Lawyers Who Sued YouTube For Anti-Conservative Bias Are Suing YouTube Again... For Anti-LGBTQ Bias
from the doesn't-that-debunk-your-first... dept
So, this is interesting. Every time we talk about alleged "anti-conservative" bias on various internet platforms, people who believe it's true (and who yell at us for daring to ask for evidence) tend to do two things: (1) cite Dennis Prager and his claims of YouTube's anti-conservative bias and (2) insist that there is no equivalent on the more liberal end of the spectrum that received similar treatment. We've discussed in great detail why both of those claims are laughably wrong, but we never quite expected the very same lawyers who filed Prager's failed lawsuit against YouTube -- the very same lawsuit that Prager himself just used on the pages of the Wall Street Journal to insist was proof of anti-conservative bias -- would now file a nearly identical complaint against YouTube... but on behalf of various LGBTQ+ YouTube channels.
In both cases, the plaintiffs are represented by Peter Obstler and Eric George of the law firm Browne George Ross law firm. And this new lawsuit has basically as much chance of succeeding as Prager's lawsuit did. Of course, it strikes me as rather ironic that this very lawsuit seems to undermine the basic claim of the Prager lawsuit, that the "only" reason why Prager's videos could have been put into restricted mode were because of the conservative viewpoints they represented. Yet, here, in this lawsuit, there are lots of claims about how Google/YouTube are purposefully discriminating against the LGBTQ+ community.
Since 2016, Defendants have exercised unfettered and absolute discretion to control, regulate, restrict, and manipulate the public video content and viewership of consumers on YouTube, based not on the content of the video, but Defendants’ subjective animus, dislike, or commercial bias with respect to the viewpoint and/or the identity of the content creator and/or the intended audience, including content that Defendants identify as being posted by or expressing a viewpoint of an LGBTQ+ user. In the exercise of that discretion, Defendants brand LGBTQ+ content as “shocking,” “offensive,” and/or “sexually explicit” not because of the video’s content, but either because the viewpoints expressed involve what a senior Google/YouTube content curator dubbed the “gay thing,” or because the content was posted by or viewed by YouTube Community members who identify as “gay.” At the same time, in direct violation of their Community Guidelines and monetization rules, Defendants use their absolute power and discretion over content regulation and monetization to promote, sponsor, and profit from violent, obscene, and threatening hate speech and online bullying directed at and against the LGBTQ+ Community, including the LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs.
This lawsuit is almost certainly headed for a rapid Section 230 dismissal. YouTube is allowed to moderate the content on its site however it sees fit, and that includes putting content into restricted mode (which is a voluntary setting for parents who want to restrict access of certain content to children, and is only used by less than 1.5% of YouTube's users) or to demonetize videos.
This should be fairly simple: YouTube does not owe these video makers a free platform, a free audience, or especially (as they appear to claim) free ability to monetize their videos. There are other options. Go post your videos to Vimeo or DailyMotion or lots of other places.
And, of course, the lawsuit misunderstands how content moderation works -- insisting that there are discriminatory reasons for videos being classified as they are, when the reality is that (1) it's not easy to classify videos, (2) there are lots of gray areas, and (3) even with all of that sometimes mistakes are made. But, nope, the lawsuit, and the plaintiffs, are sure it's because YouTube hates the gays. Incredibly, even though the lawsuit admits that YouTube has said in the past that its moderation system is not perfect and makes mistakes, the lawsuit still insists that it's deliberately targeting them.
The lawsuit itself has lots of other problems. It misrepresents a famously leaked internal Google report about the impossibility of getting content moderation to a point that makes everyone happy as evidence that Google is conducting a "bait and switch fraud" in which it advocates being a platform for free expression while actually supporting censorship. That is... not an intellectually honest description of, well, anything here. It's a blatant misrepresentation of the difficulty of managing any giant platform. The fact that YouTube wants to be a platform for expression does not obligate it to host -- and monetize -- any content for any audience.
Hilariously, the lawsuit actually quotes the filings from YouTube in the Prager case, pretending that the fact that restricted mode is opt-in and only used by less than 1.5% of YouTube's users is somehow evidence that helps them. Also hilarious, they claim that putting "anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Speech in the 'Up Next'" box is another tool to suppress LGBTQ+ views. Like, say, the PragerU video of Ben Shapiro that mocks "gay" people for having more say on college campuses than the "straight white male?" Or does that one not count? Or how about the PragerU video where Prager himself drones on about the importance of marriage in which he only discusses heterosexual marriage, and insists that a key reason why marriage is important is because "the women in [men's lives] spur them to greater creativity." Or maybe the PragerU video asking "why all the confusion" about "gender identity." Do those count?
The complaint also insists that some of their videos end up with anti-LGBTQ+ ads on them. This seems... internally in conflict. First these plaintiffs are demanding monetization, but now claiming they should also have a say in exactly what kinds of ads? And doesn't that go against the rest of this lawsuit that seems to insist that YouTube, by saying it's a platform for free expression, should never moderate anything?
The complaint gets worse. It directly tries to blame YouTube for YouTube commenters. Really.
