Youtube sucks now

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Danarchy said:

Nightmare Doom said:

Youtube actually has gotten downhill eversince Google bought it but the whole mute situation happening recently shows that the results after Google buying it out are getting worse. I hope you people are beginning to realize that this is one of the examples how oppressive/suppressive/repressive "free market" capitalism really is....

Wow, you'll just find any excuse to insert your dead-horse arguments, won't you?

But you have to wonder why they're being so anal about this stuff atm...surely it doesn't make sense unless it's being done to control police the internet?

[geo]

It is their company... they can do anything. They lose millions a day. It was ridiculous they would buy it. Flash should get half the profits considering their systems use Flash.

[Zaldron]

The Ultimate DooMer said:

But you have to wonder why they're being so anal about this stuff atm...surely it doesn't make sense unless it's being done to control police the internet?

Certainly it has nothing to do with this sue-happy culture that prey on multi-billion companies for the stupidest of reasons, just to settle out of court with a big chunk of money. Add liberal use of copyrighted or borderline copyrighted material by the users and you have a terrible mess.

Did you already forgot the hostility from the record companies the minute the acquisition was complete?

[Enjay]

Nightmare Doom said:

...socialism/communism/anarchism is a classless system where people like you and me control the means of production.

Unfortunately, it never works in practice because people have to get involved at some point. People are stupid, short sighted, selfish animals and, very quickly, some animals become more equal than others.

[tycp_08]

I honestly think this world would be slightly better if suing was punishable by beatings, as in the person doing the suing would be the one punished. Either that or there ought to be some stricter rules about suing. Right now, they're too vague. Just look at all of the stupid-ass sexual harassment cases. Maybe one in a million something good actually came out of those.

But that's just me being an ignorant human...†^_^†

[GreyGhost]

That sounds like a suitable punishment for vexatious litigation (actual or threatened).

[myk]

tycp_08 said:
Just look at all of the stupid-ass sexual harassment cases.

And I thought you were saying something smart...

The problem is not that "the law makes it too easy for some chick to sue me for spilling sperm" (if this is what you fear maybe you should start watching where you put your dick instead of suggesting we "stone the whores" as if we were members of the Taliban) but that powerful groups may clobber you to poverty and oblivion because they have a logistical and monetary advantage where they can sue you to infinity, costing them little, and costing your house, your reputation and so on.

The left hand of organized crime is their legal representation.

[tycp_08]

myk said:

but that powerful groups may clobber you to poverty and oblivion because they have a logistical and monetary advantage where they can sue you to infinity, costing them little, and costing your house, your reputation and so on.

But, if what I said would take affect, as in the people doing the suing would be punished, the said powerful groups would be the ones punished.

And by the way, I wasn't singling out women for that sexual harassment thing. It just seems to be about the most common thing that people sue other people for, a vast majority of them being incredibly stupid reasons to sue for. For example, if a male high school student says "Hey fag" to his friend, as in a welcome, the friend could, in turn, sue him for sexual harassment.

(This is the longest I have ever typed in for a response...)

[Enjay]

Yup

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7933565.stm

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Just come back from Sweden (ironically) and for a brief moment I was worried...then discovered it was only major label pop nonsense being blocked, not the underground stuff I listen to.

Still, it's yet more proof that the so-called conspiracy nuts are right...

[GreyGhost]

Enjay said:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7933565.stm

That makes sense - YouTube's under pressure to boost revenue and what better way to do so than by cutting the throats of songwriters.

[Maes]

tycp_08 said:

I honestly think this world would be slightly better if suing was punishable by beatings, as in the person doing the suing would be the one punished.

You've been reading too much Heinlein lately?

[Creaphis]

Even though stupid lawsuits glut the news, if new restrictions were placed upon who can sue who for what this would ultimately just disadvantage individuals and further benefit corporations. The fact that people can sue McDonalds for becoming fat, for example, is a positive thing. If it was impossible to bring such cases to courts, then it would also become much more difficult for individuals to sue large legal entities over legitimate matters.

Yes, this is a little bit off-topic, but it's an important and rarely-defended point.

[GreyGhost]

So if I fail a roadside breathalyser test it's the breweries fault for manufacturing whatever caused my state of intoxication? That makes sense in it's own perverse way - I can absolve myself of personal responsibility and lay the blame on some faceless corporation's all-pervading, very persuasive, carefully targetted (and on some media - possibly subliminal) advertising. Therefore - if they don't provide high-powered (free) legal assistance to fight the drink-driving charge and/or attempt to repeal the associated legislation I should sue for damages - right?

[Creaphis]

The important thing is that you should have the legal right to try. Whether you should be successful is a different matter.

[myk]

GreyGhost said:
So if I fail a roadside breathalyser test it's the breweries fault for manufacturing whatever caused my state of intoxication?

Going out on a limb a bit, the breweries promote drinking and push to make it cool or proper, using financial power and the advantage of the addictive effects of the substances they sell to achieve this. Thus, people drink a lot and then eventually find themselves drinking and driving. Compare alcohol to many other drugs, which are generally shunned socially in wider circles and thus restricted more, even when they may have a lesser bad effect in some ways (including on driving).

So yeah, it's not entirely your fault. You could even say that to a point people deserve the adverse effects of alcohol, because of how liberally it's treated.

"Got run over by a drunk driver? Hey, you're part of a collective that should have done more to make drunk driving less common!"

I guess that someone who had been actively doing something to reduce the use or misuse of alcohol may indeed be less responsible for drunk driving, and thus less deserving of being run over.

Legality and responsibility aren't necessarily equivalent, in the same way the authorship of a book is often arbitrarily reduced to its most obvious author, the writer. All language is a kind of copying, and responsibility is largely social.

PS: I'd sue McDonald's for fouling up the air, actually. Today I passed by one and the reek could be sensed from a block away.

[GreyGhost]

Creaphis said:

The important thing is that you should have the legal right to try. Whether you should be successful is a different matter.

While I enjoy the odd bout of quixotic windmill jousting I draw the line at people bumping into each other on the footpath then going to court to find out who's at fault.

Myk said:

Legality and responsibility aren't necessarily equivalent

I recall a lawyer trying to argue that his client (who was falling-down drunk when arrested for indecent assault) shouldn't be held responsible for his actions because he was in no state to make rational decisions - the judge didn't buy it. Before anyone asks - NO - I wasn't the client.

EDIT - "Diminished responsibility" is the term I was grasping for.

[Nightmare Doom]

Enjay said:

Unfortunately, it never works in practice because people have to get involved at some point. People are stupid, short sighted, selfish animals and, very quickly, some animals become more equal than others.

Of course that's how the Ruling Class wants you to think which is another tactic they use in order to keep themselves in power and further uphold the capitalist system.

[myk]

If you ask me, the reason socialistic moments or movements exist is because people are stupid or selfish. The "that doesn't work because of human nature" argument doesn't apply because that thing that "doesn't work" is a response or correction to that human nature, and itself part of human nature.

[fraggle]

Nightmare Doom said:

Of course that's how the Ruling Class wants you to think which is another tactic they use in order to keep themselves in power and further uphold the capitalist system.

Incredible. I thought that communist idiot stereotypes only existed on TV. But then, television is probably part of the capitalist ruling class conspiracy, right?

[Sharessa]

LOL

How about...

[SuperSlammer2]

I agree with what most people are saying in this thread. Its really annoyin to have a cool music vid get taken down because Warner Music is a bunch of homos.

leileilol said:

Yay no more lucario linkin park vids!

Funnyyyyyy....

[The Ultimate DooMer]

Sadly it's not just big labels anymore...I've noticed some users that posted a lot of old underground dance tracks from late 80's/early 90's get banned...time to find an alternative site for checking out music methinks.