Kirsche Hates Censorship (and so should you)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 вер 2024
- Discord TOS HATE
Clip taken from: • [Paragon: The Overprim...
~~~Tip Jar~~~ streamelements...
Business inquiries: kirscheycakes@gmail.com
Buy spicy cat merch~!: uwumarket.us/c...
Gamersupps code KIRSCHE for 10% off your Gamersupps order: gamersupps.gg/...
I livestream Tues, Fri, Sat, Sun, and sometimes Wednesday!
~~~Socials~~~
@KirscheVerstahl
Twitch: / kirsche
Twitter: / kirscheverstahl
VoD Archive: @KirscheVODs
Marshmallow: marshmallow-qa...
tags: Kirsche Verstahl,ENVtuber,Indie vtuber,independent vtuber,Funny,Cute,Kemonomimi,Autism,Kirschey,VTuber,Kirsche,Smoky Voice,comedy,stand up,censorship,discord,language,free speech,CS Lewis,Robber Barons
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
*Discord is paying predators to compliment children
Fixed their title
"Fixed your shit for you" to quote their own kind
"Discord is grooming children with money" Fixed your title.
Censorship sucks and ruins fun
Why not to put the option Censorship Mod This can sort the problem
Ruins experience in any places.
Yeah. I couldn't imagine living in a world where everything has a blur effect over it like Japanese pr0n
Kirsche keeps bringing up that robber baron quote but can never actually remember it. 😂
Also Kirsche: "I get close to the edge for talking about Rhodesia" Defending a country whose entire justification for existing was that the natives where "too stupid" to govern themselves and the foreign colonials must govern over them indefinitely for they're own good. it's a shame she is so selective with her beliefs
@@greenbean4736 ???
@@TheSlammurai she says this line in this clip ua-cam.com/video/JunaZzPtg6g/v-deo.html. Presumably after defending Rhodesia. One of her more stupider chatters who has confused Zimbabwe for south Africa also seems to echo her sentiment about natives "not being able to farm" if these are her opinions and her audience then the ban from offkai is deserved imo
@@greenbean4736 Rhodesia wasn't India. The main justification for Rhodesia existing was "Because we built it". Questions about the natives would've been towards where they should fit into society.
@@greenbean4736 the native peoples inhabiting what became Rhodesia did not build Rhodesia; the colonists did. And after they left, it became Zimbabwe. Looking at the state of Zimbabwe, the notion of "savages" justifies itself.
Fuck censorship
-100 social credit score for you in the algorithm, comrade!
He meant in a positive way. Lol like when you want to do that to a woman.
When they brought back propaganda, they knew full well it wouldn't quite work without censorship.
Name your Korshe Censorship
that's gay
The point is that 230 was made 96. Social media wasn’t invented yet and the internet was only seriously going national. The issue is that 230 goes to phone companies not being responsible for crimes that the phones are involved with (such as drug dealing, ordering hits, scams and so on) the issue is they have done shit to cover social media’s arse for this AS WELL.
It protects them for not censoring, meanwhile, if they want to they can do so and enforce whatever they want to censor. And then come the arguments that it's their platform and they can make their own terms of service, if you don't like it just go somewhere else.
And what gets them to enforce censorship in the first place are the bank, who live in their own weird monopolistic dominions, and marketing and advertising initiatives in the service of making money. To look virtuous and in that a good cause for investment and adds.
@@Utrilusmore accurately, it protects them as long as they make a good faith attempt to keep bad actors off the platform
like, phone companies won't normally see a crime ring right away as at this point the vast majority of traffic through their network is encrypted. however, if they do get reason to believe a line is being used for criminal reasons, they have to immediately shut down that line in order to retain section 230 protections.
and yes, this protection has been denied before - mindgeek's subject to a lawsuit that they could've easily gotten out of...had they not pretty brazenly turned a blind eye to csam. visa also got named in that lawsuit as an entity profiting off of said csam, but since financial transactions lack this kind of protection when operating in good faith, visa couldn't get out of it despite the clear evidence of them trying to pressure mindgeek to stop, complete with an eventual cut off. (turns out, the only legal thing to do would've been to immediately cut mindgeek off and reverse every transaction they could link to the offending material that went through their network, refunding processing fees and all. and that is very expensive for a card processor, and likely why mastercard added those new adult industry-related rules.)
