Tim Pool Doesn't Understand Censorship

Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 months ago to Politics
104 comments | Share | Flag

My new video explores why Tim Pool is a raving mad socialist that doesn't under censorship.

“Censorship” is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No private action is censorship. No private individual or agency can silence a man or suppress a publication; only the government can do so. The freedom of speech of private individuals includes the right not to agree, not to listen and not to finance one’s own antagonists.

“Man’s Rights,”
The Virtue of Selfishness, 98
SOURCE URL: https://youtu.be/UD6_d07CHto


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months ago
    When you are slandered by fake news by a non-governmental entity and the cost of fighting the slander is more than you can afford, you will realize that censorship can be "enforced" by non-governmental entities.

    You are correct in saying that Google/Youtube or Facebook have no responsibility to accept any content I generate, but if they ruin my reputation through slanderous means, the damage done is permanent. Moreover, it is incredibly difficult to prove in court what is obvious to any reasonable observer.

    I am totally OK with you quoting Rand on censorship and being "uncivil" as some others have said. Rand would have disagreed with me, too. Back when Rand wrote what she did about censorship, she was right.

    I am no longer sure that Rand's definition of censorship is still entirely valid. Most of the censorship that happens now is paid for by George Soros and his friends using their economic influence to get their governmental puppets to do their bidding.

    For example, you ought to look at the differences between being a platform vs. a publisher. Google, Facebook, and Twitter have immunity from libel lawsuits via the Communications Decency Act. Facebook long considered itself a platform, but recently Mark Zuckerberg said that it is responsible for the content on its platform, which according to the legal definition, makes it a publisher rather than a platform.

    https://www.city-journal.org/html/pla...

    https://medium.com/@subsign/is-facebo...

    Consider the possibility that some individuals and companies may be more powerful than some governments. Social media companies used the Obama administration and their own platforms to start the Arab Spring. While I am no defender of those North African governments, Libya and Tunisia were made into hell holes via the Arab Spring. Things got much worse in Libya in particular. I have had several students from there tell me separately about how the Arab Spring ruined things so badly in Libya that they came here asking for asylum rather than ordinary student visas. The Arab Spring resulted in regime change in Egypt, too; I am not sure whether it was an improvement there or not. These individuals and companies often work through the United Nations under wonderful concepts like the "Responsibility to Protect".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respons...

    I suppose part of my argument hinges on whether you consider the United Nations a governmental entity. I don't, but they ... do.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 4 months, 4 weeks ago
      Evolution of concepts following political desires is anti-principled Pragmatism, not objective thought. A notion of "censorship" grouping contradictory elements of private property with government force was an invalid concept when the Berkeley "free speech" movement used it and still is. That spreading wealthy pressure groups have the means to smear people is a consequence of the worsening political culture, not an excuse for government controls that would only further harm the same people now complaining.

      A further deteriorating culture does not make invalid concepts valid and does not justify endorsing false statist premises of government control over private organizations. The notion that Google and facebook can be controlled by government, miraculously on behalf of populist conservatives while not in fact damaging everyone, is more destructive, contradictory Pragmatism.

      Making Google responsible for and subject to law suits for statements others make does nothing to force them to change guidelines conservatives don't like, does nothing to spread better ideas, and doesn't even allow conservatives to harass Google with law suits they already can't afford; it only lashes out in uncontrolled anger to try to punish Google in a way that will be applied to and harm all of us and reduce the ability to publish on web platforms as the owners further restrict their use in fear of abusive suits. Reform can only come from rational thought, not these emotional populist outbursts demanding more statism in a fit of irrationality.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 4 months, 4 weeks ago
        If you were accurate in your statement that government was controlled Google and Facebook, then I would agree with you, but the reality is that the government looters are mere bishops and knights to the Google/Facebook CEO's.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 4 months, 4 weeks ago
          I didn't say that government is controlled by Google. The populists want to use government to control Google -- which leads to government control of much more on the same premise.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 5 months ago
      When you are slandered, someone violated your rights. Slander is not censorship, that is package dealing. Ayn Rand spent her whole life being slandered and that didn't change the fact of the matter, people will shit on what is great about the world, and if people see that you are great and you never bend, you can be Howard Roark. If all that matters to you is the opinions of others, that is second handed and you would have never been happy or successful with that kind of "pursuit"

      "I am no longer sure that Rand's definition of censorship is still entirely valid. Most of the censorship that happens now is paid for by George Soros and his friends using their economic influence to get their governmental puppets to do their bidding"
      "to get their governmental puppets"
      It still requires government.

