Should Youtube silence the right? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Should Youtube silence the right?
in Technology

By piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts edited July 9
The rights that youtube has to remove videos it deems destructive, outweigh any supposed rights of freedom of expression on that site. There is no law that ensures freedom of expression on a privately owned website. There is and should not be a law that limits YouTube's power to decide what content is acceptable, even if it is biased against the alt-right, conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, anti-vaxxers, and fake medical information promoters. 
PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42CYDdhartaBrainSocks
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2030 Pts
    I would be on board with it, if Google did not receive extensive subsidies from the government and if its monopoly was not assured by the allegedly anti-trust laws and intellectual property rights.

    Google is free to censor anyone they want on Youtube, but I do not have to approve of it. You also seem to forget the historical wisdom: every infringement on freedoms of your opponents will one day will be applied to you as well. Today you celebrate that anti-vaxxers are banned, and tomorrow you are banned.
    Zombieguy1987WordsMatterBrainSocks
  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    State and city governments who limit or eliminate taxes for big corporations who bring in jobs when they decide to build their offices and manufacturing sectors there is very different than nuclear, oil and coal companies who constantly need FEDERAL funds to keep them out of bankruptcy and updates to their infrastructure. The first is an incentive to build and create jobs, the second is a bailout from taxpayers. The energy subsidies stings even more because we still get a bill from them when we use our dryer and refrigerator. It's not like Google is on welfare, but it is like the energy companies are.

    Intellectual property rights aren't as cut and dry as some think. You cannot hold onto a patent forever. Usually, they only last for 10 to 15 years before you have to allow others to use the same technology. There already are video sharing sites that are competing with YouTube. Obviously YouTube has the advantage of having the gazillion videos that have been uploaded there, but that's just a testament to it's popularity as opposed to its unethical behavior towards competition. I personally don't believe in the concept of intellectual property, but I guess it makes sense to allow a business to recover some of the money they lost in designing the product before the competition can just take the idea and undermine the profits of the company who originally designed it, so not to stifle the incentive to ever create and design a product.

    I myself can not be found on YouTube. I don't upload anything there, so I really have no fear of ever being banned. If I had a video sharing website, I would publicly demean any government entities that try to tell me what I can and can't have on my website. 
    BrainSocks
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2030 Pts
    @piloteer

    The problem is, the government subsidies, plus the alleged anti-trust and intellectual property laws (which, as you described, have some limitations, but are incredibly harmful for the competition nonetheless), make Youtube an unnatural monopoly. There is a good case to be made for the claim that on a truly free market Youtube would not dominate the virtual video uploading space.

    Again, I believe in Google's right to censor whatever they want, but I strongly disapprove of them choosing to exercise this right, and I would like for the laws to be remade in a way that doesn't let Google get away with it so easily. When you have two private services, one of which is heavily censored and another is not, then, all other things equal, generally the former will either have to rethink its censorship model, or go out of business.

    It is also worth noting that censorship is not just about individual company's choice; it is about the culture. Were the Youtube censorship isolated, I would not see it as a big deal. But when you have virtually all major services employ censorship in some way, because the culture favors them financially doing so, then the net effect is essentially the same as if the government issued official censorship laws. Censorship should be fought in all its forms, regardless of whether it is instituted by the government or not. Again, I am all for the companies' right to censor what they want; I am against letting them get away with it and the market forces not being used against their behavior, however.
    Zombieguy1987VaulkBrainSocks
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited July 7
    @piloteer

    What exactly, did YouTube, do, or is doing?

    I found a news article based on your words?

    https://amp-usatoday-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/1248099002?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQA#aoh=15624995468162&amp_ct=1562499710675&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/09/10/trump-google-youtube-search-results-biased-against-republicans-conservatives-column/1248099002/ 

    OPINION

    "Trump is right: More than Facebook & Twitter, Google threatens democracy, online freedom"

    Google, YouTube and other tech giants filter, suppress and even directly attack conservatives. This must stop to protect our free and open society.
    BRAD PARSCALE | OPINION CONTRIBUTOR |8:35 pm EDT September 10, 2018

    "Americans must be wary of powerful institutions that seek to control what we see and hear.

    As the internet has become an increasingly central part of modern life, Big Tech giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google have increasingly sought to become the gatekeepers of the internet and political discourse. Without any sort of democratic mandate, these companies have appointed themselves the arbiters of acceptable thought, discussion and searches online. "

    "These companies’ pervasive command of the internet — and blatant desire to control how we interact with it — is a direct threat to a free society. And arguably the worst offender is Google.

    Google claims to value free expression and a free and open internet, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Big Tech giant wants the internet to be free and open only to political and social ideas of which it approves.

    “Google & others are suppressing voices of conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!” President Trump tweeted last month. "

    "Google has directly targeted Republicans"

    "The president is absolutely right.

    During the 2016 presidential campaign, Google was accused of manipulating search results to favor Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Also, research at Harvard University found that Google’s search rankings are not objective, and in 2017, the company was fined billions of dollars by the European Union for manipulating search results.

    Google also maintains at least nine shadowy blacklists that affect what the public sees when using its search engine.

    When it’s not manipulating the internet to prevent users from viewing right-wing content, Google is directly attacking that content. A report by The Daily Caller News Foundation revealed that Google’s fact-checking service “fact-checked” only conservative news websites, and that in many cases, these fact-checks were outright wrong. What does it say about the fact-checker when its fact-checking is biased and incorrect? "

    "Sometimes, the tech giant just attacks conservatives directly. In one infamous example, a Google search result listed “Nazism” as an official ideology of the California GOP. North Carolina Sen. Trudy Wade, a Republican, was shocked to discover that the top search result for her name returned a photo labeling her as a bigot.

