Even while in the middle of harassing the migrants, the livestreamers could still be heard thanking those who were sending them money via YouTube’s Super Chat function or through other platforms like Venmo and the Christian-aligned crowdfunding site GiveSendGo. In one situation, while Fulfer was shouting at migrants in Arizona telling them to go home, he stopped briefly to call out a supporter who had sent him $50 on Venmo.
YouTube doesn’t care how or why you make money as long as they make money too.
If they could get away with legally showing child porn, they would.
Given the platform could legally be showing real porn right now and still bans it, you’ve got yourself a bad take. YouTube doesn’t care about aligning your content with violent psychos and identity politics, but anything that touches porn is off the table
How could they legally show porn and ensure kids wouldn’t see it? Because I guarantee you that’s why they don’t allow it.
The same way every porn site meets this legal requirement, basic age verification. Or do you think pornhub is illegal?
So you think it would be feasible for YouTube to ask for age verification for every porn video uploaded? Or do you think they should just have general age verification on YouTube like a porn site and restrict everyone under 18 to YouTube Kids?
Because I guarantee you that they have yet to invent an algorithm that can detect porn 100% of the time.
YouTube already does have age restricted videos.
And do you actually think they don’t already detect and flag potential porn using an algorithm? How do you think they prevent most of it from being on the site in the first place?
No one anywhere was claiming a 100% detection rate, which is why sometimes porn does in fact end up on YouTube until flagged manually by people who view it.
Oh, so it is possible for YouTube to expose children to porn? Hm. Maybe that’s why they delete it.
It is possible regardless, even when they try their best to delete it as they do now.
What’s your solution here? Shut down all video streaming services entirely? Have actual humans reviewing every single video uploaded before being made public?
Google could simply have a porn branch of YouTube separate from YouTube itself. They don’t want to deal with the trouble of hosting that kind of content and the bad publicity that would come with it.
Right. As I said, if they could get away with it, they would. I don’t mean technically, I mean if they could do it and make money at it.
If they could get away with legally showing child porn, they would.
Only if they want to face another advertiser revolt.
And, as you said, thwy want to make money. Passing off their advertisers is counterproductive to that goal.
True, I should have said that if they could legally get away with it and knew they wouldn’t lose advertisers.
So basically only in a wildly different world in which child porn was widely socially accepted?
I think you are missing my point- YouTube doesn’t care what is on its platform as long as its legal (or at least not so illegal that they themselves would get into trouble) and they can make money from it.
They don’t care if Neo-Nazis make money. They don’t care if children are exposed to things they shouldn’t be. They don’t give a fuck.
People have uploaded videos to YouTube where animals were tortured. Did YouTube get penalized for that? No, the people who have done it have gotten arrested. YouTube supposedly deletes them when they find them. They also do not give one flying fuck about the revenue those videos generate before they are taken down. Do they take that revenue and donate it to their local animal shelter? No. They use it to increase their bottom line.
And yes, if somehow child porn was legal and they felt that advertisers wouldn’t leave them if they hosted it, they would host it.
Because Google is absolutely amoral. Money is the only thing that matters.
I’m not sure why one would expect anything else from a for-profit corporation.
I think that perhaps the bigger issue is that NeoNazis and such are socially acceptable enough to be permitted. That’s a societal issue more than a Google issue. As you point out, if society did not tolerate it and thus it hurt their bottom line, they would remove it.
Christian aligned site that doesn’t seem to mind when people don’t treat the sojourner as their own.
Yeah, but that’s in the old testament so it doesn’t count /s
Why can’t the First Amendment auditors follow those miserable fucks ?
Should just arrest these idjits instead.
for what crime?
Harassment.
Did you not read the article?
how is it harassment?
Even while in the middle of harassing the migrants, the livestreamers could still be heard thanking those who were sending them money via YouTube’s Super Chat function or through other platforms like Venmo and the Christian-aligned crowdfunding site GiveSendGo. In one situation, while Fulfer was shouting at migrants in Arizona telling them to go home, he stopped briefly to call out a supporter who had sent him $50 on Venmo.
thanks for not answering the question
How did you manage to get to this thread if you can’t read more than 6 words at a time? It’s literally the 7th word in that quote.
“We’re illegal hunters,” Yarbery told a store clerk while livestreaming at a Subway sandwich counter in Jacumba Hot Springs. “I’ve hunted a lot in my life, but I’ve never actually hunted people, and that’s what we’re doing now.”
I’m learning about mens rea and this is all I can think of.
Fuck these people.
This is a big ol witch hunt nothing burger intended for feel bads to just make you mad.
After the livestreamers left Texas, they went to Sasabe in Arizona and a migrant camp run by No More Deaths, a humanitarian organization that provides support for migrants crossing the border.
Isn’t that a criminal trafficking organization?
Can’t be as bad as rank and file GOP