      Having "power" through argument is why we must defend everyone's right to express themselves, including companies right to refuse service.

      The un acts as a government, it doesn't matter if an agency is unelected, most governments are not. What matter is whether they act to have a monopoly on force. Companies working through the UN is cronyism, and its political force.

      Each example requires political force, or a mix of political force and economic force. There is no immoral examples of pure economic power.

      Thank you for your response.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months ago
        Agreed on all points. +1.

        Given what you just said, I am curious to hear your opinion on Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie forming a cabal to elect William McKinley.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by 5 months ago
          It is only an base opinion as I am not aware of the full story, but it seems to me that they are like Robert Staddler. On one hand they acted economically and bettered the world, but they did a lot of cronyism and the results of show today.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  jbrenner 5 months ago
            The cronyism of Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie was to protect what they already had.
            What they did is very much like what Google and Facebook are doing now, except that Google and Facebook have a "protected" status that Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie did not until after they bought McKinley. When Teddy Roosevelt became president after McKinley's assassination, the tide turned on Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie. Their response to Teddy Roosevelt was the Jekyll Island fiasco that resulted in the Federal Reserve (which is neither federal or a reserve).

            The Rearden trial is very much based on the Rockefeller anti-trust trial.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 4 months, 4 weeks ago
              The victims of the progressive "trust busters" were not like google and facebook. Neither was Rearden in Atlas Shrugged.

              Business a century ago was far freer than today's controls, and Google and Facebook do not have "protected status" by not being liable for what others say. The advocates of more abusive litigation against private companies are lashing out with punishment unrelated to freedom of speech. They threatening statism against their own ideological enemies simply to be punitive, without regard to principles.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  exceller 5 months ago
      Thank you for your input, jbrenner.

      An intelligent post reflecting reality.

      I am not holding my breath that the person starting this thread will understand or heed one word of it, though.

      There are those who are driving an agenda regardless of its benefits to society and the American individual.

      Not even mentioning that hey have no say dictating our lives from Canada.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Solver 5 months ago
    What is the meaning of a word? For that I look to a dictionary. I look into multiple dictionaries. I look into the history of the word going back a 100 years or more. When doing that with the word “censor” there was not one single definition that states it being only a government action. It does relate to an office or an official or an authority, But those can be from businesses or other organizations.

    If the word “censoring” meant it was only a goverment action, it would be nice. I wish it would mean that. I wish other people thought it meant that. It would make things so much clearer and easier.
    But now back to reality.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months ago
      You can look to the dictionary for a meaning of a word, but it won't tell you the context in which you are using it, or whether you do so correctly or not.
      Censorship, in the political context that you are using it, only pertains to government action.
      In other words, you are using the term incorrectly in the context you are discussing.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -2
      Posted by 5 months ago
      The legal definition is all that matters in this case. Ayn Rand lays out the legal understanding quite well. The difference between political censorship and economic property rights censorship at in two vastly different camps. "Censorship" on neopets bans people that swear becaude they violated the tos. When government censors you get arrested or shot. Never equate the two. Every objectivist that is properly thinking must conclude that the business has the right to refuse service.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 5 months ago
    This is an argument I've been making with CINOs for years who knee jerk the 'censorship' label everytime something they favor is edited out of someplace. Only government has the expansive reach to censor and that may not even be true anymore.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 months ago
    Exactly. Thanks for posting this.
    It's quite amazing how many downvotes the correct, Objectivist statements on this issue are getting on what is supposed to be an Objectivist forum.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 5 months ago
      Yeah, I commented "Ayn Rand is a great philosopher" to see if I would get down voted. So far 3 up votes, which violates the rules of voting, as voting is supposed to be about whether the topic is worthy of discussion, and that comment is off topic. Experiment's null hypothesis was defeated, but we still learned something here.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  CBJ 5 months ago
    Economic power can (and does) buy political power all the time, and conversely political power can bestow economic power. This is a major problem today, and one that would need to be dealt with even in a political system based on Objectivist principles. For example, in an Objectivist world would it be illegal to pay someone to vote a certain way in an upcoming election (i.e., to openly buy someone’s vote)? An argument could be made that prohibiting such a voluntary transaction would violate the rights of both participants.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by 5 months ago
      Exactly. One of the major issues is cronyism.