    If something vaguely conservative and intellectually stimulating manages to get past Google’s content gatekeepers, they just remove it. YouTube, which is owned by Google, routinely demonetizes, restricts and censors conservative content. One target of YouTube was Dennis Prager’s PragerU, which had 40 of its videos restricted. Prager sued the social media video giant this year following these unfounded restrictions. YouTube has also been known for banning pro-life videos.

    Google’s eager adoption of the role of censor should come as little surprise. Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., has a demonstrated track record of combining the role of Democrat activist with his job.

    Google and YouTube shape our online reality"

    "WikiLeaks emails revealed that Schmidt worked directly with the Clinton campaign in 2016 and was instrumental in forming “The Groundwork,” an online startup company created to help Clinton win the election. He was also seen wearing a “staff” badge at the Clinton election night party.

    While President Barack Obama was in office, Google kept a cozy relationship with the White House. Google representatives attended White House meetings more than once a week during the first seven years of Obama’s presidency, and almost 250 individuals left government service to work for Google or vice versa while Obama was in office. The Obama administration may also have squashed an antitrust investigation into the company.

    Of course, the problem with Google extends well beyond Eric Schmidt. As the saga of James Damore showed, the political bias at Google is institutional."

    "Google’s nefarious activities should concern not just conservatives and Republicans, but every American who values free speech and a truly free and open internet.

    Google’s broad and pervasive role in the lives of almost every American today cannot be overstated. More than90 percent of all online searches are conducted through Google or YouTube. The media giant’s video-sharing site has 1 billion active users a month, many of whom go there to learn and share conservative ideas only to find their quest for knowledge subverted by faceless ideologues.

    Google is clearly manipulating and controlling the political narrative in favor of Democrats and the left, and silencing conservatives and Republicans. A company with such power and influence cannot simply be allowed to play the biased gatekeeper of political discourse.

    Americans who believe in a truly open society and internet won’t stand for it any longer."


    A thought comes to mind:

    Is it possible, that maybe Goolge, YouTube, and other individual websites, are acting, or utilizing through the internet it self, with their own forms, or types of (Internet Opinion Journalism?)



    BrainSocks
  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    edited July 7
    @MayCaesar

    So you're "all for letting them censor what they want", but you're against "letting them get away with it"? I really don't understand your rationale, because it lacks consistency. It really seems like an argument against letting businesses run their business as they feel fit. The "culture" argument is totally lost on me. Nobody is forced to engage in that "culture", and nobody is disallowed to start their own video sharing sites that do promote what they like. Stormfront and 4chan have all the lame a$$ videos that the right-wing sympathizers love, so let them just stay there. If you could direct me to the section of the constitution that disallows a privately owned website from choosing what content it allows, it could iron out the inconsistencies with your argument for me. The idea that youtube is somehow "unfairly" limiting competition is completely lost on me as well. Ideally, as long as nobody is being harmed, a business should be allowed to economically destroy any competition without the government stopping them. You yourself subtlety made an argument against antitrust laws which I agree with. Those laws are outdated and should be shelved, and businesses should be allowed to become monstrous monopoly giants. If that is what Google is doing, all I can say is, good for them. Whatever harms Google is inflicting on their competitors is a totally legitimate business practice in my mind, baring of course that nobody is harmed.  
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited July 7
    From piloteer:

    "TKDB you have been blocked. I'm not destroying anymore of my brain cells by reading your ignorant $hit. "

    #BLOCKTKDB

    So basically you're using this forum to have me silenced, at your request?

    Is your suggestion, in accordance with Debate Islands rules?
    BrainSocks
  • If you support censorship, remove yourself from my friends list.
  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    edited July 7
    @YeshuaRedeemed

    I do not support censorship. Just as I support the freedoms of a privately owned business. If youtube expresses that certain videos are not to their liking, then it would be censorship on the part of the government to not let them take those videos down. I am steadfastly against censorship 
    BrainSocks
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2030 Pts
    @piloteer

    It is like being in favor of free speech, but disliking how some people use their free speech and wanting to bring consequences on them. For example, I believe that a man should be legally allowed to yell at his wife and call her names, but I do not think that the society should be complacent with it, and the man should face a certain degree of ostracision from the society for his actions.

    Same here. Businesses are free to censor whatever they want, but the customers should not just ignore it, and our culture should evolve in a way that makes people vote with their wallets against censorship on media platforms.
    YeshuaRedeemed
  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    edited July 7
    @MayCaesar

    Ok, I understand what you're saying now. Although, you used a bad analogy. Yelling can be considered assault, especially if it includes threats. The woman would have the right to defend herself in that situation, and in my opinion, the best defence is a good offence, if you get what I mean. You're saying they shouldn't be disallowed to choose the content on their site, but we the public should not use their service any longer because of that. Firstly, it doesn't seem like the public is going along with your cause, or that the public thinks YouTube did anything wrong in that regard. Secondly, what if it was made illegal for them to take down pornographic materials, or images of child abuse, or videos of mass shootings? If they are unable to take down hate speech, why should they be unable to take down pornography, or videos of violence? I really don't think YouTube is in the wrong here, or they are responsible for upholding our liberties on their privately owned platform.

    This is an obvious case of liberties that are competing with each other. On one hand we have freedom of speech, but in this case our property rights would be violated if we made youtube not able to choose which videos it can take down. In my opinion, not only would Google's property rights be violated if they couldn't choose their own content, their freedom of speech would be as well, because they wouldn't be able to express what content they think is not good enough for their public to view. The truth is, some people on the right have called for laws that make it harder or impossible for YouTube to choose the content on their site. I find that to be a misguided cause. How popular YouTube is, and the number of users is of no value, their freedom is all of our freedom, and I don't want to be forced by law to have to consider alex jones a respectable human being deserving of a respectable full life. I really think it would be best if he drank a bullet. I would definitely argue against YouTube if they took that video down though!!!!