One of the principal ways of gaining new viewers and subscribers on the YouTube platform is to generate favorable comments and/or healthy discussion in the “Comments Section,” which appears when videos are played. Favorable comments can generate thousands of additional views for a video. Comments regarding video content can generate even more views where the viewers have differing opinions and perspectives. Defendants allow, and refuse to filter out from the LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs’ channels and video comments sections those comments with obscene, homophobic, violent, threatening hate speech. Accordingly, viewers who play educational video content by QueerKidStuff designed for young viewers, supportive video content by BriaAndChrissy, and WonderWarriors designed for adolescents to young adults, and educational and supportive video content designed for adults by GNews! and uppercaseChase1, are exposed to vile hate speech when they view the videos uploaded by these LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs
So... YouTube, in the very same complaint we're told, is both liable for trying to prevent kids from seeing bad stuff and liable for failing to block kids from seeing bad stuff.
It's things like the above that made Section 230 necessary in the first place.
And, wtf is this?
The LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs strongly support the right of free Speech and expression for all Community Members. That right does not extend to Defendants’ promotion of anti-LGBTQ+ hate speech, speech which also violates Defendants’ own purportedly neutral content-based rules -- especially when Defendants unlawfully use those rules as pretext to censor, restrain, demonetize, silence, and squelch the engagement and distribution of LGBTQ+ video content or viewership. Such, actions unlawfully interfere with the express rights of LGBTQ+ Community Members to protect themselves by speaking out against hate and homophobia on a level playing field, as provided by Defendants’ representations and warranties that the rules apply equally to all on YouTube.
We support free speech... except for free speech that disagrees with our views, and how dare YouTube interfere with our right to speak out... while at the same time not blocking those we disagree with. Honestly, this entire lawsuit reads like a satire of what conservatives think "the left" believes.
Amusingly, the only reference to Section 230 -- which will be the basis under which this law is thrown out -- is to briefly (without any explanation) claim that this lawsuit will seek to answer the question of whether Section 230 itself represents unlawful prior restraint. I mean, this is not a serious legal complaint. This is a joke.
whether Defendants’ assertion of immunity from liability under the Community Decency Act 15 U.S.C. § 230 (c) (the “CDA”) with respect to any of the claims or allegations asserted by the LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs, the YouTube Community Class, and/or the LGBTQ+ Community Subclass operates as an unlawful prior restraint of speech in violation of the First Amendment of U.S. Constitution.
It goes on along these lines for many, many pages, but the most telling reason why the whole thing is bullshit? The plaintiffs are promoting the fact that they sued... on YouTube which is clearly censoring their speech.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-conservative bias, anti-lgbtq bias, bias, content moderation, dennis prager, section 230
Companies: youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In a tiny sliver of fairness, several LGBT YouTubers have said in the past that YouTube routinely demonetizes and places the “restricted mode” status on LGBT-centric content even when the content isn’t sexual in nature¹. Not that YouTube doesn’t have the right, but when Google wants to act like it’s a bastion of progressive values and participate in Pride and all that, whether it can kind of takes a backseat to whether it should.
¹ — Yes, LGBT-centric content isn’t sexual by default. If someone thinks otherwise, that is their personal hangup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Sexual" is an ambiguous term. L/G/B/T stand for several terms that all relate to sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
bullshit. bull. shit. By that argument, married people shouldn't be allowed out in public because marriage, too, is related to sex.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You have some point but only because the language used isn't quite as strong as the user seems to actually mean.
Yes, marriage does relate to sex. But then that's not the real problem with comparing that with LGBT.
Those terms don't just relate to sex. They literally only refer to sex. They are only referring to the type of person this person likes to have sex with. There is no wider meaning to them at all.
Marriage has many other things it refers and relates to beyond the sexual implications it does bring.
The OP also never said anything about those people not being allowed out in public. How on earth did you make the jump from marking content as possibly not safe for kids viewing and locking people up in their homes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not the "T", which relates to the same topic in a different way.
And however stupid we think an interpretation is... well, Mike always says content moderation is impossible, and some of those thousands of moderators are going to interpret rules in a dumb way on occasion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, LGBT does not only refer to sex. For one thing, the “T” refers to gender identity, which doesn’t necessarily include sex. Additionally, LGB also refers to one’s choice in romantic or marital partners, not just sexual partners. There are some who are sexually bisexual but romantically just heterosexual or homosexual, and vice versa. There are also people interested in romance but not sex (and vice versa).
So no, homosexual and bisexual are not terms that refer exclusively to, and thus necessarily imply, sex and/or preferences in sexual partners. They are much broader than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's for "transgender" which means a gender identity that doesn't match biological sex. It necessarily includes sex.
I do see some evidence for such interpretations, but traditionally it's referred to sexual attraction. One could be gay and not bisexual even if married to an opposite-sex partner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By that logic, cisgender people would also be sexual when talking about boys and girls. That’s not what sexual means. It means the act of sex or sexual genitalia. (And before you say anything, the biological sex isn’t just about genitals but also chromosomes, which aren’t sexual.)
And it doesn’t matter what definition of homosexual and bisexual you use. The fact is that it’s not exclusive to sexual attraction but also romantic attraction and marriage. (And I don’t care about those gay people who choose to hide that fact by marrying someone of the opposite sex or something like that.) The fact that there is more to being gay, lesbian, or bi than sexual attraction or sexual acts is enough to show that LGB isn’t an inherently sexual topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So do “heterosexual” and “cisgender”, but I don’t see videos about heterosexual cisgender people being demonetized or restricted only for being about heterosexual cisgender people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right, that's what one tends to see from vague rules with selective enforcement. Like how our adult conversation wouldn't be banned by sites that forbid "adult content". Inevitably the rule will be applied in a way that makes people say "WTF" but is technically correct, the best kind of correct. The site operator gets to do whatever they want while claiming they're following some clearly stated objective policy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, this article seems to miss the forest of the hypocrisy of Youtube's algorithm/policy stances for the trees of this being, admittedly, a very silly lawsuit. There's legitimate concerns to be had. And, uh, guys, maybe don't punch down? Like, I agree with you that this lawsuit should not have been filed, but...Reading this article was like a slap in the face, quite frankly. And an unwarranted one. You agitate for more control of content all the time - why shouldn't this extend to being able to e.g. flag people you don't want to be getting ad dollars off of your content?
I'm curious if anyone took the time to edit this, even - you made an accept/except mistake!
Mike, I expected better from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Further following on - the conservative commentators people complain about being censored, they don't have the "my videos get swamped in suggestions for people spewing vitriol about me" problem, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yeah, this article seems to miss the forest of the hypocrisy of Youtube's algorithm/policy stances for the trees of this being, admittedly, a very silly lawsuit
The article is about the very silly lawsuit.
If you have concerns about other stuff, you can write about them whereever you want.
Reading this article was like a slap in the face, quite frankly.
How so?
You agitate for more control of content all the time - why shouldn't this extend to being able to e.g. flag people you don't want to be getting ad dollars off of your content?
Because that's literally got nothing to do with this at all. If this were a post about that you'd have a point. This is a post about a horrendously silly lawsuit that makes people you likely support look foolish.
Honestly, it's so bad that I really do wonder if it's the Prager folks setting people up "on the other side" to look even more foolish than they do.
There's no reason for me to take seriously their complaints when their complaints are so ridiculous.
I'm curious if anyone took the time to edit this, even
Yes, three people in fact! Sometimes we still miss typos. It happens.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Original:
There's no reason for me to take seriously their complaints when their complaints are so ridiculous.
Correct:
There's no reason for me to take seriously your articles when your articles are so ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why so serious?
Who you here then bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"In a tiny sliver of fairness, several LGBT YouTubers have said in the past that YouTube routinely demonetizes and places the “restricted mode” status on LGBT-centric content even when the content isn’t sexual in nature"
In another sliver of fairness, the "several LGBT YouTubers" are just as full of crap as Dennis Prager claiming that YouTube routinely demonizes conservative videos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I do have to wonder if there are stats on this. There sure were on the PragerU videos - where are they for this lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Much of that "content" is hateful, outright and violently hateful even to the point of threatening or encouraging violence toward anyone who does not share their views. Every last bit of that hateful content deserves to be demonitized if not taken down entirely.
I have no automatic problem with anyone regardless of their sexual orientation or declared identity. I don't even need to know those things about a person. I do have a problem with those vociferous assholes that post hate videos against those with a different viewpoint and even those who don't share their orientation and/or gender identity. They're no better than neo-nazis or any other bigot and often worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do not understand your comment about "Google wants to act like it's a bastion of progressive values." I am not personally aware of an instance in which Google has tried to push progressive values. I know that there are google employees who have tried to do so, but The Google itself has always struct me as being a rather rapacious, amoral capitalistic machine. Do you have anything to back your claim?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Simple:
:-P
Of course, it only was a tag line and even then, one might have considered it to just be rapacious, amoral PR fluff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
First they came for the conservatives, but I was not a conservative... Then they came for the LGBT, but it was too goddamned late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Swing... and a miss.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well they're right, there is an anti-conservative bias. Although you have to understand that "conservative" in this context is code for racism, bigotry, white supremacy and intolerance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is... is he suggesting that there is insufficent quantity and/or quality of women in his life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is the "left's" master plan! Censor conservatives (because that's what they want to do), but at the same time censor left-leaning organizations to cover it up!
It's diabolical I tell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it's silly to blame "the left" for these actions or even thinking that they wanted this to happen in the first place.
It's far more likely that they just lacked the foresight to realize that the same treatment applied to other groups could someday be applied to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah, having to ignore evidence to write your story
Yes, let's pretend Google's own internal documents leaked by one of their own employees doesn't show YouTube's bias.
Is this like when they tried to pretend the Clinton Emails didn't exist? Are we pretending they are "fake" or "hacked" this time?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, having to ignore evidence to write your story
...I can't tell who you're supporting here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Okay, we won’t.
Now show us where the leaked documents definitively prove YouTube’s alleged anti-conservative bias — then explain how that bias is somehow illegal or how lawmakers can make a law to stop it without infringing upon the First Amendment’s protections for speech and association.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah Zof, I thought I smelled failure
While we are pretending. Let’s pretend you’re not credulous enough to still take project veritas seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, having to ignore evidence to write your story
It's really considerate of you to discredit yourself so succinctly. Saves a lot of time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, having to ignore evidence to write your story
Um, no one’s saying that they (the Google documents or the Clinton emails) don’t exist. We’re just saying they don’t support your narrative and/or don’t say or imply what you think they do. There’s a huge difference between the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah, having to ignore evidence to write your story
Google's bias is 100% irrelevant. Just like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"We support free speech... accept for free speech that disagrees with our views"
Somebody had to point this out....except is the word we're seeking here....
Love ya Mike!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How Many More Days?
How many more days is this website going to childishly stick its fingers in it's ears and hum loudly instead of covering the fact that a prior Google engineer has released nearly 1000 internal documents that prove Google is trash.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
About as many days as it takes for you to point out, definitively, that the documents prove an explicit anti-conservative bias¹ and the practices that commit said bias into YouTube’s rules and algorithms.
¹ — And keep in mind, this means you have to prove that the alleged “anti-conservative” bias targets conservatives only for expressing “conservative values”, explain what those “conservative values” are, and how those “values” don’t run afoul of the YouTube TOS. So if racism, homophobia, and other hateful speech are “conservative values”, perhaps the issue is less with conservatives being conservatives and more with the values they choose to align themselves with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Many More Days?
negative infinity, because it hasn't happened yet. At least, not in the direction you're pointing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How Many More Days?
How many more days is this website going to childishly stick its fingers in it's ears and hum loudly instead of covering the fact that a prior Google engineer has released nearly 1000 internal documents that prove Google is trash.
LOL.
We don't rush to cover news because waiting a few days often helps to prove that the original reports are wrong. Indeed, as is now quite clear, the only "trash" in that story was the side you immediately believed.
You won't like it when we do cover this, if we even decide it's worth stooping to debunk all the nonsense.
Protip: Don't be an idiot. Supporting PV -- especially on something this ridiculous -- makes you an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Many More Zofs Am I Gonna Flush Today?
How many more days are you gonna keep posting conspiracy bullshit like it’s actual news?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How Many More Days?
How many more days is this website going to childishly stick its fingers in it's ears and hum loudly instead of covering the fact that a prior Google engineer has released nearly 1000 internal documents that prove Google is trash.
The articles bring you here to complain. As a result, you get served the ads like everyone else, and contribute to the site. I see no reason for Techdirt to change that strategy, since you add to the visitor counter every time you come here to whine.
Sucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Conservaderp: "They blocked my vids!!"
: "Did they block the one about deficits?"
Conservaderp: "No"
:"Was it the one about EPA?"
Conservaderp: "No"
:"Well which ones?"
Conservaderp: "You know" <wink, wink>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You could replace 'Conservaderp' with any group of people on Youtube and it would ring just as true in this instance.
For instance, groups of people who regularly discuss sexuality and their sexual identity as well as aspects of their social life which would normally be considered risque.
Is it OK when they do it but not other people? That's the problem with this lawsuit. The premise Youtube was using to censor those evil 'Conservaderp's holds true for almost every mildly borderline group on youtube.
Almost as if everyone should have opposed Youtube's moves to clamp down on their community in the first place so no one would have to die on this hill, now. Not that they're going to succeed, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you think LGBT people discussing their being LGBT and how they live in a heteronormative society as inherently risqué compared to heterosexual people doing the same, even if both groups discuss the exact same things and don’t mention anything remotely sexual? For example: What makes a gay person discussing kissing any more inherently sexual than a straight person doing that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
discussing their being LGBT
This is by definition sexual. As would any heterosexual couple talking about being heterosexual be by definition sexual as well.
This doesn't mean it makes sense for their particular content to be marked that way or not. But you can't call someone talking about who they like to have sex with not "remotely sexual". It doesn't have to be talking about the act of sex itself to reach the point of being sexual in nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I get (although disagree with) the argument you're making for LGB.
But how is transgenderism in any way sexual?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It honestly isn't, but then I have to ask, why connect transgenderism to LGB? Why bring them all under the "born this way and nothing you do will ever change me" banner when one portion of people say "I don't feel like the gender I was born with, I'll change however the fuck I want"?
But then I'm a straight cis male and not a part of the "lesbians being uncomfortable with trans women using their bathrooms" so what do I know? I'm sure once my gruesome death and/or a thick sausage up my ass has been demanded everything will be perfectly fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you really believe someone being transgender is that simple to explain, you need some education on the matter. So I have a few links for you:
And a little extra reading, just in case:
Flag on the play: Portraying trans people and their allies as sociopaths who are more interested in violent retribution (including forcible rape) rather than education/rehabilitation/social justice. Ten yard penalty; don’t repeat your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
more interested in violent retribution (including forcible rape) rather than education/rehabilitation/social justice
Why can't it be both? I'm sure sitting the OP down and educating him with several hours of sissy hypnosis videos would change his mind adequately. How do we know he won't like it if he doesn't try it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something tells me you wanted to be a comedian, and when you told people, they laughed at you.
Well, no one’s laughing now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But don't you see? Male on male rape is funny, sexy, or both. Ask any proud fundoshi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What does a fundoshi (a Japanese male undergarment most well known for being worn by sumo wrestlers) have to do with male-on-male rape being funny or sexy?
I think you meant “fujoshi” (literally “rotten girl”), which refers to women who enjoy male-on-male sex and/or romance, particularly in creative works or in their own fantasies. Even then, I doubt most would think that actual male-on-male rape in real life is funny or sexy… or at least not funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It sure gets joked about a lot:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHGvxXEupLc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t deny that it gets joked about rather frequently. An unfortunate number of people do find actual male-on-male rape funny.
However, I was specifically referring to fujoshi, which do not react to the idea of male-on-male sex like other people do. They are not addressed in that Samantha Bee segment, which is about typical people in general joking about men being raped in general. I was saying that, probably, most fujoshi don’t find real-life men-on-men rape funny, and that many fujoshi wouldn’t find it sexy, either.
The best equivalent to a fujoshi I can think of is the case where you have men that get off on the idea of lesbian sex and/or romance, with or without the man himself being involved, read/watch/write a lot of porn or raunchy books/comics/magazines about it, and sometimes may fantasize about female acquaintances, strangers, public figures, or fictional characters having lesbian relations, physical or romantic. Just swap all the genders around and you get a fujoshi. Although I’m sure fujoshi or fujoshi-esque women exist in many cultures, the term largely refers to Japanese women and/or women whose media of choice are manga, anime, visual novels (typically Japanese), and Japanese light novels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Ah, yes. I do enjoy the irony that a community that complained about controversial conversion therapy also champions a genre of porn that fetishizes making men beta to be forcibly raped by older men.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Don't knock it 'til you try it, sweet thang.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hmmm. Nah, I think I'll settle for you and your allies screaming at me for being "narrow minded" instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
FTR, the LGBT community doesn’t exactly include fujoshi, who are generally straight (or not interested in themselves having sex or romance with anyone) cis-women.
There’s also a huge difference between conversion therapy, which is a real thing that has real negative effects on real people, and a bunch of fictional works that “fetishizes making men … be forcibly raped by older men”, which doesn’t really harm anyone in real life.
And even that isn’t an accurate description of the kind of things fujoshi like to read/watch/play/write; it can include equal partnerships, consensual dom-sub play, one man raping a man of equal or older age, no actual sex at all, etc. While any individual fujoshi will often have their own preferences within the yaoi and shonen ai genres, as a whole group their tastes pretty much encompass any creative work that includes male-on-male romance and/or sex, including if it’s merely implied sex or romance, though smut is definitely a higher priority in general.
I won’t call you “narrow-minded”, as that would be giving you too much credit. You’re just an ignorant jerk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank you so much for this list of links! It’s really helpful to have a list of ways to offer more support to transpeople especially after seeing how bullying and cruel some anti-trans campaigners can be to vulnerable trans people online as well as to those cispeople who try to defend them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
....and by list of links I mean the educational ones about transgender posted by Stephen Stone upthread which might have been hidden along with hidden comments if the thread is collapsed. Very good list, thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Heteronormative bigots like you are the biggest stain on humanity. You who think with your phallic disasters rather than your brains can never appreciate the ignominy of being next to a guy and being asked by children, day in day out, "Is he your boyfriend?" It's a travesty that children are allowed to make this sort of narrow-minded connection. Never mind the fact that children are a drain on personal, monetary and planetary resources, because disgusting lascivious males can't keep their hormones and urges in check. You're all walking time bombs of sperm and the sooner the Y chromosome denatures into the void, the better.
Only a woman knows how to truly love another woman. Your time is coming when we fuck you up. Actually, no. Your time is coming when all you filthy jocks fuck each other up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2/10
Wouldn’t skim again. Belies the authors inner inadequacies too much and fails to sound remotely convincing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Boys are dumb, throw rocks at them!"
How original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are the problem. I hope all your videos were demonitized and/or taken down.
Fucking bigot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But she's a lesbian bigot, that's how you know it's okay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, when a radical feminist posts dumb shit, there's no call for them to police themselves. They're celebrated, or it's assumed that the posting must have been spoofed by an incel.
It's the kindergarten-level bullshit of "Haha, you got beat by a girl" versus "How dare you, you hit a girl!" except magnified for adults and nobody calls it out. We'd probably cheer on Andy Warhol's attempted murder today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're still wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Okay then.
Have fun dealing with the transracial Filipino.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And this is why you're wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why, because the transracial Filipino is a white guy? Why's that my responsibility?
What about the white guy who works as a women's center coordinator at a university and identifies as a tranny cyborg Hindu woman, that's my fault too? Cyborgs are kosher, just not attack helicopters?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because treating someone as less than a human being or hurling insults at them, regardless of whether you agree with their life choices or not, is universally considered bad form. And in this case, it's called being a bigot, especially towards a legally protected class.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not the lesbian who thinks that a man shouldn't be allowed to identify as a Hindu cyborg. I'm not the one who thinks a person can't identify as an attack helicopter. But sure, fuck the cis straights, that'll be enough of a distraction while the spectrum turns on itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Oh, we will. The movement is running along and you disgusting men's rights activists aren't capable of slowing it down. You chauvinists have had it too good for too long and it's high time you were treated as the vapid, inefficient wallets and dildos you actually are.
Go ahead, call me a bigot. The worst that can happen to me is other commenters thinking I'm one of you and kick your ass. The best that can happen is other commenters skipping that step and kicking your ass anyway.
Why don't you men go your own way, off the side of a cliff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, you kind of are.
Seriously, you aren't much better than he is. While what he advocates for is despicable and should be loudly denounced and people educated as to why it's wrong, that doesn't give you the right to give tit for tat. Or to lump all men in with him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, yes, advocating to be not involved in the political bickering of sexual minorities is trash-tier incel behavior!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I actually had to Google that last reference. A+ for the MGTOW pun. You're free to demean me however you want, most will be standing by your side. Like I said, Valerie Solanas would be celebrated by the standards of today, and gun down hordes of "incels" to no consequence.
That won't solve the infighting on your end, like the lesbians and gays who think "bisexuality" is a lie, the trans who think that the celebrated icons of drag queens is an insult to the intersex (because somehow the celebration of men acting stereotypically female is a white boi fantasy?), the women whining about Caster Semenya having too much testosterone in her body to identify as a woman, the Fandom article pointing out how the yaoi fandom is actually pretty terrible for the LGBT community as a whole, etc., etc.
But if it makes you happy nuke us from orbit as the only way to make sure that you'll have solved all your problems. Goodness knows you'd get a fucking standing ovation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What are you going to do about it, cis scum? Grab me by the pussy? Heteronormative garbage like you is why girls aren't given the respect and affection they deserve. Too bad for you, love wins!
Go eat a dick, then choke on it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How about nah.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, just because you don't agree with what someone does or how they identify themselves, does not give you the right to treat them as anything less than a human being. The fact that you continue to do so only proves my point and why you are wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You miss the point.
What annoys me is people thinking that other minority groups being offended by other people, some belonging to the majority and others belonging to other minorities, is my responsibility to undertake because I've had it "too good for too long".
I'm not the one with a vested interest or understanding for why people request for specifically catered bathrooms. By all means, use whatever bathroom you feel is the most appropriate. Last I checked it was a woman who posted on Twitter "MEN AREN'T WOMEN THO". But keep attributing blame to me if it appeases you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you missed the point. None of that gives you the right to treat other people as trash the way you do. Disagree with them if you must but treat them as a fellow human being. Nothing else matters.
No one is saying you have to be responsible for them. What we are saying is be nice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is pointing out that the transracial Filipino exists "trash"? I don't actually think there's anything
disagreeable with that. I'm not the one making jokes like "Can I identify as transfinancial too?" It's a lesbian who said the "tranny Hindu cyborg" was ridiculous.
What, is that it? The lack of LGBT apologism? What do I apologize for, the minority that doesn't think another minority deserves to act like the other minority chose to, or the minority that made life choices another minority disagrees with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Honestly, it doesn’t matter who said the “tranny Hindu cyborg” is ridiculous. It’s still disrespectful.
And no, the transracial Filipino isn’t a thing, and it’s clearly meant to put down transgender people.
Try being respectful to those different from you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, about that.
You might think it's something to clearly put down transgender people, but that's not how the transracial person sees it. Same for the doctor who was consulted.
And the trans-Filipino's response? "If that’s who they are and they want to celebrate it and enjoy it, then you have to think, ‘What harm is it doing?’... I think before we get offended, we need to take a step back and think about what is the harm."
Incidentally the trans-Filipino is also transgender. Are you suggesting the transgender woman's being disrespectful towards transgendered individuals?
The "attack helicopter is offensive" post was written by someone who sexually identifies as a wolf. Wolves and cyborgs are okay, but helicopters and Filipinos aren't?
Or maybe you'd like to see this clarification as being disrespectful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure. You can be disrespectful towards your own community. Feminist women disrespect feminist women all the time.
Also, don’t put words into my mouth. Identifying as a wolf or a cyborg (assuming one is neither) is not “okay”. (How does one “sexually” identify as a wolf, anyway?) I mean, I don’t really care that much as long as it doesn’t hurt anyone, but it’s not really comparable to transgender any more than trans-race or trans-helicopter would be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You might want to consider reading the site Stephen links when arguing why the trans-helicopter copypasta is offensive.
The page about "why the attack helicopter joke is trans-offensive" was written by someone who literally sexually identifies as a wolf.
No, I don't have any better idea of how an animal species now qualifies as sexual identity but a form of aerial transport is outlawed and vilified.
Maybe the wolf and the cyborg can be put in a cage match to argue it out and settle things once and for all. Or would that constitute as phobic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don’t think you understand. I don’t care who said it. The attack helicopter thing is offensive (and for the record, it’s not just one trans person who thinks that, so the idea that it only offends this guy who “sexually identifies as a wolf” is just wrong), and a valid argument is still valid no matter who says it.
So in other words, it doesn’t matter who wrote the page that Stephen cited and that I never mentioned. It doesn’t impact my arguments at all because I never used that article to support my arguments to begin with. But even if I had, and even if I have serious questions regarding the trans-wolf person, that doesn’t make their argument presumptively invalid.
You also misunderstand why the attack helicopter thing is so offensive. It’s not just that it goes beyond gender identity—which is already complicated by intersex persons and observable things in the brain of trans persons that more closely align with cis persons with the same gender identity rather than their biological sex at birth.* It’s primarily because there is no actual person out there who legitimately “identifies” as an attack helicopter. Unlike the trans-wolf or trans-racial people, the attack helicopter thing is solely used to discredit transgender people.
There’s also the fact that there’s a difference between identifying as a living thing that doesn’t perfectly match your apparent anatomy and identifying as an inanimate object that doesn’t have any part that even slightly resembles any part of your anatomy. Hell, saying you identify as a human mannequin would be less offensive.
Also, my main problem with sexually identifying as a wolf (or at least the reason I singled that out) is because being a wolf isn’t sexual like being male or female is (unless we’re talking about having wolf genitals, but that’s a whole other kettle of fish). I could at least wrap my head around someone identifying as a wolf, but not as a sexual identity.
As for identifying as a cyborg, I don’t have an inherent problem with that. A little surgery, even with current technology rather than that from science fiction, could easily turn that from delusion to reality by any judgement. So please stop bringing up the fact that one of these people identifies as a cyborg; it really doesn’t matter.
*This fact that gender isn’t strictly one of two options with no in-between or exceptions is why I have a problem with identifying as a wolf (the differences between a human and a wolf are far more clear-cut with no known cases of anyone who lies in-between). Additionally, the fact that neurological factors can be identified in transgender individuals such that a trans woman’s brain is (largely) indistinguishable from an ordinary cis-woman’s brain but can be distinguished from a cis-man’s brain or a trans-man’s brain (and that’s before surgery or hormone treatment) shows that transgender is not the delusion that detractors claim. However, with race, we don’t have neurological differences between people of different races; with a trans-wolf, I highly doubt that we have any humans with a wolf-brain. And of course, no one has an attack-helicopter brain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[Asserts facts not in evidence]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why connect them? Because the people out to force them to pretend to be someone they're not are generally the same people trying to oppress both groups. There aren't many LGB-friendly transphobes, or trans-friendly homophobes, compared to the number of people who are both transphobic and homophobic.
Based on the rest of your comment, not all that much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy? Fair enough. Just don't involve me in the quibbles over women being offended that trans women identifying as such using their bathroom.
Or do. There's probably someone who strongly believes that Meghan Murphy and the other feminists who scream "trans women aren't women" is the fault of men. Somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
“Just don't involve me in the quibbles...”
No one asked you bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It depends on one's sex being different from one's gender identity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...And? What is sexual about either of those things?
Would a printout of an XY or XX genome be considered sexual? If not, why is biological sex considered sexual?
And I certainly can't see how gender identity would be sexual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rule 34.
I bet someone, somewhere has made a drawing or animation of chromosomal X and X action or X and Y action.
No I am not going to search for it myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: rule 34.
By that logic, everything is sexual. If Google banned everything that had a Rule34 equivalent as "sexual," Google would have no content whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they’re talking about the experience of being gay, bi, straight, etc. without mentioning anything sexual at all, how does that qualify as “sexual content”? The point I’m making is that society in general (and YouTube in particular, even if only by accident) sees LGBT-centric content as inherently sexual by default. If the same content featured straight people, it would more likely than not be considered “innocent” or “non-sexual”. Take, for example, an image of two people sharing a quick kiss on the lips. Is it more or less sexual when the image is of two men or two women instead of a straight couple — and regardless of your opinion on the matter, what do you think society in general would say about it? What if the image is of two people holding hands — how does that change things?
Hell, look at NSFW bans for a better example. Lots of people, LGBT and straight alike, figured (and feared) that Tumblr’s ban would go after queer content first and hardest, even the SFW stuff, because of heteronormative views about such content. Archivists scrambled to back up as much LGBT-centric content on Tumblr as possible prior to the ban because they knew a hefty amount of it would disappear — regardless of whether Tumblr or a given user disappeared it.
What if they don’t mention sex? See, this is what I’m talking about: Ignorant assholes think all LGBT-centric content is only about sex only because it involves LGBT people. A straight person can discuss dating without mentioning anything sexual, and people generally won’t assume anything sexual is being discussed. But the moment a gay person does it, ignorant assholes think the discussion is only about who the gay person is hooking up with in bed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No. No it would not, unless you think love, romance, and marriage are also inherently sexual. Because homosexuality, heterosexuality, and bisexuality are also about love, romance, and marriage.
Also, transgender is completely different from all of those things, and it’s not really any different from talking about cisgender boys and girls, which can be done without bringing sex or genitals into it.
If you can’t see two romantically attracted or married persons, or someone talking about their romantic life or romantic options, without thinking it’s sexual, then either you’re a huge prude on the level of the Shakers, or you have a very dirty mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Aye, what it comes down to is their TOS.
Conservative topic such as economics? No problem
Racism, sexism, white supremacy? Problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well let's see. How to pick up girls:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=how+to+pick+up+girls
No idea how many videos that returns, but it's a lot.
Hottest movie kisses:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=hottest+movie+kisses
Some of which are gay (almost exclusively lesbian I'd wager) but I'm sure the vast majority are straight.
I could go on, but probably you can see that content that is tangentially related to straight sex is just fine on YouTube, so why should discussing aspects of being gay be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uh oh, let me play the world's tiniest violin for people who are just realizing that championing censorship may someday come around to affect them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Afterall everyone is Entitled to force google to work for them if they don't want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They could have raised a fuss about it last year when people started noticing the trends and maybe assisted in pressuring Youtube and Google to ease the increasingly stricter restrictions they were adding. Which they knew at the time included their content but wasn't currently being enforced to target their content.
Community backlash has been a proven language that Google speaks, and they do peacefully resolve problems that cause too much bad PR.
But they didn't.
All they have to show for it now is this lousy lawsuit.
"-and there's no one left to speak for me."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Google's restrictions will ebb and flow based on what it thinks it's customers want. If they start doing differently (if any of these "censorship" due to bias claims ever have any validity to them) all that means is that there is an opening for a competitor to come and exploit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I believe community pressure has been tried.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right, but the safety valve is always there.
Anytime enough people feel like they are being censored from the current platforms to make it worthwhile someone can step up and cash in on that market themselves.
There is no need for the govt to play armchair quarterback for Google, Facebook, twitter, etc. They or anyone else who thinks can do better at content moderation can start their own team and show us how it should be done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so fast
I would argue that laughably wrong is disingenuous when changes to algorithms but more specifically changes to filters to omit can be made by individuals with little over sight. You don't know for sure, so laughable is the absolute blind certainty that stuff like this is not happening. We live in a very toxic world politically with billions of dollars on the line (Americans money) so just about anything is possible. No-one, not even the almighty Tech Dirt knows for certain unless they can confirm they've personally done a line by line code check of Google's proprietary search engine code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so much vodka in the coffee
Hello fellow American comrade. How is the weather in St Petersburg..... Florida today wink
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so fast
This not how the burden of proof works. But you knew that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This site is so leftist and BIAS they can't see anything in front of their face and as clear as day, even with the proof they clearly ignore. Yes, Youtube is Anti-Conservative. They want to ban one side, while it's as clear as can be the left, far, far worse and throwing out real hate, they are allowed to stay on Youtube. That is clear BIAS against the right. So long as the left can get away with pretty much murder, Techdirt is OK with is and sees no bias at all. WOW, beyond laughable. This is what you get with leftist writers who live in their own world and have their leftist views. It clearly shows. Google has been caught a number of times. Ignore that. Same goes with Twitter and others!!!
https://www.dailywire.com/news/25744/bombshell-report-twitter-admits-censoring-ryan-saaved ra
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/google-ceo-openly-admits-to-censorship-in-new-cnn-inte rview
Don't like the real results, you just ignore them. Techdirt is really becoming laughable these days. Ya, keep your head buried in the sand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Daily Wire link starts "James O'Keefe's Project Veritas" which should tell you all you need to know about that.
Washington Examiner features one example of a person being demonetized:
Is that really the best you've got? A single person not making money off of their ads because they wore a homophobic shirt? That's your "clear as day" evidence that conservatives are being censored?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let’s take stupid and make lemonaide
How bout you give a quarter to the charity of your choice every time you say “left(ist)” when you mean people you don’t agree with and double that when you say BIAS in all caps like a DOLT.
That’s $2.25 already.
Looking forward to seeing your receipt. Though I fear this will be a very expensive long term strategy for you bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[AC offers no facts in his Complaint to support this proposition.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
use the tools provided
Defendants allow, and refuse to filter out from the LGBTQ+ Plaintiffs’ channels and video comments sections those comments with obscene, homophobic, violent, threatening hate speech.
So the YouTubers are complaining because people left anti LGBT comments and YouTube didn't automatically recognize the hate speech? The channel owners can remove individual comments and block people from commenting if they want to. And no automatic tool is going to be able to prevent every hate speech comment.
Just stop complaigning and use the tools you have available.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: use the tools provided
They are.
And those tools are named Peter Obstler and Eric George.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To paraphrase middle school
This lawsuit is gay
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self-defeating
It boggles my mind whenever plaintiffs include, in their complaints, factual allegations that clearly undermine their case. Normally, the statistics regarding Restricted View probably wouldn’t be admissible at the Motion to Dismiss stage, but since the Plaintiffs included it in their complaint and it supports Google/YouTube, it can be used to help dismiss the claim.
A tiny amount of credit is due to their CDA §230 argument, for originality if nothing else. Rather than trying to say that the conduct alleged isn’t protected by CDA §230, they’re arguing that it’s unconstitutional to use it to dismiss the claims. It won’t work (not much is needed to meet the “due process” standard for this sort of thing), but it’s a better effort than most of these kind of lawsuits that run afoul of CDA §230.
But yeah, they seem to be including a lot of stuff that proves that they don’t have a case here. I understand their frustrations, but even if 100% of what they allege is 100% true (it isn’t), and there aren’t any other relavant facts that go against their case (there are), none of what was alleged here was illegal or makes YouTube/Google legally liable. Plaintiffs, I love y’all, and I feel for you, but this complaint has a snowball’s chance in hell of actually going anywhere other than the dismissal bin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No conflict here
Its only the conservatives in the LGBTQ community that are being harassed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Really? I mean REALLY?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh and one more thing, Mike:
The last paragraph you have there.
That's literally invoking the "You believe we should change society somewhat, and yet you participate in it" stupid argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's literally invoking the "You believe we should change society somewhat, and yet you participate in it" stupid argument.
No. It's not. It's saying it's tough to argue that you're being censored when you're announcing that you're being censored on the platform you argue isn't letting you speak. YouTube ain't the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In short, in being able to claim a platform is censoring you on the very platform you claim is censoring you, you’re sort of (but not completely) disproving your argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laughing at your reasoning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]