https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLlUyA56LDg
All the links to the episodes are in the description to this video
How does google reconcile their mid/early 2000s image of unfettered information and non-interference with this new age of pushing some things forward and wholly censoring other things? It's especially jarring when you're not american and don't have the same cultural tent poles around information, discourse, argumentation and documentation. It's getting really weird to be on an internet where appeal to emotion is always the default discussion tactic and the one most broadly accepted and as he says, this "out of sight, out of mind" mentality that google is pushing really doesn't help anything.
I'm also REALLY hardcore baffled why the american left has been staring at the right "sparing their young'uns the details" for decades and being critical of it somehow being able to reconcile not just doing the exact same thing, but also forcing it on other adults around them and people around the world they have no business lecturing to. I don't get how we got here. All of this has changed not only within our own lifetime, but within 8 years. It's like the biggest whiplash change in western information culture and it seems like absolutely no one has taken note of it. The internet has changed unfathomably these past 3 years alone with a sharp increase in tumblr moralists who want to dictate your opinions and alt-right edge-lords who want to assert their reduction of your capacity to empathize.
The fuck happened, America. What are you doing? Can you just take your pills? Am i the only one seeing this change?
why are you bringing politics into a case of google clearly getting multiple reports of harassment from the community and taking down what is arguably a number of videos highlighting bullying of a mentally ill man who has been vocal that he wants videos like these taken down as they are harassment
if someone requests google to take down a video that is clearly showing revealing personal and private information about them and bringing attention to it, including what is basically revenge porn, of course they're going to take it down
stop bringing garbage "political discourse" in a situation clearly motivated by people who are aware that making videos showing an autistic man crying and being sexually manipulated and basically raped by a child is fucking abhorrent and should not be justified by "freedom to be an asshole on a privately owned website"
I never argued any of this. I agree that the documentary series is questionable judgement at best. But Genosamuel addressed broader trends at google/youtube at the end of his video and that's what i addressed. Can you stop moralizing? your shoes taste like shit.
lol, dont make a post talking about "the american left" when this has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with any respectable website in any period of time in any first world country would never allow such a video series to exist
if people got away with it before it is because of how small and niche the internet was; now that well-adjusted people and normal people with actual morals are the primary internet demographic, self respecting companies are not going to ever associate with revenge porn and cyber bullying
they wouldn't have in the 90s either if we had websites that were a fraction of as large as Youtube
Oh god.
People got away with it before because tone-policing was more down to whether people acted like emotionally balanced adults than whether their information was of the right kind or supported a concensus.
Pathos style appeal to common decency. How many anti-gay and anti-black protests have we seen this type of appeal before?
I never argued that. Why are you moving the goal post? This is even more Pathos. Your argumentation is more about retrofitting my argument so i look bad and you look good. You haven't brought any actual arguments against my points.
I agree. Things changed. The discourse has been molded into a shape where coming out on the other end seeming sensible is more down to how discreetly you can move the goalpost and make your opponent look bad than the substance and reality of what you're saying. Your entire argument against my posts (which you still haven't read) are a testament to this.
I also find it very telling that i mention both the Left and the right, but here you are indirectly casting me as some alt-right boogey-man. Like i'm arguing for unfettered trolling.
Youtube is trash, I would love to go to an alternative that doesn't censor literally everyone
Maybe the whole "they are taking down videos that show bullying" claim would hold water if youtube didn't regularly keep up "prank" videos, alt right videos, and "children's" videos that regular depict sex, drugs, and gore.
quit with the buzzwords
this is not meta, this is not about great cultural changes and some dissonance between the right and wrong way to look at the situation
you're being completely obtuse about the reality of the situation, focused on some arbitrary external argument that has nothing to do with this actual event
you cannot disconnect the human aspect of all of this from the "philosophical" one
online tone policing in the past is how Chris got bullied and raped and nearly driven to suicide by children, good job with that balanced adulthood
Regardless of Google's official reasoning, you according to Google's privacy policies as well as decent common morality, (and don't be obtuse about this point, it's not "thought policing") can not post somebody's private, personal information that can be used to identify someone or case harm without that person's consent. Chris was extremely vocal about requesting that person, private videos of sexual acts, including rape, not be posted online, and removed. Any company or decent human would comply with that request. There is no ethical requirement for access to such information by society. Do you believe revenge porn should be allowed on Pornhub? What if someone posted revenge porn, censored the nipples/genitals, and gave a commentary after the clip saying that revenge porn is bad? Regardless of intent, you cannot post that private information without consent; a person would not want their private sex videos posted under the guise of education or raising awareness without their consent. You can just as easily discuss Chris' history without showing these private videos that he requested be removed, and you can definitely avoid clearly victim blaming and pretending that you're being totally unbiased for the sake of "spreading valid information."