    PlaffelvohfenBrainSocks
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @piloteer Is it also OK for YouTube to deny service to blacks and gays based on their skin color and sexuality?
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @WinstonC

    Under federal anti-discrimination laws, businesses can refuse service to any person for any reason, unless the business is discriminating against a protected class.

    At the national level, protected classes include:

    • Race or color
    • National origin or citizenship status
    • Religion or creed
    • Sex
    • Age
    • Disability, pregnancy, or genetic information
    • Veteran status
    Socio-Political ideologies are not a protected class of citizens... Note that the "Sex" class refers to biological sex (male, female), not sexuality, that's why bakers can deny services based on sexual orientation, if they don't mind the social pressure on their business... 
    piloteerpistachiopantsBrainSocks
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen To be clear, I wasn't asking if it's legally OK. I'm asking why it's OK in this case to discriminate based on political ideology but not other factors.
    Zombieguy1987
  • @WinstonC

    Well, whether it's "ok" or not is entirely subjective in the case of socio-political ideology and thus it's irrelevant here, no? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen I don't understand what you mean? If it's OK to discriminate based on someone's politics then logically surely it's also OK to discriminate based on their religion?
  • WinstonC said:
    @Plaffelvohfen I don't understand what you mean? If it's OK to discriminate based on someone's politics then logically surely it's also OK to discriminate based on their religion?
    Well, I would tend to agree with you... I do discriminate based on religious beliefs without any shame or restraint... Not between a religion over another one mind you, they are all the same to me and I do think it should be also legal (for private citizens, not the gvt) to discriminate based on religious faith since these, like socio-political ideologies are just that, ideas... And from the list above, it's one that you actually choose and can change at any time... You cannot change your color, race, age, sex (*technically you can but it's beside the point), etc...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen If the standard is things you can change I'm not really sure that you can completely change your beliefs. For example, if you personally really wanted to believe in God I don't think you could force yourself to. Now, I'm sure there's information out there that can change individuals' political beliefs but they still aren't the ones choosing to believe what they believe. Studies actually suggest that our political leaning comes largely from our biology (1,2) and personality (3).

    Sources:
    (1) https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/opinion/45_Hatemi_BehaviorGenetics.pdf
    (2) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-00128-4_11#page-1
    (3) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609111312.htm




  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    edited July 9
    double post
  • @WinstonC

    Those studies "suggests", nothing more... They do not demonstrate anything so far, so meh...  And we do have plenty, and I mean a lot, of evidence that people move from one religion to another or from a political party/ideology to another so there is that...

    Now, that said, I don't actually know if that is actually the rationale behind the standard in the US in this regard, but it's probably the most objective one we can come up with (things you cannot change) ... That's my personal opinion btw... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen "Those studies "suggests", nothing more.."

    Sadly we can only suggest with humanities research, as it is impossible to control all variables. I've seen quite a lot of studies on this topic, but I'm sure we can agree that personality is in part biologically determined, for example (1). Well, personality, which is largely influenced by biology, influences political leaning (2).

    "we do have plenty, and I mean a lot, of evidence that people move from one religion to another or from a political party/ideology to another so there is that."

    You're right, I'm not saying that it's entirely biologically determined, however the other determinants are environmental (entirely if you don't believe in free-will, or mostly if you do).

    "
    Now, that said, I don't actually know if that is actually the rationale behind the standard in the US in this regard but it's probably the most objective one we can come up with (things you cannot change)"

    My estimation is that it came about due to political pressure due to historic discrimination against those groups. In line with this idea you don't see eye or hair color, for example, on the lists of protected characteristics. While redheads are often bullied in early life I doubt it hurts their employment prospects, for example.

    The main point I'm making is that if it's necessary to protect some people from unjust treatment by large corporations then it should be the case for everyone, not just some people. I don't believe that people can just change their beliefs at will, nor should they be forced to.

    Sources:
    (1) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1188235/
    (2) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609111312.htm



  • @WinstonC
    The main point I'm making is that if it's necessary to protect some people from unjust treatment by large corporations then it should be the case for everyone, not just some people. I don't believe that people can just change their beliefs at will, nor should they be forced to.
    I don't think it is... I think it's necessary to protect people from unjust treatment (based on things they didn't choose and cannot change) from anyone...  But if it is something you can choose and/or change (socio-political, religious ideas or anything else really) then I don't think it is necessary to protect people from being discriminating against, based on that... 

    You probably would have no problem discriminating against militant white supremacist, radical Stalinist or a cult that advocates forceful removal of everyone left eye because their god says so, right? I know I wouldn't, I regularly discriminate against JWs and others... I don't mean for people to change their beliefs, I'm just saying there are no valid reason to force me to serve them if I don't want (unless I'm a government employee, then I represent the state, not myself, huge difference...). 
    You're right, I'm not saying that it's entirely biologically determined, however the other determinants are environmental (entirely if you don't believe in free-will, or mostly if you do).
    Unfortunately, whether free-will actually exist or not is irrelevant, because all human systems of laws are based on its alleged existence... All human systems require free-will, regardless of whether it actually exist or not, it is assumed to be so by necessity... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen If the standard is things you can change I'm not really sure that you can completely change your beliefs. For example, if you personally really wanted to believe in God I don't think you could force yourself to. Now, I'm sure there's information out there that can change individuals' political beliefs but they still aren't the ones choosing to believe what they believe. Studies actually suggest that our political leaning comes largely from our biology (1,2) and personality (3).

