral standards, and your desire for others to conform to it.
Your example of child abuse, as eye-rollingly obtuse as it is, is still subjective based on *your* interpretation of morality. Most morality was created/manifested as guidance to improve the tribe, the family, whatever, but morality itself is a construct of humans and thus subject to the whims of those humans, it's not baked into our being or carved in our DNA or something.
Your attempt to ascribe a human condition to an inhuman object (a company) is tilting at windmills. If you want to yammer about the morality of that one individual who may/may not have reviewed the actual content, feel free to, but don't try to find morality in an algorithm.