This is not "preventing access to knowledge" as in preventing you from reading about Congressmen's corporate contributions, this is "preventing access to knowledge" as in making sure people don't spread your dirty sexts that you sent to your ex girlfriend that she is now posting online to make fun of you. If you truly believe that there is some ethical or societal obligation to stay completely separate from morality when dealing with a clearly moral issue, then I have little more to say.
A documentary made without the victim's consent that highlights bullying, harassment, and sexual assault for the edutainment of others is not a protected form of speech that a private company should be allowing you to make in order to be ethical. If Google rightfully wants to remove such graphic content from its service it has every right to. We have no guaranteed "right' to see some autistic man be abused, even because of "education" or "knowledge."
While it understand that you want to "refocus" the conversation. What you essentially did was ignore the argument i was making in favor of making me look like i was in favor of any of the mistreatment of Chris-Chan.
You're still ignoring that i was arguing the last few minutes of his video where he talks about youtubes general policies. I was arguing the difference in discourse between our continents and how it has negatively affected modern discourse. I don't know if you noticed it, but your country is having a violent, hysteria fit for the past few years.
You're persistent in casting me as some alt-right harassment advocate, once again refusing to read my posts in favor of grandstanding and barely stepping short of addressing the crowd. I never argued in favor of any of the treatment of chris you're lambasting me for agreeing with. I think you're deliberately moving the goalpost to stroke your gladiator complex. I need you to once again go back and read my post in the context of what Genosamuel said in his video or at the very least stop putting words and deeds in my mouth that i haven't defended or committed.
You must also understand that "my country" is so vast and cultures so varied, that to broadly apply "violent hysteria" to our "entire culture" is reductive. Our population is 65x yours, our states alone vary in legislation so broadly that nearly every facet of my life would be totally different due to legal aspects alone. Within our country we have states as liberal as yours and 100x more conservative than any European country. We have cultures that idolize violence, hate crimes, bullying, those that prefer freedom over any sort of safety or decency, and those that push wildly for harsher penalties for things like cyber bullying and revenge porn.
America is too big, the internet is too big, and this issue is too global for you to talk about it like that.
All i did was assert that America and by extension Google's influence on modern internet is primarily driven by shaping a pathos-driven worldview in new generations while the rest of the world and google of yesteryear ran on Ethos-driven focus on substance and factual validity. I find it laughable that you immediately react my shoehorning me into political affiliations that have no application outside of your republic political arena. I also find that it confirms my assertion that you're so busy redefining my argument to be pro-trolling and abuse instead of about calmly discussion the facts and realities of the world as opposed to the censorship first condemned for decades by the left, now adopted by the left. Framing political discourse purely in pathos is what brought America to where it is now. It's what drives youtube to remove videos more than any sense of decency and concern for anyone's well being. I promise you youtube doesn't give a singular shit about chris and the abuse he suffers.
Your entire beef with me is misplaced and you know it. You just don't care.
I have no idea what this has to do with ethos v pathos. Ethos-driven focused would still not have allowed for the existence of this documentary because it's clearly more about entertainment that factual knowledge. You could have posted your lengthy monologue in Logan Paul thread or a thread about gun videos being banned on Youtube, and it would've been fine, but is this really the time and place to mount your high horse? A bullied mentally ill man gets a little respite from his torturers; there's no need to make it about Google or society. This was one of the few cases where I agree with Google; this series should not exist with the content that it shows and without Chris' consent.
At least Count Dankula got full consent during their interview and didn't outright show scenes of rape.
Never argued against that.
If you think i'm just showboating, what in your mind makes me showboating about a corpse being desecrated or gun-violenced directed at kids any better? I'd hoped your view of me wouldn't still be this reductive that you think I'm just playing to a crowd.
Genosamuel made it about google and i started thinking of difference in societal standards and just what Google is doing on a broader level. I have no sympathy for people who are in favor of the treatment of chris, but as Genosamuel says himself, the source videos are all still online while his is down. This says a lot about what Google is and is not working towards.
I think the series is questionable, but i think for google to have any leg to stand on here, they would also have to essentially wipe all of chris' videos and any mirrors as well FIRST.
That's IMO not remotely better. People need to leave that guy alone.
We're arguing two different subjects here and we absolutely, unquestionably are on the same page on one of them. I disagree with you framing my ruminations on google's general change in policy as an endorsement of abuse and bullying. All i did was express and observation of difference in culture. Lastly i find it staggering that your reaction to my words about the critera change between then and now as:
Somehow immediately made you think of 4chan when both Facepunch and Neogaf existed back then and had a (admittedly for FP very sporadic) very high standard for how to behave and interact as a community.
Most forums back then sorted people and posts by the merit of their words, not whether they fit a social narrative or a narrow moral definition. If you want an example of google's current ideas running rampant, there are several tumblr's and subreddits that exactly fit the bill. /r/The_Donald and Resetera springs to mind as a prime example of communities where emotional affiliation trumphs facts and merit of words every damn time.
There are google searches outside of criminal activity that we're not allowed to get results on. That's philosophically limiting the perspective of the populace. It's something i've observed and it's what i speculated came as a consequence of the American adoption of the old Roman emphasis on Pathos over Ethos in political and philosophical discourse. Me saying that that shouldn't happen doesn't make me an alt-righter and you saying it's just "moral decency" doesn't automatically validate it. Moral arbitration is always down to the individual when things aren't outright illegal. It's why we have shitty people. We'd all love a world where there are no shitty people, but we also don't want information control.
What the fuck is all of this shit where someone convince Chris that serial killers are being framed?
Anyone know when and where it'll be reuploaded?
Check the description
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLlUyA56LDg
I've updated the OP to link to the rehosted vids so that there is no confusion for new visitors
Part 13 just dropped on BitChute:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZAizrWF1KsXj/
I figure this was the best place to post this.
Chris was just kicked out of Too Many Games for supposedly being too touchy with guests
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELKlzK127vs
I was fucking there, that shit was just too uncomfortable to watch
Fuck Chris Chan he's a cunt
Tbh when they do it so aggressively I don't even know if that's censorship anymore. At least with censorship you can get a general idea of whats desired. This? just blind idiocy.
Making a scene like that is pretty much to be expected from someone with his mental health.
I blame his parents more than anything tbh
Part of me wishes I could've gone to TMG this year. Not to get a front row seat to the shitshow or anything, but because Chris is a legitimately fascinating person and I think it woulda been neat to meet him for a photo or something.
The "getting too touchy with guests" makes me reconsider that position, though.
I am looking forward to the Liquid Chris Saga so much. It upsets me that NOW is when youtube decided to be classic youtube and take them down.
What fucking moron thought it would be a good idea to give Chris a booth at a convention? Of course he molested random people, then proceeded to lie that no one warned him about it online.
I'm really surprised, considering how legit TooManyGames is. James Rolfe is a mainstay at that one (since it's based out of PA), and they managed to get Charles Martinet this year. TeamFourStar chose TMG to be the con where they show a preview of DBZ Abridged Episode 60; it's not like some con artist (no pun intended) rented out a banquet hall and filled it with people selling game sprites made out of perler beads.
They were savvy enough to get people like PsychicPebbles and Corey Spazkid on their indie animation panel when I was there in 2016, how is it that NO ONE running that thing knew what they were into when they gave Chris a booth?
Unless of course, someone totally knew but decided to stay quiet, just to see what would happen. Which, let's be honest, is a distinct possibility.
Someone knew and didn't care, knew and thought it would be funny, or had absolutely no idea who Chris-Chan was but got him anyway because Chris is a known quantity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