    Sources:
    (1) https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/opinion/45_Hatemi_BehaviorGenetics.pdf
    (2) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-00128-4_11#page-1
    (3) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609111312.htm




  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen If the standard is things you can change I'm not really sure that you can completely change your beliefs. For example, if you personally really wanted to believe in God I don't think you could force yourself to. Now, I'm sure there's information out there that can change individuals' political beliefs but they still aren't the ones choosing to believe what they believe. Studies actually suggest that our political leaning comes largely from our biology (1,2) and personality (3).

    Sources:
    (1) https://static01.nyt.com/packages/pdf/opinion/45_Hatemi_BehaviorGenetics.pdf
    (2) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-00128-4_11#page-1
    (3) https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100609111312.htm




  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    edited July 9
    WinstonC said:
    @piloteer Is it also OK for YouTube to deny service to blacks and gays based on their skin color and sexuality?
    "@WinstonC

    Yes!!! But they don't do that.
  • @WinstonC

    I agree that biology may predispose individuals to believe in certain ideas and assuredly the environment does, but that is still only a predisposition, we're still talking about probabilities whereas with skin color, age, place of birth and such, we're completely out of the realm of probability, we're talking about an impossibility, whether you'd want to or not you cannot change those things and it's on those immutable things that I think the standards against discrimination should rest...   

    And even if we were both to agree that there is no free will, that it's just an illusion, that there is no real choices and that consequently no one is responsible for their beliefs and actions, the inescapable fact remains that free will is an existential imperative to any legal framework and every legal systems on Earth assume it does, it is imposed on us by necessity and we must therefore (willingly or not) act accordingly and also assume it does...

    Arguing if that's correct/valid or not is irrelevant to anything but philosophy in my opinion, a fun activity to indulge in mind you... ;)

    But if we're talking about "rights" then the discussion is, by necessity, set in a legal framework... 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    edited July 9
    WinstonC said:
    @Plaffelvohfen I don't understand what you mean? If it's OK to discriminate based on someone's politics then logically surely it's also OK to discriminate based on their religion?
    "@WinstonC ;

    There are establishments that can and do deny service to anybody, for any reason. Stormfront, and several others were specifically made to cater to a specific demographic of our society, and they can ban someone if they feel they don't belong. It would be a strict violation of the constitution to stop them from doing that. But those sites are not nearly as popular as YouTube, so now some people believe YouTube is a public entity, even though it's not. Your only gripe is that youtube does ban users and videos, but it's very popular. Why is nobody calling on stormfront to be more inclusive? Because nobody cares about stormfront, everybody uses YouTube. It's an inconsistent argument from the start. 
    @Plaffelvohfen To be clear, I wasn't asking if it's legally OK. I'm asking why it's OK in this case to discriminate based on political ideology but not other factors.

    Your argument for the social ramifications of YouTube's actions don't work either. If youtube were to do something that is not okay with the bulk of society, they would know it, just like stormfront knows it. But it seems YouTube has not done anything that is socially unacceptable, because everybody still uses it. If they banned people because they were black or gay, they would end up with the same amount of users stormfront has. Your only real gripe is how popular YouTube is, but they're still privately owned.

    Plaffelvohfen
  • @piloteer

    Agreed, the right to free speech doesn't infer a right to an audience... There is no "right to popularity" so to speak...
    piloteer
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen

    Actually, the argument about social attitudes is also demonstrated by the actions of stormfront. Stormfront is a splinter site from an earlier site. The early version was shut down by the people who ran it (Don Black, and David Duke) After the earlier site was tied to a racially motivated shooting, David Duke said something to the effect of, "this site is full of wackos", then it was quickly shut down. Because the new forum on stormfront discourages racial slurs and outright bans posts that encourage violence or any illegal activity, its popularity has grown exponentially. The new form mostly has to do with David Dukes ideas of how to legitimize white pride, which he felt was to be dedicated to civil obedience, and dissuade violence, and (unfortunately)he was totally correct.

     Although it's hard to believe, the truth is most people in this country and around the world do not like violent rhetoric. It's exactly that type of rhetoric that youtube is now targeting and banning. The truth is, stormfront did it long before YouTube did. I absolutely believe that youtube understands how many users it will lose because of its new policies (not many). I also absolutely believe YouTube realizes that they would have lost even more users if they didn't give in to pressure from its users to ban hate speech, conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers, and the like. If they felt they would have lost more users than they kept, they would not have enacted those new policies. They did it for popularity, just like stormfront did.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2030 Pts
    @piloteer

    Well, you are not saying anything I disagree with. As I made it clear, I am against any legislation that would limit Google's freedom to choose what to censor, but I am also against the way Google is choosing to practice this freedom as of now.

    Not every legal decision is a good decision. There are many things you can do legally that can in the long run damage the society tremendously, and that is a part of living in a free society: we have to accept this downside in favor of the upsides freedom provides.

    I do not think Alex Jones should be censored by the government, but I cannot stand the guy still. Same here.
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    @piloteer

    In my opinion, if YouTube went away, it goes away, regardless of who uses it?

    And if it were to go away, another website, similar to it, would take its place, sooner or later?

    Reason being, some of humanity in general, has created, an apparent bedfellow with technology?

    Along with, some of the other bedfellows, that humanity, has maybe, in a sense, gotten mindfully cozy, and comfortable with?

    Some probable examples? 

    Religion, the anti religious, and the religious?

    Hate speech?

    The use of the "Race" card, by some individuals?

    The pro illegal immigrant, or alien mindset oriented individuals?

    Gun violence?

    The stories on race on race crimes, and the non race on race crimes?

    Illegal drug use,
    (There are videos on YouTube, where a parent, or parents, are smoking recreational marijuana with their kids, to help, I guess maybe, in a sense, to use YouTube, to help in a way, to help sell their probable message, to the rest of the public, that recreational marijuana use, is OK, I guess, around their own kids?)

    And then laughing, at each other, as they get high?