      However I cannot agree with your latter point. An objectivist society (lets not go crazy, we fight here, getting a whole world would be impossible) could not be bought. Not because of the people and their attitudes but because if you remove mandatory taxation and regulations then any paid off legislator would have an uphill battle attempting to create new laws as the citizens can just stop supporting the government. Think about the interaction between the lobbist, the politician, the actions the lobbyist is buying, and whether that action would even exist under objective law. We ought to explore this lone of thought further.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 5 months ago
    Rubbish.

    The video mentions the WSJ. The Journal recently introduced a system whereby all comments are "judged" by moderators if they are allowed or not allowed to be posted. Many subscribers cancelled service, myself included.

    No private action is censorship? Oh, you'd call it "business practice", right? What do you call companies withdrawing sponsorship from FOX because they don't like what Tucker says?

    It is meaningless posturing to deny that only the gov can censor.

    All those cancelling WSJ referred to the intolerable censorship put in practice.

    You can delude yourself but the fact remains that Google, FB, WSJ, NYT et al censor. Or if you prefer, they "select" content that presents a one sided view acceptable to the left's agenda.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  WilliamShipley 5 months ago
      Only the government can censor. If you violate its censorship they incarcerate you. Private organizations can refuse to publish what you say they cannot stop you from saying it elsewhere.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -4
      Posted by 5 months ago
      The very fact you removed your mkney from the wsj is proof of the difference between political and economical power. You have no right to speak in someones elses business and if you don't like it you can stop paying. You cannot stop paying the government and therefore they cannot arrest you for speaking. Big difference.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • -7
      Posted by 5 months ago
      Get out of the Gulch you socialist pig. Property rights exist. The first admendment protects you from government not judgement. The first admendment does not grant you property rights over other people's efforts.

      Read the damn Ayn Rand quote that is written on this post and the white board behind me. You are no objectivist thinker.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  allosaur 5 months ago
        Calling another here on this board a "socialist pig" is not at all civil and there is a rule here about that.
        And "Get out of the Gulch--?"
        That's downright rude without the "socialist pig" added.
        Me dino has been told I did not "belong here" a couple of times but that pales in comparison.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -4
          Posted by 5 months ago
          Do you think Ayn Rand would be civil when talking to someone that believed political force and economic force are the same thing and ergo we need more government regulations. If standing up for freedom and Ayn Rand's Objectivism and calling a socialist pig a socialist pig is uncivil, then call me Ayn Rand's most uncivil and honest defender, you cannot separate those two things.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  exceller 5 months ago
            You are jumping the gun, again.

            I never advocated for more government regulations.

            You are as illogical as the left is, so much so that you don't realize how controversial your argument is.

            Don't use AR as your cover. Understand her first before you spew off your attacks.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -3
              Posted by 5 months ago
              I am not jumping the gun, I just reached the conclusion of what happens when you equate economic and political power before you did. If the WSJ is censoring, what should be done to stop them?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • -4
          Posted by 5 months ago
          You atlas society morons have no passion or understanding.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 5 months ago
            Ad hominem attacks are unacceptable in the Gulch.
            👎
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -3
              Posted by 5 months ago
              Is properly idenitiying an ideology ad hominem?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by GaltsGulch 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                No, but "You're a fool." is ( https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... ).

                Alrighty then. So, Mr. Biggest, we want you here. We really, really, REALLY, do. HOWEVER, if you choose not to adhere to the few rules of our little business here, we're going to have to let you go. But, of course, the choice is yours.

                So, have a look at the Gulch CoC ( https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#... ), and make a decision. Just know that if you decide you would like for us to hit the big red button and ban you, it's over. There is no coming back.