He forgot the end of the quote “They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth”
Fuck social engineering
Social manipulation always seems to backfire.
kirsche looks like a biblical angel and speaks the truth like one
Not enough eyes
Based Jewish Mythology amirite.
"Joseph, be not afraid. Do you know what sounding is?"
I do not know where this Censor Ship calls home port, but perhaps we should sink it. Just to be sure it never again haunts the waves of the interwebs. But seriously, hard agree Fox Lady. Censorship will always leave a sour taste in my mouth, regardless of how big or small it may seem at the time. Those changes are the breeding ground of people with an ideal to push. I just want to play the game as it was, not as somebody else WISHES it was. Nice clip, Kir.
This reminds me of how ending net neutrality was supposed to kill the internet
Shoutout to Tom
he's my friend!
Keep being you Kir, please don't ever tune yourself down for somebody else's sake, you're awesome. o7
Didn't they pass a bipartisan speech law too.
yeah i'd say this is all pretty we'ud
section 2.30 is pretty much, a Platform cannot be sued for user posts, because they are not publishers, but if platforms act like publishers, aka Censor users of the platform, catering the experience, then they can be sued since they are acting as publishers. (or that is how it is supposed to be) [epic it was explained]
Did my comment get ironically censored? It's gone.
UA-cam auto hides comments with certain words. The channel owner needs to manually put those back on for them to be visible.
Welcome to UA-cam, where the algorithm will check to make sure you don't use any no-no words or phrases and will delete your comment if so, but won't stop actual bot-programs from spamming vapid nonsense and advertising garbage in comments.
Hilarious.
I wonder what word triggered it. There was only 1 "fuck" in it that I recall. Maybe it was the 'ment to be comical' all caps first sentence.
There is no irony. Well, there is..the Greek one, but not "the internet" one.
Anyone who disagrees is cordially invited to ironically transfer ten trillion BTC to my wallet.
>but then my BTC are gone and you have them
Yeah, but ironically
>sure but I really won't have them anymore and I'll be ten trillion BTC poorer than you
Yeah, but ironically
>yes but the bottom line is that there is no difference in doing that and really doing it, sincerely
No no...the difference is that you did it 'ironically'
>that's different
Gimme your BTC
>no no that's just different ahh my tummy hurts I have to leave
Yeah.
>who are you quoting
Reality.
UA-cam has been censoring comments aggressively lately, gee I wonder why...
@1:30 "...I don't know too much about Statue 230..."
It's Section 230 of the CDA of 1996. It was intended to give protection to Common Carriers: the internet backbone providers and ISPs for content that passed across their network, but that they did not create or execute editorial control over.
Social Media companies in the modern sense DID NOT EXIST when it was written, and it was never intended to cover them. They do not fit into the category it was intended to cover: Social Media certainly DOES exhibit editorial control: they will remove content they disapprove of, and they will suggest content to users. These are two things Common Carriers- which Section 230 was meant to protect- do not do.
Im shaderbant
I agree with this Fox.
>survive off streaming
She should get qualifications as an electrician/plumber/cnc/welder. Pick one.
Sorry she makes more money than you :)
@@ninjatango i own a private house bro, that's already unreachable height.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelt may sometimes sleep, his cupitidity may at some point be satiated; but those ho torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
In case Kirsche sees this: The problem with 230 is not that platforms are not held liable for their content, it's that those platforms are censoring their contact LIKE publishers, but still reaping the benefit of immunity. So theyre not free speech platform, they are tailored publications.
In that case, the act should be worded such as to disincentivize the censorship of users, rather than take away the protection of the platform if they stop censoring
Section 230 is abused though to allow for censoring 1 side. Needs a rewrite but we'd never be able to word it right or pass it withoutt bias.
Specifically the exceptions in section 230(c)(2) which is too broad and poorly defined in what it allows to be removed.
After looking at 47 USC § 230(C)(2), I agree with what you said.
The reasons are fairly simple and straightforward: First, the term "good faith" implies the removal of material that is considered criminal in nature, such as text messages on any platform aimed at exploitation of children. That would be a federal crime.
What _is not_ a crime is actual free speech that is considered offensive, which is protected by the First Amendment. Posts, comments, etc. cannot be removed just because someone doesn't like them. And my problem is, when a platform like UA-cam, X, or Facebook removes comments or deletes profiles and accounts, without applying the actual protections of the First Amendment, that removal no longer is done in good faith, but is instead done in bad faith.
And I happen to know that a company's policies -- call them "Community Standards," "Community Guidelines," etc. -- cannot be more narrow or more broad than what the First Amendment protects. In other words, company policies are not constitutional law, nor are they even statute. And the kicker is, any agreement between a user and a platform like UA-cam or X, if it does not state that by agreeing to it, you are waiving your First Amendment right as well as converting that right into a privilege where the agreement is presumed to be a license to use the platform, both defrauding the user of a protected right, and depriving the user of a protected right.
This is the de facto operational licensing scheme that every platform operates on, and in so doing, violates the Constitution, since no contract, including usage agreements, can force you to waive your constitutional rights as a precondition for that contract to be valid.
In other words, no End User Licensing Agreement, Community Standards, Community Guidelines, etc., can force you to give up your right to free speech to use a platform. Such agreements are unlawful prima facie, and should you be punished for exercising your rights by a platform who has deprived you of your rights, that is grounds to sue under Title 18 USC § 241 & 242, and have recompense under 42 USC § 1983. Furthermore, no contract can force you to waive a trial right and instead require you to go through arbitration, as such waivers of rights are prima facie unlawful, since you cannot be forced to waive any rights whatsoever.
The actual problem is, no platform has been sued on these grounds and been made to pay for a massive class-action lawsuit where the platform loses the case. If that happened, this kind of corpo-crap wouldn't happen, and you wouldn't have online platforms essentially acting fascistically on behalf of one political party of government who believes "words are violence."
Imo Kirsche's chat was on to exactly what I think is being abused and needs to be fixed. The whole publisher vs platform part doesn't even need to been rewritten much, just actually enforced correctly. Essentially: censor nothing at all (that isn't strictly illegal) or have 0 legal immunity as you are then a publisher. That is all that's needed to fix the censorship problem.
@@noah1535 the problem with that is 230(c)(2) poorly defines the exceptions which allows them to remove content without being publishers. Remove or rewrite that part could fix it.
A good enough precedent-laying case and subsequent enforcement could be enough. But fat chance of the USSC taking one up.
@@bc-cu4on : Actually, the FCC or ICC could handle it, since the FCC handles the area of communications legislation, and the ICC deals with interstate commerce, which is all US social media sites, since no site is specific to one district or even one state, the way TV and radio are.
I don't undertand why everything MUST be bubble wrapped to protect the sensibilities of transnational investors and perpetually offended individuals.
It's not about protecting anyone, it's about taking your rights away while justifying it with "but think about the X!" nonsense.
ashkenazim are at the start of that chain.
These... transnational dual citizens have been expelled from almost every country they've been in. At this point it is their survival strategy.
Welcome to their global panopticon.
Section 230 grants immunity to platforms who editorialize, filter and otherwise promote content that would otherwise be actionable under civil law, OR discrimate based on political basis w/o facing the legal ramifications of contractual violations, contractual interference or otherwise.
The same law effectively makes it such that if a platform bans you, because of government interference, you can never find out or get the documents that prove government interference, because they are immune.
The "r word"? You mean "reet arded"?
You tell 'em, Foxu
It's an interesting state of affairs when one of the most sane political and social commentators is an anime fox woman.
What if the jesters were always the most sane social commentators?
@@actuallyKriminellI mean yeah that’s the natural state of things really.
The Quote is from one of the greatest authors of all time, C.S. Lewis.
Amen
Most people can't or won't think more than one step ahead.
"Shut-up the people I disagree with!"
'someone else takes power'
"Oh no! I'm being shut-up by someone who disagrees with me!"
Ad infinitum.
The problem with 230 is that companies censor people like a publisher but get the protections of a platform.
C.S. Lewis knew what was up. Bless him.
All the people who love me most call me a bundle of sticks.
You cannot be friends with someone you can't make fun of.
Censors don't understand this because the have no friends.
They only have allies.
No one cares about the """r slur""" outside of twitteroids and rev says desu. And even then, discords are private clubs, not public squares. If a community decides they are ok with bantering in its fullest form, that is their right. No one sane will stop watching a content creator due to how they joke with their buds in private.
Oh yeah, adding this since I can't edit on mobile.
Do not be afraid of making people uncomfortable, regardless of who it is.
Okay I'm outta shit to say, I'm done now lol
Also holy shit that quote is so goooooood, so b a s e d
This woman is a superstar of common sense. Here in the UK if something gets past the YT arbiter of what's right or wrong we also have OFCOM to act as morality police. Free speech? What free speech?
Censorship on its own sucks already. Being forced to partake in censorship against your will is even more fucked.
This comment was censored by big brother
TLDR for Section 230: If they don't censor people they get Liability Immunity for things posted.
You can still have rules that limit speech, but they are supposed to be clear, concise, and not targeting. Most common example of this would be a "No Profanity" rule.
On the other hand a rule stating "No saying there R only Dos Genderales" is supposed to violate section 230 and make them liable for everything on their platform.
The other hand sounds like they're basically forbidding people from forbidding stuff within their own private platforms (under threat of making them liable for anything they can come up with), it's a clear violation of their rights imo.
Yeah, I wish I could speak freely here at all. I don’t even use derogatory language and I can still barely talk about anything.
Censorship on these platforms gets worse by the day. I miss Tom from Myspace.
my daily dose of the Fox Woman, hell yeah!
I already do.
How about we just ban children from the internet? And any parent/legal guardian caught letting minors use internet be held legally accountable?
I've thought the same in the past, however the only way to realistically implement and enforce this is via I.D. checkpoints online - more ways for the government to track you and therefore punish you if you say or do something they dislike. All in the name of keeping the children safe, of course.
We need a broad social return to stable, thriving Family values and a love of liberty in order to correct the problems the subversives forced onto all of us. If a system is built upon a common understanding of certain truths as the foundation, then when enough people forsake those truths in favor of their own delusions and ideas opposed to the truth and system, they effectively become acid to the foundation and hijack the system to gear it towards self-destruction in the name of their delusional opinions. We used to have a mechanism for preventing these people from hijacking our systems, but the subversives recognized that they could exploit the merciful values of "giving the benefit of the doubt" and tolerance of differences as a cloak to hide their activities as they went about their agendas to enrich themselves and/or destroy the lives of the populace they despise. They still exploit those values far beyond their intended scope and when you point it out as it happens you get scolded as being aggressive or unsympathetic or get hosed as some ist-a-pho-bic monster.
I agree, but theres problems there.
Is that they laws on kids will have effect on adults. So in reality they are adult laws not laws for children.
Also, with the self-awareness of people online of all ages, we can make sure they are all safe.
If I child can't reach out because they are banned from the internet, that's a problem for soceity.
We wouldn't be able identify bad parenting with kids online.
Also corporations would still have access to children, so you wouldn't know if they are getting brainwashed or groomed by this corporations.
That a dumb idea
230 makes sense ONLY if the company does not artificially adjust the traffic. What this means is if the company doesnt change or make notes or completely remove anything posted by users. 230 makes sense then cause the platform doesnt have a say in what is and isnt allowed. BUT if the platform can and does change or add notes or remove posts they are editorializing peoples feeds and info, aka they are opperating like a newspaper or news outlet. In that case then they SHOULD be held liable for things like death threats that are not removed or users banned for doing such.
there's a problem with this: they can't legally turn a blind eye to stuff like csam and spam and have to employ automated systems to catch and drop these
in fact, public-facing email senders are legally required to employ anti-spam filters by many us states.
i get your sentiment, but there is some baseline censorship they have to do to avoid extremely expensive fines and possible criminal prosecution. (and tbf even most "free speech absolutists" specifically want at least this minimal amount of censorship in smaller communities.)
Yeah, reaping the benefits of a platform while behaving like a publisher. 230 would work a lot better if it was actually applied properly.
The law dates back to when internet discussion was spread out across tons of websites instead of a few social media apps. The sword part of the law was intended to, for example, allow a website with an anime message board to ban people who just made anti-anime or anti-Japan posts that the site and its users found objectionable. The problem is that centralizing discussion on places like Reddit results in excessive censorship since it gives way too much power over public discourse to a few mods with nothing better to do than find reasons why everything is objectionable. We should probably all make more of an effort to decentralize.
I am going to full "tinfoil hat" here, but here's my take ultimately on the censorship angle.
There are numerous powerful interests connected to one another and share a similar vision. (I'm looking at the WEF specifically) That they know what is best for the rest of humanity whom are too chaotic and/or stupid to be left to our own. Thus more outward pushes for social engineering.
I wouldn't say it's close-knit cabal but more like a dark version of LinkedIn. Lotsa people with lots of connections with very similar world-views and desire for power. (Remember, Larry Fink's using of "forcing behaviors" and using Black Rock's obscene economic influence to do so.) Reinforcing a belief if they do follow the likes of say The WEF and their cronies, they'll get a their own seat of power on the board.
The push and application for absurd censorship policies to actual laws in these countries, IMHO, is done so it's easier to apply those laws on smaller, developing countries. Through the use economic or even military strongarming until every country in the world abides.
What does my schizo-post have to do with censorship in media? It's actually quite simple.
Entertainment has a powerful influence on culture. It is a form of both escapism and a common ground for people of all walks of life. So of course it's a useful tool of social engineering and to make the "messages" of powerful people seemingly inescapable.
I don't know how I ended up here, thought I'd never watch a vtuber. Holy, are all of you this based?!
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.
if they just followed the law I would agree they shouldn't be held liable for what users say, but the moment they have editorial lines, they should be held responsible for what they allow e.g. the recent wave of people not being banned on twitch after threatening other streamers
Kirsche is always shaking. She's like a soda bottle of based takes.
Bruh, Myspace never existed to these people lmao
Imagine caring what Twitter thinks.
Way ahead of you, miss.
Regarding that "publisher" issue, look up the Norwood v. Harrsion case. It makes for a much better argument.
Prior to section 230, there were "providers" and "publishers". Providers were not responsible for their content, but couldn't monitor it either. See: Phone companies and the mail. Publishers could censor, but were held legally liable for what they published. Think: Books, Movies.
In the early days of the internet, Usenet was getting overwhelmed with spicy photos to the point it was unusable. A senator got mad, and wrote Section 230: Websites can censer anything for any reason like a Publisher, yet are still not held legally liable for their content like a provider. As a bonus, no law can limit section 230, INCLUDING THE CONSTITUTION and the 1st.
So yeah, blatantly unconstitutional. But, at the time no seriously cared about some forums on the internet fighting pr0n spam. So the Supreme Court refused all cases for Section 230 as not important enough for their time.
Now that Twitter is the public square, and streaming is replacing all other forms of media, it has become important enough for the SC to care. So the current case is on the docket.
Section 230 protects websites and ISPs from being affected from what users post but it is written that it doesn't protect them from their own actions. However 230 has been applied to remove accountability for providers from their own actions thus why we get this censorship debate where providers are shadow banning and censoring content.
Currently, the 230 debate is opposite round. Actually, right now due to 230 and it's way set up. Thank you. They can be held viable for the content to put on their webpage. Because they're not quoted or cure rating it enough if it was reviewed and they were no longer protected underneath it. So to speak, that would mean that the poster you propose, the content is always going to be the one that gets in trouble with it and the host no longer has any liability.
So ah..this has nothing to do with the video but ah..Kirsche? When are you gonna DM Asmon?
@Kirsche: Spicy Foxu, I shall give you some enlightenment on this issue.
As I understand it, what § 230 of the Communications Decency Act does, located at Title 47 of the United States Code (aka federal law), is protect online service providers, including social media companies, if they act as a platform and not a publisher.
The important thing to understand is the legal distinction between "platform" and "publisher." Platforms essentially do not gatekeep what users do on their service. An example would be phone companies like AT&T or Verizon. An online platform would be Rumble, since Rumble does not interfere with content that content creators and users post on Rumble.
Publishers, on the other hand, gatekeep what content -- and by extension, what users -- gets to stay on the site. An example of a publisher would be a newspaper or magazine, such as the Wall Street Journal or Rolling Stone Magazine, since publishers gatekeep any and all content, specifically opinion pieces. Online sites such as X or UA-cam are publishers, since no platform has any Community Standards or Community Guidelines outside of Terms of Service that prohibits criminal actions, such as calls to action that are malicious and/or violent. Defamation because of doxxing is one type of criminal act; harassment and/or stalking is another type.
Now knowing this, what § 230 does is give liability protections to actual platforms, while making publishers liable for what they publish, since publishers have gatekeeping power that platforms do not.
The problem is, sites like UA-cam, Facebook, and X like to claim they are platforms that are immune from liability, when in practice, they are publishers who have no such liability protections because they use algorithms and Community Standards and Community Guidelines to essentially gatekeep what content, posts, and comments users make.
To make matters worse, there has been no action by the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), ICC (Interstate Commerce Commission), the US Supreme Court, or most importantly the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), regarding the utter disregard and sheer contempt for the First Amendment rights of users, all because these sites think a End User Licensing Agreement, EULA, or a Terms of Service, ToS, such as Community Guidelines or Community Standards, holds more weight in a court of law than does the First Amendment, since every EULA and every ToS both defrauds and deprives the user of protected civil and constitutional rights in violation of Title 18 US Code § 241 & 242, RICO, and Title 42 § 1983.
Now that I have typed this out, Fox Woman, I hope you understand the law now. Because yes, these sites are engaging in online censorship and misapplication of copyright laws, such as Fair Use, and doing so at such a scale no newspaper or radio station could ever match. Because if books, or TV or radio communications were ever censored the way online social media sites are, SCOTUS would strike down any semblence of liability immunity in a heartbeat for the companies engaging in the censorship.
The administrative state is simultaneously completely overbearing and utterly useless.
@@Arassar : True. True and real, as Fox woman says.
People were also mad at saruei because she's french so everything she says sounds rude
Meanwhile, Kirsche's discord is censored as hell. Including regulations on certain types of posts, like arbitrarily defined terms like "drama posting". ANYTHING can be considered dramatic. It's such an ambiguous thing that it's ridiculous.
to her credit there's a difference between that and like discord as a service
a small self-contained community being exclusionary isn't normally much of a problem, bc the excluded could just find a different community with different rules. a large platform hosting a million plus people being exclusionary is a bigger problem, and when dozens of large platforms working together with over 20% of several countries' people using it become exclusionary, it starts blurring the lines of are they really acting as private entites, or are they acting as genuine pseudo-government by that point?
this is the same reason why paypal's under fire for effectively trying to shut down every adult business even down to toy shops, and why banks (from small banks to ones as big as wells fargo) are starting to get similar scrutiny freezing and shutting down cam performers' accounts (say what you want, but kicking them out of the financial system like that prevents them from even being able to reliably receive pay for doing jobs like working in gas stations - it's actually extremely cruel).
Sounds like someone tried to start some nonsense and got in trouble.
@@Arassar Sounds like you don't know anything about the situation.
Sounds like you're trying to start drama.
Poindextery bullshit.
@@Arassar Sounds like you're pro-censorship about an ambiguously defined subject like drama. Besides, if you aren't allowed to discuss drama, or dramatic topics (911, etc), you're pro-censorship and it's about more than just words.
The news is dramatic.
The world itself is filled with drama.
Simply discussing vtubers is a dramatic topic and can be construed as drama posting if you discuss any particular vtuber with a "dramatic" presence. How about we discuss PIPPA, I'm sure drama doesn't surround her at all...
@@adibemaxwell6111 Sometimes one has to rub the braincells together. If Korsches Discord becomes too based were all gonna get into trouble and possibly lose our own little space on the internets. Everything has its time and place
F Censorship. I Loathe it.
God help us
8 👋
Well? Did you get food?
Censorship when its a proper rating like mature to adult rated is like saying cocomelon isn't for kids when it is.
Except the weird shit in cocomelon....
I enjoy that I can say [rhymes with "bigger"], but it doesn't mean I'm just to just shout it at every moment just for giggles. There's a time and a place.
Based Spicy Cat being Based.
Uuuuuuuu
UUUUUUU
I miss the spicy cat, bros
UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuu
This sentiment right here is exactly why I joined your community. I'm right there with you, I only self censor to the extent that I have to because I enjoy streaming. While under their roof, live by their rules... But if I had my way, only the truly illegal things would be censored.
I don't self censor and just create new accounts.
Doees that allow me to be a 'stable public figure'? No.
But it allows me to actually say things that matter.
A big problem is that most of these sites don't even enforce their own rules/TOS equally or fairly.
Twitch is an example of this to the point of it being a meme now.
@@dorklymorkly3290 Yeah things that matter to no one 99% of the time. I get your point but it's completely ineffective if people have to find you a million times. People will only put in so much effort to listen to a single person. There's thousands of others making the same points without getting themselves banned. Reaching more people with your ideas is more important than reaching no one and having your work deleted constantly. To me that's as pointless as wild animals killing for fun instead of for survival, eventually you exhaust your resources and you made no progress.
@@Bigdude0444
>reaching more people with your idea is more important
Which ideas? The ones that fall under the allowed scope of the current status quo and that don't get you banned?
Whew good thing that gets more and more lenient, oh wait, it doesn't.
Nah, man. If you just want to have some fun, okay... stay in the realms of 'irony' and 'sarcasm' as the same persona, I'll continue authoring copypasta after copypasta that all my other accounts (and other people) can use.
That way, it also looks like more people are on my side. Cause they don't remember the ban, but they do remember seeing the same idea coming up again and again.
If you stay completely on the safe side then you're saving them the work they have and had to put in to prevent that from happening.
If you go "I love Israel!" because you can't say anything else even if you really really want to express something else, then you did the work for them, you self censored. You complied.
This is the truth, up to you to accept it, even in the unfortunate face of "my beloved established people" and even more so, vtubers, who usually have to get whole new models.
So yeah, you will not go beyond the status quo, you will only stay on it, or make things worse, because the enemy dictates the boundaries in the case of media. You don't expand them by complying.
@@Amuro37 Agreed... but always remember... the moment YOU do it... you're gone.
Don't give them the excuse, especially if you aren't on their ideological side.
I would rather not live under a communist or capitalist boot.. suffer always, is not better then suffer some times, like that ignorant quote is trying to sell.
Tell me your a fed without actually telling me your a fed.
Daniel Tosh told a joke about slavery, and then said, "If I'm somewhere where the audience gets a little TOO excited about that joke, I shut it down." A majority of people understand that words and words, it's just unfortunate that there are the people that ruin it for the rest of us.
Instead of censoring people because you are a vtuber, you could stop and get a real job.
Sorry your channel failed :)
Stop lewding on twitter, Kirsche. Please. You were based, stop degrading yourself.
Grow up.
Delet this