    And then the other marijuana user video, of the lady, coaching a toddler, in how to smoke, a joint? 

    YouTube, in a sense, has become a sort, of, a platform device, for a plethora of individuals, to push their individual, ideological points of view? 

    Along with the memes, and the other ways, that some like to help, self highlight those same ideological points of view with? 

    And then, you could take the YouTube conversation, and say as well, that the internet, is being used as another, ideological points of view, platform device in itself?

    Two bedfellows, binded together, by an individuals, individual keyboard? 

  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    edited July 10
    @MayCaesar

    I agree with you accept for the social ramifications. Google has no legal responsibility to be an open forum, and it has even less of a social responsibility to be that. I one hundred percent  disagree with your argument that Google or anybody has a social responsibility at all. There is no objective social morality, therefore the law serves that purpose in place of any objective morality. The law is the only responsibility anybody in the US has to follow. Social "responsibilities" are a subjective tool for the privileged to keep their socioeconomic status. Those who abide, are no less a slave. The law is our objective morality!!!!!
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdharta
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    Plaffelvohfen "that is still only a predisposition, we're still talking about probabilities whereas with skin color, age, place of birth and such, we're completely out of the realm of probability, we're talking about an impossibility"

    If someone told you to either believe in God or die, you might pretend to but I don't see how you could force yourself to believe it.

    "
    even if we were both to agree that there is no free will... the inescapable fact remains that free will is an existential imperative to any legal framework"

    I completely agree that it is essential to pretend free will exists in legal contexts, though at the same time free will is always bounded by environmental and biological determinants. In other words, while you may choose between the options available to you, all options are not available at all times. I'm not capable of choosing to believe in Jehovah or Allah, though prolonged brainwashing could potentially make me believe.
  • @WinstonC
    If someone told you to either believe in God or die, you might pretend to but I don't see how you could force yourself to believe it.

    We already agreed on that... And how does this matter to the discussion anyway? With "IFs" we could put the sun in a plastic bottle so I don't see what this brings to the discussion...

    What is the point you're trying to make? 

    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @piloteer "There are establishments that can and do deny service to anybody, for any reason."

    It's illegal to do it based on protected characteristics.

    "those sites are not nearly as popular as YouTube, so now some people believe YouTube is a public entity"

    If we accept that social media is powerful enough to alter the course of elections (which was a popular narrative regarding Trump and fake news) then is it not a integral part of our democracy? Moreover, we actually have antitrust laws to prevent the creation of monopolies and the abuse of the power monopoly enables. YouTube is at this point monopolistic in that it's the only way to share self-created video to a wide audience.

    "Why is nobody calling on stormfront to be more inclusive?"

    It's not an important part of our democratic process. Besides, YouTube claims to be a neutral platform which is why it is afforded legal protections that a publisher is not.

    "If youtube were to do something that is not okay with the bulk of society, they would know it"

    If you spend any time listening to people on the right, who are a substantial proportion of society, you'll find that they are not OK with this.

    "But it seems YouTube has not done anything that is socially unacceptable, because everybody still uses it."

    I watch a lot of people on BitChute instead because many of their videos (or whole channel) was removed from YouTube. Also, YouTube seem to be encountering some issues since the crackdown began (1), but to be fair there are also other factors at play.

    "Your only real gripe is how popular YouTube is, but they're still privately owned."

    My gripe is that they have no real competition. You can upload to BitChute but you won't get any exposure to the general public.

    Sources:
    (1) https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/05/01/alphabet-inc-blames-youtube-for-70-billion-market-cap-loss/






  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @Plaffelvohfen I was just making the point that you can't simply force yourself to change your beliefs (e.g. if you're right wing). Apologies for repeating myself and thanks for a thought provoking exchange.
    Plaffelvohfenpiloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    edited July 11
    @WinstonC

    In all fairness, I just gave this debate a purposely infuriating title as a shameless clickbait tactic, YouTube is not actually banning users based on their political affiliation. They're just targeting hate speech, violent content or rhetoric, holocaust denial, toxic conspiracy theorists (claiming school shootings are staged), and medical misinformation. Not for nothing, I think a lot of people on the right might be a little ruffled that people are arguing that those are the kind of things that the right stands for. I actually believe that the VAST majority of the right do not stand for those ideals. I also believe that those who are actually "not OK" with YouTube's policy are a very small minority of the right. I also believe that there is a small minority on the left who are not OK with YouTube's policy. It's not a policy that is actually targeting the right though. Those who are arguing that youtube is targeting the right are arguing that the right stands for hate speech, violent rhetoric, holocaust denial, toxic conspiracy theories, and medical misinformation, and perhaps they should stop and think about what they're arguing, because it may backfire and irck a lot of conservatives who don't want to be associated with those things.

    I watched several videos last night with William F Buckley in them. Those videos are still there. He was the leading figure in the neo-conservative movement and even Ronald Reagan himself said it was Buckleys work that paved the way to his presidency. I'm sure you can find any Bill O'Reilly video you would like. Pat Buchanan videos can be found there, and he describes himself as a paleoconservative just like Alex Jones does. Videos of him haven't been removed from YouTube. Earlier I pointed out that stormfront actually discourages racial slurs and outright bans violent or illegal rhetoric on their site and its become more popular since they've done so. It's obviously in YouTube's best interest to take down offensive videos that may cause them to lose users. As far as YouTube getting special privileges that publishers don't get is simply because YouTube is not a publishing company. YouTube does have a lot of competition like vimeo and dailymotion for instance, so they aren't what can be considered a proper monopoly. A proper monopoly is a company that's so large that they are able to sell their products so cheap that they actually lose money, but they have the wealth to be able to absorb those losses longer than any smaller competitors (the most effective antitrust law is the law that makes it illegal to sell a product for cheaper than what it costs to make the product. There's where the bulk of the antitrust act is). YouTube doesn't sell a product, it's free to use, and other sites are not barred from using a similar, or even the same format that youtube uses. 