                P.S. Please stick around (just sans the ad hom).
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                  Non-fallacious reasoning
                  When a statement is challenged by making an ad hominem attack on its author, it is important to draw a distinction between whether the statement in question was an argument or a statement of fact (testimony). In the latter case the issues of the credibility of the person making the statement may be crucial.[10]

                  It should also be noted that an ad hominem fallacy occurs when one attacks the character of an interlocutor in an attempt to refute their argument. Insulting someone is not necessarily an instance of an ad hominem fallacy. For example, if one supplies sufficient reasons to reject an interlocutor's argument and adds a slight character attack at the end, this character attack is not necessarily fallacious. Whether it is fallacious depends on whether or not the insult is used as a reason against the interlocutor's argument. An ad hominem occurs when an attack on the interlocutor's character functions as a response to an interlocutor's argument/claim.[11]
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_homi...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ewv 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                    There has long been a confusion here over the meaning of "ad hominem". It is a technical term of logic referring to kind of fallacy in arguing for a conclusion. It does not mean anything that someone doesn't like. A single statement making an observation, whether correct or not, is not a deductive fallacy.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by  $  Solver 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                    An hominem attack is one common “morally superior” leftist tactic to shut down arguments so the other side won’t be heard.
                    This has been surprisingly effective
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                      My argument holds, and adding insult to injury is not ad hominem, it's just harsh.

                      Again, I will not do it again as the example of "free speech" vs TOS doesn't seem to sink in.

                      Downvoting all my posts just because one had an accurate judgement is ad hominem leftist tactic. No rebuttal, just attack
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by  $  Solver 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                        The “morally superior” leftists toss out their “truths” as well.
                        Just say “all lives matters” and you can be labeled a white racist.
                        https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dear-f...

                        You labeled this poster a “socialist pig.”
                        https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

                        Do you actually believe this poster wants “the people” to take over the means of production?”
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                          Yes.

                          Edit (clarifying my yes):
                          To state that:
                          "It is meaningless posturing to deny that only the gov can censor." Is to state that censorship is possible outside of government force, which is to neglect the difference between political and economic force. To believe that private businesses can censorship is to state that you believe your right's are being violated by the company. To believe that your rights are violated by private choice is to believe that you have a right to have "free speech" over the rights of property owners. To push to have your "free speech" while on someone elses property, is to want to violate the rights of property owners. The outcome of believing your right is violated is to get government involved so that the people can rise up and take over the choices of the property owners.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by  $  Solver 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                            Interesting path of logic.
                            I disagree that believing a private businesses can censor is to state that you believe your right's are being violated by the company.

                            I believe a private company can censor, and that’s because of their property rights. It has nothing to do with free speech.

                            I also believe that the collusion between these “private” companies and political power (government) makes this issue much more complex.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by ewv 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                              The demagoguery about "censorship" is the reason the populists themselves give for controlling private companies as they demand non-existent "rights" to be supported by them.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                              Follow your idea to it's logical conclusion. Is this just a rationalist word game, or I'm I correct that Tim Pool doesn't understand political vs economic "censorship" and it is okay for youtube to "censor", or is it bad and what should be done?
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                              That collusion is the problem, not the "censorship".

                              Censorship was a word that was conceptualized at a time when only government power existed. In a country like America, there is no conceptual word for "removed for violating the terms of service or because the property owner did not want to support its antagonists". The whole issue is the package dealing of the old world of full government control and todays property rights.

                              If you want to call it censorship because reasons, and you believe that a private company can "censor" because they have the right to, then you are just playing rationalist analytic-synthetic word games.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                          • Posted by 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                            I cannot edit this again for some reason, but I was just going to add that you need to be able to take your ideas to its logical conclusions. What is the logical conclusion of believing that your rights are violated by private companies.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                  Allow me to make yo comfortable, I will not do it again. I can see now that living examples are ineffective to those that care more about being offended than being correct.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by 4 months, 4 weeks ago
                  First, the rule is be civil. What is more uncivil than calling a spade a spade? How about advocating for government take over of private property because you want to be able to say whatever you want? Because thats what I believe to be uncivil. Ayn Rand wouldn't let that stand, and neither will I.

                  Banning me for expressing my "free speech" proves my point. A website can ban anyone that violates the TOS.

                  If calling a socialist a socialist pig is uncivil, and promoting socialism is civil by the metrics of atlas society objectivism, then I would be happy to leave the gulch voluntarily.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo