Hickock45 Youtube channel shut down by Google

[NJGF 375]

Life is good!

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I knew that BS wasn't gonna last long. Way too many people support that channel.

[DanMarvel 9]

I've always hated Google+

[Krdshrk 3,878]

I'm not sure how it works, I have two options in YouTube. My original youtube account before Google became relevant and then my Google account. I'm not sure you can sign up for YouTube anymore unless it's through Google+

 

Yeah - they linked them together before when Google bought Youtube.  I just never linked my accounts.

[Malsua 1,422]

Yeah - they linked them together before when Google bought Youtube.  I just never linked my accounts.

 

I didn't have a choice.  One day it just up and said "to continue using this account, it must be linked" and that was that.   Maybe its because of adsense.

[Krdshrk 3,878]

If you have adsense turned on for monetization, I think that may be a requirement.  I haven't done it - my videos aren't that popular

[Newtonian 453]

So, private companies can trample rights because they dont like something? Maybe google is on to something here.  Let's pretend (and I do mean PRETEND) I dont like catholics, blacks or gays. According to the logic you presented, if I own a business I may infringe upon the civil rights of others at my pleasure.

First let's be clear that being on Youtube is not a right.

 

That being said, there are definitely people you can discriminate against in certain circumstances (e.g. Hickock45) but not in others (lesbian wedding cakes).

 

BTW Hickock is back online. 

[Malsua 1,422]

If you have adsense turned on for monetization, I think that may be a requirement.  I haven't done it - my videos aren't that popular

 

It's all about quantity .   I have somewhere north of 2 million views lifetime, and about 200k for my current videos...I usually do a 3-4(RPM i.e. dollars per 1000).  Eventually it adds up. 

[Scorpio64 5,163]

I can't help but wonder if we (the gun community) have just been had.  Someone told YT to push a button and see what happens.  They pushed it and boy, a lot of information was collected.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

I can't help but wonder if we (the gun community) have just been had. Someone told YT to push a button and see what happens. They pushed it and boy, a lot of information was collected.

?

[TR20 47]

I can't help but wonder if we (the gun community) have just been had.  Someone told YT to push a button and see what happens.  They pushed it and boy, a lot of information was collected.

 

Good insight!  I did not think of that angle. I sent my blistering "Google Feedback" with the screenshot of his defunct account and alternate email address instead of Gmail. I hope I get a response but doubt anyone will bother to read my comments, much less reply.

 

The flip side....we are on so many damn lists by now I am not going to worry about them having my data.  I back what I said 100% as it was honest and represented the views of a Constitutional Conservative...ME. Screw Google and the rest of the power hungry lawless liberals. 

[Avalanche 42]

Scorpio64, on 06 Jan 2016 - 11:41 AM, said:

So, private companies can trample rights because they dont like something? Maybe google is on to something here.  Let's pretend (and I do mean PRETEND) I dont like catholics, blacks or gays. According to the logic you presented, if I own a business I may infringe upon the civil rights of others at my pleasure.

 

 

I think you need to go back to middle school Social Studies or Civics, rights are something thinly and precariously guaranteed to you by the constitution as it pertains to GOVERNMENT.  Private entities do not have to give anyone freedom to do anything, 

[Scorpio64 5,163]

I think you need to go back to middle school Social Studies or Civics, rights are something thinly and precariously guaranteed to you by the constitution as it pertains to GOVERNMENT.  Private entities do not have to give anyone freedom to do anything, 

 

Well, ya say that but, private entities can't put a whites only sign at a diner or deny jews internet service or hold someone prisoner in the basement of a private security firm nor can a corporation deny employment to people based on a whole litany of things like gender, religion, race etc.  All of these rights and laws are based on the BoR. 

 

You see, the constitution protects our rights not just from the government, it also protects us from people and corporations, which are also people.  go figure.

 

Private entities cannot deny anyone their constitutional rights, but some do, and get away with it too. 

 

btw, dont be a douche bag and tell me what I need to do, you sound like a snarky little prick with a chip on his shoulder.  If you have a problem with my argument, go after my argument, not me.  then it becomes personal.

 

toodaloo.

[Screwball 483]

Private entities cannot deny anyone their constitutional rights, but some do, and get away with it too.

Very true, but when you are using their social space, you have to follow their rules. They are not directly charging you for the service, but you must comply to their Terms of Use if you want to utilize it. When you sign up for any social media website, you agree with their Terms... meaning you have to follow the rules. Don't like it, then you can't join or will be kicked out.

 

Now, they are not saying X group can't use their stuff... so it isn't discrimination. It is an identical argument to someone threatening another person, then pulling the freedom of speech card. There are limits when your freedom intersects with someone else's... whether it is another individual (has their rights, just the same as yours) or an organization (which, in regards to any of these social media outlets, are in the process of making money through ad revenue).

[njpilot 671]

 

You see, the constitution protects our rights not just from the government, it also protects us from people and corporations, which are also people.  go figure.

 

Private entities cannot deny anyone their constitutional rights, but some do, and get away with it too. 

 

No it doesn't. The Bill of Rights tells the government what it can't do. The only reason private businesses can no longer discriminate against the people you mentioned is because the gov't made them "protected" classes of people.

 

If a private business said you can't come into their store with no shoes or shirt, it isn't discrimination because neither shoe-less nor shirt-less people are a protected class and the store can tell you to leave and not serve you.

[Scorpio64 5,163]

Very true, but when you are using their social space, you have to follow their rules. They are not directly charging you for the service, but you must comply to their Terms of Use if you want to utilize it. When you sign up for any social media website, you agree with their Terms... meaning you have to follow the rules. Don't like it, then you can't join or will be kicked out.

 

Now, they are not saying X group can't use their stuff... so it isn't discrimination. It is an identical argument to someone threatening another person, then pulling the freedom of speech card. There are limits when your freedom intersects with someone else's... whether it is another individual (has their rights, just the same as yours) or an organization (which, in regards to any of these social media outlets, are in the process of making money through ad revenue).

 

I've been doing a bit of research on the subject of freedom of speech and social media.  The issue is far more complicated than the scope of the discussion in this thread.  1st, Google and youtube are public traded corporations, so they do not enjoy the same things that private companies may.  2nd, google and youtube are de facto utilities, the way they are regulated is a quagmire of bureaucracy .  3rd, Because social media communications cross state lines, the companies are subject to a massive heap of federal regulation.  These three things don't even scratch the surface of how complex this issue is.

 

Think of it like this.  Youtube and facebook are communications mediums.  Although the methods of communication are different than POTS (plain old telephone service) they are essentially the same as far as regulation is concerned.  The telephone company cannot refuse service to a person or business as long as the communications are for lawful purposes..  If I, as a private citizen, want to sell a firearm to another private citizen, and I communicate with a buyer over the telephone, then lets say some executive at the phone company somehow found out I was conducting this lawful transaction, but did not like it because they are anti gun, the telco cannot terminate my service.  While we have been bickering over the low hanging fruit of freedom of speech vs private corps, there is much tastier fruit higher up in the tree. 

 

A good team of lawyers with a billion dollar budget could make a case against google/youtube and FB for their TOS.  The phone company cannot put in their TOS that you cant talk about firearms, thustly, neither can YT.  The world of social media and how it is regulated is evolving and what one may believe to be true today, correctly or not, may not be true tomorrow.. 

[Screwball 483]

A good team of lawyers with a billion dollar budget could make a case against google/youtube and FB for their TOS. The phone company cannot put in their TOS that you cant talk about firearms, thustly, neither can YT. The world of social media and how it is regulated is evolving and what one may believe to be true today, correctly or not, may not be true tomorrow..

Making a case and winning are two very different things...

 

A phone company could very well come up with a TOS that states that persons cannot do X, Y, or Z. Problem for them is two fold... first, are people going to accept it? The second, how can you enforce it without listening in on phone calls? I think just the idea of putting that on TOS would have people question who is listening, and such a company likely would have low numbers of users.

 

You kind of are taking two different realms and bringing them together. A phone company is not the same as Facebook or YouTube. The latter have more ties in publication than they do with communication (not saying there isn't communication in those, but they are A LOT more). Calling them social media is very correct, and you really can't lump phone companies in there. They are strictly communication (same with cable and internet, being it is just a way to get information; Facebook is on the internet, but does not have much to do with the way you connect to it).

 

Now, considering those websites are somewhat new (when did MySpace first crop up... 2003?), there hasn't been a good definition of what these companies are, and what freedoms/restrictions apply to them (criminal laws have been adjusting to them during the past decade). I completely understand where you are coming from, but as it currently sits, their TOS are what govern their websites and they are not violating any user's rights. Could that change? Of course, but likely when there is a true public storage system with the internet... not a server being ran by Facebook, YouTube, or whoever else.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Scorpion you are overarching a lot of concepts incorrectly.

 

A publicly traded company is not exactly "public". The public has access to purchase shares of the company and has a limited say in the company based on how much they own. Unless its owned or contracted by the government its a private entity.

 

Your trying to connect "public services and utilities" with social media. Since most utilities receive federal funding and are "monopolies" they cannot discriminate, they are also heavily regulated by states and the feds because the services they provide have physical implications of locations... think power, gas lines/stations, cell towers. Sewers for roads..... the fact people don't have options to choose where to get services. These are also things the governments deems as necessities, in FL its illegal to own a home off the grid now.

 

Social Media sites don't provide a service, keep that in mind. It is an interface or program which uses a service to connect you... much like a physical telephone. It's also intellectual property owned by someone or by a company.

 

Yes, your service provider cannot limit your conversations on-line, but a website or program can decide how you use their property..

 

I'm not sure if it plays a role here but these are also free to play programs..

[JackDaWack 2,895]

Rights are not to protect you from the government, its an establishment of what people can do freely. Some parts do specifically pertain to the government. However, when you say I have a right to freedom of speech, the singularity that can trump that is someone else's rights.Facebook can't stop you from expressing yourself, but its within their rights to deny you access to their property if they feel its not beneficial to their goals. The content on their site controls their image. It's the same reason a place like NJ.com can pull comments to preserve an image they want.