thisdotstate

A few days ago, YouTube's content creators channel put out a video explaining their overarching policy about how they see bad actors on their platform and how they see their role in handling them.

Essentially what the video says is that YouTube has a responsibility to protect the brand, advertisers, and other content creators, so they reserve the right to take action against content that they see as harmful, even if it doesn't explicitly break the rules.

I guess you could call this a "policy to fill the gaps", where even if someone comes along with a completely unforeseen way to damage the community, they can still take action against them.

Do you feel thi

Earlier this week he was removed from the partner program so that he can no longer make money by posting his videos to the platform.

Do you consider this a form of censorship? Is profitability on speech a prerequisite for it to be "free"?

I know in many similar instances conservatives have conflated demonitization with censorship and I would like to have this expanded on.

For example, this or this.

My girlfriend and I started watching these ironically just for the feeling of sheer bewilderment. I know we are not the target audience so I'm curious what is supposed to be appealing about content like this.

Are the characters supposed to be relatable in some way, or is this like some kind of post-modern ironic parody of something where I don't get the reference?

(Man I feel old having to ask something like this.)

Do you suppose that understanding why women commit less violent crimes could help us come up with more effective strategies for preventing it?

In a lot of conservative circles, I've noticed that this seems to be sort of an in-joke or meme (for lack of better way to describe it). At best it is sort of heavily insinuated that there is some kind of connection between the left and pedophilia, either direct or indirect. At worst we have conspiracy believers line QAnon who just flat out believe that specific high-ranking democrats are pedophiles who have or continue to molest children.

What are your personal thoughts on this?

Of course it is an undeniable fact that pedophiles exist and are out there preying on children. But what are the direct lines that you believe can be drawn to "the left" - either democrats themselves or the pu

https://youtu.be/INiLyUnYONE

It's obviously completely saturated with symbolism and satire. But I would like to hear the conservative perspective on something like this.

Do you think the narrative that he's trying to convey and the characterizations of certain political figures have analogues to real life (even though it's obviously exaggerated)?

Which characterizations of people or events do you most agree or disagree with?

For example, say the government created an online service that was functionally identical to Facebook or Twitter. However, the main difference is that this would not be for-profit, not supported by ad-revenue. Rather, it would be supported by the tax payer and operate under the public trust to be beholden to the notion of free speech in a way that is compatible with the first amendment.

Would you support this? Do you think this would be a viable solution to the "free speech controlled by private enterprises" problem that we have on social media now? Why or why not?

Currently the way that the power of base minions scale up the tiers, it seems like making a triple before 10 gold is basically all-or-nothing to doing well right now.

It feels especially bad because this is part of the game that you really have the least control over - sometimes you luck into triples with zero refreshes and sometimes you are holding three doubles, spend an entire turn refreshing seven times and get nothing.

And it's worth calling out that the time in the game where triples are most devastating is the time where you have very few extra gold to refresh at all.

My worst games, the ones where I take like 25 damage and instantly get knocked down to 8th place, are where I'm

I screen capped here (so you don't have to click on the real one).

What kind of person do you think an advertisement like this is meant for?

Do you think that conservative media sites running these kinds of advertisements are cheapening the brand?

During Cawthorn’s campaign, in October, more than 150 former and current students signed on in support of a letter written by ten alumni blasting the then-candidate for his actions during his time at Patrick Henry College, where he attended a semester before dropping out. They wrote that his behavior "was marked by gross misconduct towards our female peers."

The ten authors of the letter all knew Cawthorn during their time at school, and the 150-plus other signatories were not all at the school when the alleged behavior occurred.

"During his brief time at the college, Cawthorn established a reputation for predatory behavior. His modus operandi was to invite unsuspecting women

Man, she is absolutely terrible.

The removal of the prizes is such a huge balance swing in itself that I think they should have held off on any nerfs whatsoever. The game needs time to readjust with a bunch of new heroes and cards that have never been present in a meta without the prizes.

Right now there is very little that ties your online persona to your real life offline. Even though Facebook or Twitter for example would prefer that you not do this, you can set up as many accounts as you want, under as many different names as you want.

Sites like reddit don't even care about your real identity and embrace the fact that people can say whatever they want on their service with complete privacy.

Do you believe that this should continue through our lifetimes? Or should the internet evolve in a way so that there is less of a barrier between online and offline identities. Like for example, logging onto Amazon to troll people with fake reviews would have the same level of a