Stefan Molyneux Has Been Banned From YouTube

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Sheesh people, even were it true that he is a racist or a white nationalist (I have listened to him a fair lot but somehow missed him say that) you say "good riddance" at your own loss.

Do a simple YouTube search for clips where you can hear it for yourself.

Free speech means nothing if the speech of those we disagree with isn't free.

Free speech, in the constitutional context doesn't mean that people can just spout off anything that tickles their fancy. I just means that GOVERNMENT (Federal, state, and local) cannot restrict speech arbitrarily unless there is some specific harm that is going to be the result (ie. yelling "fire" in a packed movie theater to watch the stampede afterward.) Political speech enjoys the highest measures of protection against government censor.

However, private businesses and entities can indeed restrict free speech. So expecting YouTube, which has a feminist CEO and a cadre of SJW staff members, is woefully naive. Molyneux spewing his nonsense might be protected from government retribution, but the free market can silence him all they want. That is nothing new.

If he was really concerned about censor, he should have chosen a more hospitable platform. He wanted to have the biggest pool of viewers in the world so he has to pay the consequences.

[Cornfed]

However, private businesses and entities can indeed restrict free speech. So expecting YouTube which has a feminist CEO and a cadre of SJWs as staff members, is woefully naive. So Molyneux spewing his nonsense might be protected from government retribution, but the free market can silence him all they want. That is nothing new.

This is an interesting issue that we could debate in another thread if you want. For one thing, should private companies that function as utilities be able to restrict the legal activities of their clients? Should the telephone companies back in the 80s have been able to listen in on your calls and been able to say "You don't like Ronald Reagan and we regard this as hate speech so we are cutting off your phone service"? The thing is that the tech monopolies effectively function as a utility like the phone company did then.

The other thing is that there is no disconnect between the tech monopolies and the government. The companies leverage on government built or mandated infrastructure, government invented technologies, government grants for the public benefit etc. Are we not entitled to expect something in return?

As to your comment about the "free market" I hope you were being ironic.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Should private companies that function as utilities be able to restrict the legal activities of their clients?

Yes. They should be legally ABLE to do it but they should be ready to pay the consequences of an eventual market backlash and a better company displacing them. Where I am staying, we don't have to wear masks, but some companies are refusing service to non-mask wearers because they CAN.

But public utilities are heavily subsidized by governments and they therefore are restricted by law and/or by contract from discriminating politically or otherwise.

Should the telephone companies back in the 80s have been able to listen in on your calls and been able to say "You don't like Ronald Reagan and we regard this as hate speech so we are cutting off your phone service"?

Surreptitiously listening in on private phone calls is already illegal in most Western jurisdictions so I reject the example. A better one would be refusing service to those with the wrong political views. My answer would be exactly the same as the question above. Yes, but....

The other thing is that there is no disconnect between the tech monopolies and the government. The companies leverage on government built or mandated infrastructure, government invented technologies, government grants for the public benefit etc. Are we not entitled to expect something in return?

I disagree. Public institutions do sometime hire and partner up with the private sector, but if government commissioned private companies to politically discriminate on their behalf, that would be highly illegal because the private firms would be considered agents of the state and the state would be found liable for unlawful violations of constitutional protections. If fact, most governments have contractual agreements that REQUIRE firms not to discriminate when conducting work on the governments' behalf. Where that occurs, costly fines, sanctions, and terminations of contracts are the results.

As to your comment about the "free market" I hope you were being ironic.

There is no market in the world that is 100% free and clear of government regulation in the Adam Smith sense. However, Western governments tend to be minimally invasive of market forces and so they are considered to be free markets as opposed to command economies.

It is the same thing as people being free. You cannot do everything you might want to do in New Zealand because the law prohibits certain behaviors. But that does not mean you as a New Zealander are not considered free in the general sense.

[Cornfed]

Should private companies that function as utilities be able to restrict the legal activities of their clients?

Yes. They should be legally ABLE to do it but they should be ready to pay the consequences of an eventual market backlash and a better company displacing them.

So you are taking the naive lolbertarian position then. There are various problems with this, but no worries, you are probably not the right one to debate the issue.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Should private companies that function as utilities be able to restrict the legal activities of their clients?

Yes. They should be legally ABLE to do it but they should be ready to pay the consequences of an eventual market backlash and a better company displacing them.

So you are taking the naive lolbertarian position then. There are various problems with this, but no worries, you are probably not the right one to debate the issue.

Dead wrong (yet again)..... It is a supply-side argument, not a libertarian one.

[Cornfed]

Should private companies that function as utilities be able to restrict the legal activities of their clients?

Yes. They should be legally ABLE to do it but they should be ready to pay the consequences of an eventual market backlash and a better company displacing them.

So you are taking the naive lolbertarian position then. There are various problems with this, but no worries, you are probably not the right one to debate the issue.

Dead wrong (yet again)..... It is a supply-side argument, not a libertarian one.

Yeah, this is one of the many verbal arguments I would like to have with you and put on Youtube. Are you interested?

[flowerthief00]

Free speech, in the constitutional context doesn't mean that people can just spout off anything that tickles their fancy. I just means that GOVERNMENT (Federal, state, and local) cannot restrict speech arbitrarily unless there is some specific harm that is going to be the result (ie. yelling "fire" in a packed movie theater to watch the stampede afterward.) Political speech enjoys the highest measures of protection against government censor.

Certainly. I am not arguing from the constitutional context here, but rather for free speech as a general value worth respecting

There is an argument, tho, that some types of private businesses--social media, specifically--should lose some of the privileges they currently enjoy when they do choose to restrict free speech.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Free speech, in the constitutional context doesn't mean that people can just spout off anything that tickles their fancy. I just means that GOVERNMENT (Federal, state, and local) cannot restrict speech arbitrarily unless there is some specific harm that is going to be the result (ie. yelling "fire" in a packed movie theater to watch the stampede afterward.) Political speech enjoys the highest measures of protection against government censor.

Certainly. I am not arguing from the constitutional context here, but rather for free speech as a general value worth respecting

There is an argument, tho, that some types of private businesses--social media, specifically--should lose some of the privileges they currently enjoy when they do choose to restrict free speech.

Already exists. The privilege they lose is market share. YouTube has already seen dozens of competitors sprouting up because of this practice. It just takes a long time because they were functioning like a monopoly for so long. You’ll find that YouTube will be like MySpace when a primary competitor reveals itself.

Other than that, there is no legal punishment unless they are not providing equal access to political parties which would traverse election law.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

Should private companies that function as utilities be able to restrict the legal activities of their clients?

Yes. They should be legally ABLE to do it but they should be ready to pay the consequences of an eventual market backlash and a better company displacing them.

So you are taking the naive lolbertarian position then. There are various problems with this, but no worries, you are probably not the right one to debate the issue.

Dead wrong (yet again)..... It is a supply-side argument, not a libertarian one.

Yeah, this is one of the many verbal arguments I would like to have with you and put on Youtube. Are you interested?

You don’t know this but I have political and high business aspirations now so something like that would not be the best of ideas as enjoyable as it would be.

[Cornfed]

You don’t know this but I have political and high business aspirations now so something like that would not be the best of ideas as enjoyable as it would be.

Fair enough. If you could refer a replacement on your way, that would be good.

[flowerthief00]

Already exists. The privilege they lose is market share. YouTube has already seen dozens of competitors sprouting up because of this practice. It just takes a long time because they were functioning like a monopoly for so long. You’ll find that YouTube will be like MySpace when a primary competitor reveals itself.

Other than that, there is no legal punishment unless they are not providing equal acctto political parties which would traveres election law.

I was referring to the legal protections against libels and litigation on the basis of being so-called "neutral" (same as with journalism), which helped them become giants in the first place (so the argument goes).