    Your argument that social media is powerful enough to alter the course of elections is basically an argument that social attitudes influence social attitudes. I guess I can't refute that, that is the very process of what drives politics, but to be able to express your political views freely, you need to use a public forum. A privately owned social media site is not, and never has been a reliable forum for total freedom of expression. Another point to be made here is, you haven't demonstrated how or why social media websites alter the course of an election, or whether they actually can. Surprisingly, many in the national defense sector will point out that Russian meddling in elections is not at all effective. It's been pointed out that Russian misinformation tactics only have gone the way the Russians had hoped it would half of the time. They've said that with a track record like that, it can easily be argued that it has no effect at all. The same argument can apply to social medias influence on public opinions or its effect on elections. It may not be a factor whatsoever!!! I saw someone on this very thread argue that "You can't simply force yourself to change your beliefs". But curiously that same person is arguing that social media can simply force [people] to change [their] beliefs?!?! And since when did YouTube become an important part of our democratic process? 

    WinstonC, it's a pleasure having thought provoking and civil discussions with you, I hope you stay for awhile. Welcome to DI :)
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    @piloteer

    @Plaffelvohfen

    In my opinion, if YouTube went away, it goes away, regardless of who uses it?

    And if it were to go away, another website, similar to it, would take its place, sooner or later?

    Reason being, some of humanity in general, has created, an apparent bedfellow with technology?

    Along with, some of the other bedfellows, that humanity, has maybe, in a sense, gotten mindfully cozy, and comfortable with?

    Some probable examples? 

    Religion, the anti religious, and the religious?

    Hate speech?

    The use of the "Race" card, by some individuals?

    The pro illegal immigrant, or alien mindset oriented individuals?

    Gun violence?

    The stories on race on race crimes, and the non race on race crimes?

    Illegal drug use, 
    (There are videos on YouTube, where a parent, or parents, are smoking recreational marijuana with their kids, to help, I guess maybe, in a sense, to use YouTube, to help in a way, to help sell their probable message, to the rest of the public, that recreational marijuana use, is OK, I guess, around their own kids?)

    And then laughing, at each other, as they get high?

    And then the other marijuana user video, of the lady, coaching a toddler, in how to smoke, a joint? 

    YouTube, in a sense, has become a sort, of, a platform device, for a plethora of individuals, to push their individual, ideological points of view? 

    Along with the memes, and the other ways, that some like to help, self highlight those same ideological points of view with? 

    And then, you could take the YouTube conversation, and say as well, that the internet, is being used as another, ideological points of view, platform device in itself? 

    Two bedfellows, binded together, by an individuals, individual keyboard? 
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2030 Pts
    @piloteer

    The concept of "social responsibility" is something I strongly oppose, and obviously Google does not have it either. For that matter, from Google's perspective, Google is right to do whatever it can to promote its own interests, however crony the methods are - as long as it can get away with them.

    At the same time, certain actions can have strong negative consequences on the society. Censorship culture is one of them, even if it does not originate in the government. As such, while I acknowledge Google's right to censor whatever it wants, I believe that people would do well to oppose such practices by voting with their wallets and giving Google negative publicity. It is the same situation as the infamous baker's cake story: the baker should have the full right to refuse to bake a cake with a special pro-LGBT message for a gay couple, but we should give that baker negative publicity to discourage such behaviors in the future.

    I am going to use Youtube no matter what censorship practices it employs. I dislike it, for example, that it prohibits uploading of materials containing explicit violence or sexual content, but I am not going to abstain from using such an amazing service just because of that. At the same time, I will speak my mind about this issue, and should Youtube have a serious competitor in the future, I very well may consider switching to that.
    piloteer
  • piloteerpiloteer 486 Pts
    edited July 11
    @MayCaesar

    Vimeo, dailymotion, Metacafe, veoh, twitch, crackle, LiveLeak, and 9gag are all ones you may want to try, and I'll bet some of them will be more lax with their rules. The more popular these sites become, the more content will be shared there. Then we'll get to have this same discussion about one of those sites. That's the pattern.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @piloteer "YouTube is not actually banning users based on their political affiliation."

    Perhaps not yet (though I hear it happens to smaller channels), they are removing lots of videos that lean right, however. To give a recent example, I happened to notice a video debunking a claim by "The Guardian" that "preventing health tourism is racist" was removed. Now, I watched this video in it's entirety and could find no reason that the video in question violated terms of service. This is but one example among many.

    "They're just targeting hate speech"

    What, precisely, is hate speech?

    "toxic conspiracy theorists (claiming school shootings are staged)"

    Why should one not be free to question if an event happened the way mainstream media reported it did? This rule actually applies to all conspiracy theories involving violent events. Did you know that allegations against Jimmy Saville and Jeffrey Epstein (incredibly rich and powerful paedophiles) were being discussed online before any legal proceedings? Back then these allegations were considered conspiracy theories.

    "I also believe that those who are actually "not OK" with YouTube's policy are a very small minority of the right."

    Do you watch any right wing media?

    "Those who are arguing that YouTube is targeting the right are arguing that the right stands for hate speech..."

    Some people define hate speech as wanting to decrease immigration, or criticism of Islam.

    "...violent rhetoric"

    Search "punch a nazi", for example, on YouTube. Or perhaps something regarding "milkshaking". There is a double standard being applied.

    "...medical misinformation"

    Correctly defining misinformation is going to be really difficult if not impossible, moreover who can we trust to define what is true? We're currently taught in school that we should mostly eat carbohydrates, however any dietician (someone who actually studied diet) will tell you this is flat out wrong. Preventing "misinformation" means slowing, or altogether preventing Kuhnian paradigm shifts which slows innovation and progress in general. Finally, there are legal limits on what claims can be made in regards to medicine, under fraud.

    "I watched several videos last night with William F Buckley in them..."

    First of all, you will not know which videos have been removed unless you check the other sites the person uses. Steven Crowder, for example, has had a lot of his videos removed and he's just a mainstream conservative like those you have named. Crowder even made a playlist of videos removed from YouTube on his BlazeTv account as there have been so many.

    "It's obviously in YouTube's best interest to take down offensive videos that may cause them to lose users."

    To begin, everything is offensive to someone. Christians find atheist videos offensive, for example. Moreover, if a video is offensive to you then you don't have to watch it. In this case, the rule seems to be being enforced by those who view what is offensive through a left wing lens. This makes sense given the proportion of Silicon Valley that leans left, and how dissenting opinions (e.g. James Damoore) are dealt with at Google.

    " As far as YouTube getting special privileges that publishers don't get is simply because YouTube is not a publishing company."

    They are treated legally as a neutral platform but are acting as a publisher because they are deciding, outside of their legal requirements, what they will and won't publish. This means that legally they should be accountable for everything uploaded to their site. As it stands they have all the benefits of being both a publisher and a platform.

    "YouTube does have a lot of competition like vimeo and dailymotion for instance, so they aren't what can be considered a proper monopoly."

    If you look at average views on these sites you find that they don't compete. Look, if you're a political YouTuber you want to reach a wide audience because you want your ideas to spread. The only place to do this is YouTube (though admittedly less so now that they are promoting mainstream media and demoting independent media).

    "(the most effective antitrust law is the law that makes it illegal to sell a product for cheaper than what it costs to make the product. There's where the bulk of the antitrust act is)."

    That part of antitrust law is but a facet and is not relevant in this case. The main purpose of antitrust law is to prevent monopolies and therefore ultimately to prevent any abuses of power arising from monopoly. Preventing taking short term losses in order to price out competitors is but a part of preventing strong monopolies from forming. Antitrust law has many facets, such as preventing mergers and acquisitions that risk forming monopolies, breaking up corporations and companies that have formed monopolies, giving positive duties to monopolies and more (it's a rather large area of law).

    "I guess I can't refute that, that is the very process of what drives politics, but to be able to express your political views freely, you need to use a public forum. A privately owned social media site is not, and never has been a reliable forum for total freedom of expression."

    A neutral platform should be. Moreover, recently it was ruled that Trump could not block people because his Twitter constituted a public forum, or a "digital town hall". I don't see how, given that a massive portion of the political discourse is happening on YouTube, the same argument doesn't apply. Social media regulation logically follows from this ruling, because if you can't be blocked from replying to Trump's Twitter, you certainly can't be blocked from Twitter as a whole.

    "Another point to be made here is, you haven't demonstrated how or why social media websites alter the course of an election, or whether they actually can."

    Our entire democratic process is based on the idea that discussion of ideas can lead to attitude change. The very fact that we are discussing ideas is implicitly based on this. A massive portion of this political discussion is happening on YouTube.

    " I saw someone on this very thread argue that "You can't simply force yourself to change your beliefs". But curiously that same person is arguing that social media can simply force [people] to change [their] beliefs?!?!"

    You can't simply force yourself to change your beliefs, I'm sure we can agree. However your beliefs can change due to encountering new information that you had previously not considered. This is not the same as simply forcing oneself to change their beliefs through willpower, though of course one would need to also be willing to change their beliefs. I've never argued that social media forces people to change their beliefs, I'm arguing that listening to other perspectives influences people's beliefs. Once again, I noted that it was an interplay of biology and environment that influenced people's beliefs. Social media is part of the environment.

    "It's been pointed out that Russian misinformation tactics only have gone the way the Russians had hoped it would half of the time."

    I was putting that out there as a popular left wing narrative that bolstered my point. The fact that the misinformation tactics worked half the time would still be consistent with the idea of social media as an influence on our democracy.

    "The same argument can apply to social medias influence on public opinions or its effect on elections. It may not be a factor whatsoever!"

    I've had my opinions changed by YouTube videos which caused me to do my own reading.

    "And since when did YouTube become an important part of our democratic process?"

    Since the majority of political discussion moved out of town halls and into the online sphere.

    "WinstonC, it's a pleasure having thought provoking and civil discussions with you, I hope you stay for awhile. Welcome to DI :)"

    Thanks Piloteer, the feeling is mutual.
  • As long as they are clearly expressing in their guidelines what isn't allowed, as long as you agreed to those guidelines in order to use youtube, they have a right to do what they want with your videos.

    I see a lot of things as listed here.... https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guidelines  ....which might be more common to do coming from people from the right. Certainly some left-wing people do some of those things, and I've seen plenty of left-wing channels on youtube with demonetization and other "censorship" happening to them. I know Secular Talk, The David Pakman show, among others have complained about this. Now, with recent news, it seems that Youtube is in general promoting mainstream media primarily. It doesn't matter whether you're left or right, if you're not mainstream, they've put in algorithms which seem to block your channel from appearing in recommended feeds. Both Kyle Kuzinski and David Pakman have complained about this, as will be shown in videos 1 and 2 I have listed below.

    So, it's not just an issue of people on the right being censored, but really anyone who isn't mainstream. If you're independent, you'll have likely have seen decline in views, income, being recommended, etc.

    As far as I'm aware, they haven't made it clear that being mainstream is a criteria they stated they would favor. So for them to do it suddenly and cause significant monetary loss to people who were making much more prior to them doing this, I would say ought to have legal grounds against them. There's clear monetary damage, and I don't think they even warned ahead of time this was their plan and there was no way any reasonable person could have predicted this.

    That said, they have made it clear what their stances are on hate speech and other topics, at least from what I can tell from the above link I shared. So if someone has videos demonetized and there is vulgar langauge in it, topics that can emotionally harm others, that seems to be explicitly written as not allowed, so I would say they are well within their rights to censor such material by demonetization or otherwise(even more vulgar left-wingers like Kulinski also were being censored long ago and continue to be). But the recent issues of who is being recommended... this definitely seems like overstepping their power and is causing real monetary harm over conditions no one agreed to.

    Video Examples of left-wing channels being targeted too:
    1)
    2)


    piloteerPlaffelvohfen
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @GeoLibCogScientist "the recent issues of who is being recommended... this definitely seems like overstepping their power and is causing real monetary harm over conditions no one agreed to."

    Why can't they do this as a private company? There probably is something in their terms and conditions about their right to promote, or not promote content.

    Note that I don't agree with them doing this, primarily for antitrust reasons, it just seems that your first paragraph contradicts what you say here.
  • WinstonC said:
    ...it just seems that your first paragraph contradicts what you say here.
    It seems that way if they wrote they can do specifically something like what they did in this situation. I'm not aware of any wording that indicates they can do what they did here, but certainly if that is in there somewhere, then those other paragraphs I said would be incorrect.

    I linked to their guidelines, and I didn't find anything, in particular, indicating they can do anything similar to what is happening in recent news. I could, of course, have missed something. You could check for yourself as well.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • WinstonCWinstonC 115 Pts
    @GeoLibCogScientist It's possible that you're right, it's a very long ToS when you consider all the supplemental pages (policies, guidelines etc.). The thing is they've been promoting/demoting and curating content for years now (partly via the algorithm, partly due to paid promotion) so I'd expect that it's somewhere in there. If not though, if they add a couple of lines in there saying they can promote or demote content would you be OK with that?
  • WinstonC said:
    @GeoLibCogScientist It's possible that you're right, it's a very long ToS when you consider all the supplemental pages (policies, guidelines etc.). The thing is they've been promoting/demoting and curating content for years now (partly via the algorithm, partly due to paid promotion) so I'd expect that it's somewhere in there. If not though, if they add a couple of lines in there saying they can promote or demote content would you be OK with that?
    I would be okay in that I would say Youtube did nothing legally wrong or morally wrong, but I'd still oppose it on other, lesser grounds, so I'd likely take personal, voluntary actions against them: such as boycotting, encouraging others to do so, etc.

    But yeah, my position would be different in that I wouldn't think there is any case for a legal argument against them. 
    WinstonC대왕광개토
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • @piloteer Google should not silence any opinion even if it seems wrong or immoral. First of all, if Google is allowed to silence any opinion they find disturbing, the whole platform will start to become seriously biased and anyone who has contrary opinion that could be true will be disregarded as immoral. Under such kind of condition, people will not be able to find valuable truth that could have been discovered if Google didn't have power to silence anyone.Secondly, complete liberty of disproving and contradicting any opinion is the condition which justifies people in assuming their opinions' truth, because otherwise people will consider themselves as infallible and as history shows those who were considered to be good turned out to be bad. Finally, Google can deal with fake information simply by showing any evidence that contradicts fake information.
  • @대왕광개토

    Google has no legal obligation to do any of those things. It would be an infringement of their rights to not let them be biased. Stormfront, the Washington post and CNN are not forced to be unbiased, so neither should google be. If YouTube is the only outlet for "valuable truth" then the problem is with society, not Google.     
  • VaulkVaulk 656 Pts
    edited August 19
    @piloteer

    The issue here isn't that a private company can't do what they want...I'm all for that. This is an issue of when a private company accepts government subsidies...it takes on additional responsibilities regarding public freedoms.

    Take the Church for example.  A private Church is free to preach about Homosexuals being excluded from Heaven and that the practice itself is an abomination.  No one can argue that a private organization has the right to read aloud those passages from the Bible.

    However, when a Church submits the necessary forms and subsequently submits itself to the Government as a corporation, the Government is then free to regulate the corporation and to enforce anti-discrimination statutes upon it regardless of what book they read from.  The number of Churches being sued for this is incredible but the Churches submitted themselves to it.

    This is the issue with youtube.com.  If youtube was truly a privatized company then they would have carte blanche to regulate their site in any way they deemed fit and no one could tell them otherwise.  This however isn't the case.  Youtube is heavily incorporated through the U.S. Government and therefor has purposely and willfully subjected itself to anti-discriminatory statutes and regulations that make it (In some cases) illegal to censor people's opinion.  This is why the "Hate speech" laws have been under fire so heavily as of late, because if we create strict statutes on what qualifies as "Hate speech" THEN it doesn't matter if youtube has requirements to be fair...they can censor whoever they want and call it hate speech...no arguments.

    So the issue isn't one of opinion, it's about legal statutes.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • @piloteer Even if Google has legal right to silence the right, it should not do that because it can lead to biased media platform where any opinion contrary to mainstream opinions could be dismissed without any consideration. Such kind of situation is dangerous because in order to solve any problem, one should have as many perspectives as possible to combine portions of truth from each perspective. Back to the time in USA when slavery was considered not only okay but also imperative, those who supported the abolition of slavery were considered to be bad just like the right wingers nowadays. As you know, slavery turned out to be wrong and those(supporters of slavery) who considered themselves to be absolutely corrrect turned out to be wrong. People are not infallible: those who were considered absolutely correct in their time often turn out to be wrong( for example, scientists nowadays claim that one of Newton's theories is wrong.). Google is not free from not being infallible unless they prove thenselves to be infallible. The other reason why Google should not silence the right is that since Google can have huge influence on countless people all over the world, they should be careful and responsible for their actions.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch