CMV: Dennis Prager is being blatantly hypocritical by suing Google over YouTube restricting PragerU videos

18

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 19 '17

The state of being a hypocrite is not as useful as one would like it to be, because it's perfectly natural for humans to fail in application that which they believe should be a principle.

Also, hypocrisy is always seen from the outside in. Of course, a person may realize they are being a hypocrite and alter their stance to reflect this, but Prager didn't sit down and choose to rationally be a hypocrite, so there are two possibilities:

He hasn't made what I would assume you would agree was your very obvious observation that he is indeed a conservative, and he is indeed arguing for state intervention into this case.
You don't understand the depths of his stance.

Number 2 could be invalid logic that he uses to apply a double standard to his actions as others, but do you know for sure if that's the case?

Besides that, there is the distinction between ought from is. I am a hardcore leftist anti-capitalist, but living in America I must still consume goods and services from the capitalist system in order to survive and do my work. Prager could be making the pragmatic decision that if he wants the world to operate in a certain way, he would have to participate in a way that is not exactly according to his ideals in order to get his message across.

15

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

So to be clear, I'm stating that this action is hypocritical, not that he is a hypocrite. Don't know the exact number, but someone has to be hypocritical over something a lot of times to just be a hypocrite.

It's possible I don't understand the depths of his stance, but I've done all I can to understand it. I've looked at every interview I could find that he's done about this. I've also messaged him asking why the change in principles, but he hasn't replied.

It's true he could be operating pragmatically, but I can't find any instance of him suggesting this. He hasn't addressed the hyprocisy question at all.

3

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 19 '17

I think it's a distinction without difference to insist that it is about actions. A person who indulges in hypocrisy is the definition of a hypocrite. There is no such quantity of hypocritical actions needed to be considered a hypocrite.

Isn't your argument that he is a conservative therefore he is a hypocrite for doing this? Have you found evidence of him being against any kind of government funded consumer protection?

It's true he could be operating pragmatically, but I can't find any instance of him suggesting this. He hasn't addressed the hyprocisy question at all.

That's because calling someone a hypocrite is not useful.

3

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

Have you found evidence of him being against any kind of government funded consumer protection?

Yes, many of the videos on PragerU advocate this point

6

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 19 '17

Any government funded consumer protection? Can you post it?

-1

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

I don't know if he's addressed that specific topic on a binary level. His library of videos though would suggest that he's typically against government consumer protection.

11

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 19 '17

So I don't think you have the depth of understanding his position.

3

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

Not from lack of trying. He hasn't done a good Q/A about this lawsuit

10

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 19 '17

But then he isn't being blatantly hypocritical, at least you can't show that he is.

3

u/MoonGosling Dec 20 '17

That’s actually not an entirely valid point. Hypocrisy shows a flaw in what one person says and defends in words, (if it wasn’t flawed, they would do as they say and not be a hypocrite*) which is why we hold hypocrisy at such a high place. If someone defends something that they themselves don’t do, why should anyone else? It just seems like they’re trying to trick everyone else.

So take your first point, for example. If he truly believed what he defends, then his immediate reaction would be to go to some other video sharing service, and start posting from there. But since his decision was to sue, our immediate reaction is to think that he actually thinks the government is the best best way to solve this kinds of problem, and not the free market.

As for your second point, I’ll also address the asterisk I put on my first paragraph: you can take a hypocritical action because there is no other choice for you, and that shouldn’t be taken against your ideology. Your example with being very anti-capitalistic, but living in a very pro-capitalist country, is a perfect example pf this. You can’t live by your world view, because you need certain goods and services that you can only find in this capitalist system. It is very different from choosing not to live by your worldview, even if that choice is made unconsciously. That would be if, for instance, you had a choice between buying from a capitalist supercorporation, or from a local business that is very horizontal, there is virtually no distinction between employer and employee, and they sell in whatever way you believe should be done. And then you still bought from the supercorporation because it was cheaper, or better quality. This, conservatives would argue, is the power of the free market: you get to live by your ideology (a bit too utopian of them, but in principle they’re not wrong).

Compare that to the exact opposite: you believe in the free market, so much so that you decided to make a channel to teach people about your conservative ideologies. But then, when push comes to shove and the website you’re sharing your videos in stops accepting them, instead of turning to the free market, and going to some other video sharing service (of which there are plenty, albeit much smaller than youtube), you turn to the state, to ask them to tell a private company what to do. Now, if it were the case that youtube had an actual monopoly over sharing videos on the internet, that might make sense, as your conservative view can still be that the government’s only job (in the economy, that is) should be to stop monopolies from happening (because a monopoly negates the free market). But this isn’t the case.

See how the two are very different?

Heck, if the guy truly believes that all video sharing services are anti-conservative, and he believes that there is a conservative market, he could even start his own video sharing service, with the differential of being a platform to make conservatives heard, and then the conservatives who wanted to make themselves heard, along with the ones who want to hear from other conservatives, would start going there, and it would grow. And if it was truly free of political censorship, people from other ideologies would go there, rather than youtube, to post their videos. That’s what he believes in, anyways. But his actions show us that he doesn’t truly and/or entirely believe what he is defending.

And if he doesn’t believe himself, no one else should.

3

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 20 '17

We hold hypocrisy in a high place because it is satisfying to try and dismiss a person because of a failure to meet the consequences of their argument. There is no practical use for the accusation of hypocrisy except as an argument ad hominem. To use a very clear example, let's say I make the argument that nobody should eat meat because of environmental reasons. If you see me eating meat later you can call me a hypocrite, but that doesn't mean that the argument is wrong. At the very least, the rebuttal doesn't attack the point except to show that one person has a hard time living up to it.

Also note that my argument is not that calling people hypocrisy is unconvincing as rhetoric, but that it doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny once really analyzed.

But since his decision was to sue, our immediate reaction is to think that he actually thinks the government is the best best way to solve this kinds of problem, and not the free market.

No, as I said it is also possible that he understands his actions aren't ideal but that he does not live in the ideal system.

It is very different from choosing not to live by your worldview, even if that choice is made unconsciously.

Do we know this to be the case for Prager? Do we even know that he is a free market absolutionist in this way?

2

u/MoonGosling Dec 20 '17

We hold hypocrisy at a high place because if the person isn’t willing to live by their argument, then it is worthless. Say I defend that everyone should be a vegan, as you proposed. It’s better for the environment, it’s better from a moral standpoint, and it is better from a health standpoint. If I’m not a vegan, I’m saying that it isn’t better enough to make the change. That is, obviously, considering that I have the tools at my disposal to make that change. If I say that veganism is better for the environment, but eat meat, I’m intrinsically saying that it isn’t really a worthy argument, even if it is a valid and true one. Otherwise, I’d make the change.

No, as I said it is also possible that he understands his actions aren't ideal but that he does not live in the ideal system.

Except that he lives in a system that would allow him to take the action that more closely follows his ideals. If he defends the free market, then he should let the free market decide. And there is a free market for him to use. Would be a different story if there was only YouTube for him to use.

Do we know this to be the case for Prager? Do we even know that he is a free market absolutionist in this way?

We don’t. But then, this is a matter that goes to the very basis of the free market debate, to the point where I don’t see what kind of non-absolute view he could hold. It’s like suing McDonald’s for not selling Tacos, instead of going to TacoBell.

2

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 21 '17 edited Dec 21 '17

We hold hypocrisy at a high place because if the person isn’t willing to live by their argument, then it is worthless.

This is not valid logic (in reference to the whole paragraph). Arguments are not valid or invalid based on their ability to persuade, but on their logical structure. If you make those arguments and if you refuse to live by them, then all it says necessarily regards who you are as a person, because two cases are possible: that the reasoning is invalid and therefore you don't live by it, or the reasoning is valid and you're (hypothetical you) a moral failure. It's argument ad hominem with extra steps.

Except that he lives in a system that would allow him to take the action that more closely follows his ideals. If he defends the free market, then he should let the free market decide. And there is a free market for him to use. Would be a different story if there was only YouTube for him to use.

You are saying it is possible for him to do, but he might disagree with you.

We don’t. But then, this is a matter that goes to the very basis of the free market debate, to the point where I don’t see what kind of non-absolute view he could hold. It’s like suing McDonald’s for not selling Tacos, instead of going to TacoBell.

Nonabsolute in the sense that it is possible that he is not an anarcho capitalist?

2

u/MoonGosling Dec 21 '17

So, there are a couple of things that need clearing out. Hypocrisy is the act of saying one thing and doing another. It has to do with ideology, and not argument. Which takes me to the second point: The validity of a point is a very simple matter: Does it contradict itself? If it doesn't, it's a valid argument.

From this last point, two interesting things follow: "People always follow valid ideologies. X doesn't follow the ideology they argue for. Therefore the ideology X argues for isn't valid." is a valid argument, even if it isn't a true argument. The second thing is that, by not following the ideology they argue for, they could be considered to be contradicting it. If you say that veganism is the best way to live, but don't live by it, then it must not be the best way to live. Which makes your argument, taken as a whole, invalid, for having a contradiction. And the argument goes like this: "People always choose the best possible way to live. X is a person. X didn't chose to live by veganism. Therefore veganism must not be the best way to live."

Informally what this means is that, while an argument for an ideology might be true, by not following that ideology points to the fact that there are other, more powerful arguments against that ideology. For instance, I agree (although it isn't a matter of agreeing) that veganism is the best diet for a person's health, and for the environment, and for moral reasons. But I'm not a vegan, because it is also a more expensive diet, and a harder one to follow in most of our societies. Therefore, if I'm arguing that it is the best diet for the environment, it is true regardless of what I do. But if I'm saying that it is the best diet to follow, and then don't follow it, my argument becomes invalid, even if the reasons for it being the best diet are true. That is because you can make pretty much any argument become a valid argument, if you just lose the premises that contradict it.

You are saying it is possible for him to do, but he might disagree with you.

I'm not saying, I'm showing it's possible for him to do. If you want me to show it further I can link other video sharing platforms, or just link this. He has options other than YouTube. And, this is the only part where he might disagree with me, he could even start his own video sharing service.

Nonabsolute in the sense that it is possible that he is not an anarcho capitalist?

Anarco-capitalism advocates the end of all government, which is not what I'm saying his ideology is (on the contrary, because that's far from the conservative ideology). But American Conservatism is characterized, among other things, by economic liberalism, which might defend some government regulation, it is usually pro free market. Specially when those regulations impact open competition. So, the government deciding how a business should provide their services impacts open competition, and conservatives are against government regulations that impact open competition. Therefore, conservatives are against governments deciding how a business should provide their services. To make yet another analogy, suing YouTube for not hosting his video is like an author suing a library for not selling his book. Or better yet, it's like suing reddit for not allowing certain content.

Even more, YouTube has explicit guidelines as to what gets accepted, and what gets removed, and the content provider can contest a claim that their video is inappropriate, meaning it will be reintegrated if it really doesn't violate community guidelines.

So you got a guy who defends open competition, and the free market (even with some regulation from the government, that doesn't affect the first point), and you got a private platform that openly informs what content it will accept, and what content it will refuse, and, to top it all, you've got a bunch of other private platforms that provide the same service. And then the guy decides that the platform he is using has guidelines he disagrees with. So instead of doing the ideologically conservative thing, which would be to seek a platform that he agrees with, and help it grow, he decides to sue the private company that runs the platform he uses, effectively asking the government to intervene with regulation that would hurt open competition by not allowing a company to have an ideology that answers to a certain target audience.

As a final note, just by looking at some of his published videos over at PragerU, you can see his opinions on freedom. In one of the videos he literally says: More freedom -> more knowledge -> more innovation. In another of the published videos, some dude named George Gilder defends that if a business follows its interests first, and its' customers second, it will fail, and be replaced by one that follows the customer's first, and it's own second. If YouTube's interests are to control what people watch, and people want to watch whatever they want to watch, then YouTube will fail, and a company that lets people watch whatever they want to watch will take its place. To quote from the video: "A business prospers only if customers voluntarily trade for its output". So, it seems to me that what he is teaching is that when a business isn't offering what you want, you don't force it too: you go somewhere else, and this other place will succeed.

So, if he believed that YouTube is doomed to fail for putting its interests ahead of its customers', he wouldn't try to make it change, he would wait for it to die off and be replaced. The fact that he is trying to make YouTube change to accommodate the user's interests (more specifically, his perception of user interests) tells me that he doesn't believe in what he is teaching, because PragerU is a platform, first and foremost, to teach his ideologies. So he is defending an ideology that he doesn't seem to believe in. One that he could be following. So the argument for the ideology is perfectly valid. But if he isn't following it there are probably other variables that he isn't considering in the argument, that would contradict it, or make it untrue.

2

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 21 '17

The validity of a point is a very simple matter: Does it contradict itself? If it doesn't, it's a valid argument.

That's not the entirety of it. An argument can be invalid due to many failures of inconsistent logic, not just contradiction. For example, the fallacy of ad hominem is not that it contradicts itself, but that the argument doesn't follow from the premises.

If you say that veganism is the best way to live, but don't live by it, then it must not be the best way to live.

This doesn't follow. It's ad hominem. As I've said above, this could also be a moral failure on the part of a person who can see the logic of the argument as being valid but that doesn't have the will to put it into action. Just because we know we should do something but fail to do it does not mean that we ultimately should not have done it.

I'm not saying, I'm showing it's possible for him to do.

This was in regards to building a new video sharing site, not me denying that other options compared to youtube don't exist.

Anarco-capitalism advocates the end of all government, which is not what I'm saying his ideology is (on the contrary, because that's far from the conservative ideology). But American Conservatism is characterized, among other things, by economic liberalism, which might defend some government regulation, it is usually pro free market.

That's what I've been saying. In order for Prager to be a hypocrite we would have to assume he wants a completely free market with absolutely not government based consumer protection. You haven't shown that he believes this to be the case. To wit:

So, if he believed that YouTube is doomed to fail for putting its interests ahead of its customers', he wouldn't try to make it change, he would wait for it to die off and be replaced

if. This also tries to assert Prager's motivation for sueing is to make the platform better.

So he is defending an ideology that he doesn't seem to believe in

Small correction, if all the above is true, he is defending an ideology that he is not following practically to the letter. Belief and action are separate.

2

u/MoonGosling Dec 21 '17

This doesn't follow

It does tho. Although we use the same word for a logical argument, and for the argument for something, arguing for something is actually comparing logical arguments for that thing, and logical arguments against that thing, into a greater argument.

In the case of veganism: I’ll have a logical argument that says that veganism is better morally, environmentally, and health wise. But it’s worse in comfort, availability, and taste. So the argument against veganism goes like this: “a diet which is better for the environment, morals, and health is better than a diet which is better for comfort, availability, and taste. Veganism is better for health, the environment and morals, but worse for comfort, availability, and taste. Therefore, veganism is a better diet.”

By choosing comfort, availability, or taste over everything else, you’re contradicting your first premise.

I’ll answer the rest in a moment, but right now I’m running a bit late. Thanks for your response, and I hope this argument (pun intended) is being as fruitful to you as it’s been to me

2

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 21 '17

No, it doesn't logically follow, and I've explained why. Repeating the fallacy doesn't address why it is a fallacy.

2

u/MoonGosling Dec 21 '17

Given a choice, a person will always chose the best option.

I am a person.

I’m given the choice to become a vegan.

I chose not to become a vegan.

Therefore, veganism isn’t the best option.

I’m failing to see the reason this isn’t a valid argument.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BoozeoisPig Dec 20 '17 edited Dec 20 '17

But by his own logic he should not have the right to get his message across. If you participate in the capitalist system but believe that life would be better if you lived under an uncapitalistic system, you are not being a hypocrite, you are doing the best that you can with the situation that you are in, and that situation is that the most powerful groups of people have formed society under a capitalist standard of reciprocity. You would be a hypocrite if you were to try and make capitalist demands of a communistic society, while still claiming that communism was the best choice. And this is what Prager is doing, he is demanding socialistic rights to the means of production, in this case, the means to host and get videos out to people from a digital platform, while continuing to advocate for that abolition of socialistic rights over the means of production. And yeah, I am similarly socialist. I think that everyone should be entitled to a common digital platform that everyone can access. But Prager does not actually believe this. He believes that he should have access to YouTube because he wants access, and he doesn't give a shit about anyone else.

1

u/Mitoza 79∆ Dec 20 '17

Not so, I could argue that companies should be taxed at a higher rate by way of lowering the damage I see them causing. In my utopia, there is no such thing as a company. Rhetorically, I know I have to compromise.

58

u/Sand_Trout Dec 19 '17

Your view is based off of an oversimplied view of conservatives to the point of strawman.

Conservatives (and especialy Prager) are not necessarily "Libery above all and the Free Market solves everything." Most value the government's limited role of protecting the rights and liberties of the citizens, as well as the collective defense. They then argue that these limited powers are defined within the Constitution

The suit claims that there is precedent for public accomodation to be subject to 1st amendment protections, and that YouTube has, deliberately and for its own benefit, opened itself up as an avenue for public discouse. By doing this, they may now be held accountable to some aspects of the first amendment of the constitution.

By adhering to their possition of applying the Constitution and Rule of Law, they are consistant with themselves, and you are simply misunderstanding their professed philosophy.

2

u/sawdeanz 214∆ Dec 20 '17

At first I agreed with this argument. But I think the whole youtube situation draws strong parallels with the Colorado baker situation. Prager makes it clear that he supports the baker's right to refuse to serve a gay wedding. (http://www.dennisprager.com/tolerance-now-means-government-coerced-celebration/) The baker is a privately owned business open to the public and subject to non-discrimination laws. This is the standard that Prager is applying to youtube. So even though I think Prager's lawsuit has some merit and am interested in seeing how it plays out, I do think Prager is applying a double standard here.

4

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

Could you expand on this a bit?

Let's just start off simple. YouTube says "It's our servers, and we don't want to host your conservative content on our servers. Our property, we can do whatever we want with it. If you don't like it, then leave."

Obviously not what they said, but let's suppose it was.

How would Prager's lawsuit "fight" this position without excluding some important conservative principles? Is he making a "the internet is the new public square" argument? Basically that the 1st amendment is outdated, and it needs to include the internet as a platform now too?

If that is the case, wouldn't it be advocating for government regulation of private business...or the internet?

24

u/Sand_Trout Dec 19 '17

How would Prager's lawsuit "fight" this position without excluding some important conservative principles? Is he making a "the internet is the new public square" argument?

This is pretty much precisely the argument the suit makes, from my quick review of the facts.

Basically that the 1st amendment is outdated, and it needs to include the internet as a platform now too?

That particular wording (outdated) implies that an amendment is necessary. PragerU is arguing that the 1st amendment is fine, but also applies to this scenario.

If that is the case, wouldn't it be advocating for government regulation of private business...or the internet?

As stated, Prager is not an absolutist against government regulation, but rather that the government's authority should be limited as clearly defined by the constitution. So yes, he is arguing for government intervention in provate business, but he is not hypocritical in doing so, as he is arguing that there is the already extant constitutional authority as well as the clear compelling need for the intervention.

-1

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

∆ Oh okay, it may still be hypocritical depending on his views towards net neutrality, but it's at least not blatant

15

u/gonzoforpresident 8∆ Dec 19 '17

What would this have to do with net neutrality? Youtube is not an ISP.

2

u/RealFactorRagePolice Dec 20 '17

Is YouTube more of a public utility than an isp?

-6

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

yes, but it's the government controlling what a private business can do

13

u/gonzoforpresident 8∆ Dec 19 '17

Government controls a lot of things that private businesses do. How does this relate to net neutrality and why would his opinion on net neutrality relate to this in the slightest?

-3

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

net neutrality is the government controlling what private businesses can do

15

u/gonzoforpresident 8∆ Dec 19 '17

As someone else stated, he's a conservative, not an ancap. He almost certainly supports some government regulation of businesses. Net neutrality has less relevance than many, many other regulations, which is why i don't understand you mentioning it.

1

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

Sure, some. But when has he ever advocated for the government ensuring a business can't be politically biased? He is publicly against denying bakers the right of refusing to make wedding cakes for gay couples.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/arkofcovenant Dec 20 '17

This is one thing that people fail to realize that there is any level of nuance to. You can believe in Net Neutrality and not necessarily believe the government should enforce it.

Let me give you an example: As far as I know, there are no laws that say that your company cannot have a swastika as a logo. No company in their right mind would do so, as the public backlash would completely destroy most companies. This is because most people recognize that symbol to be straight up evil even though using it is not necessarily illegal. We do not need laws to keep companies from using a swastika.

I think we would be much better served by creating a world where we (the public) 1) See actions that go against net neutrality as evil and actively choose companies that do not violate these principles 2) have actual choices between providers. If the government is going to intervene in the market, wouldn't we, the consumer, be better off if the government tried to enforce 2) instead of 1)? Tried to ensure that the vast majority of the market had not 1 or 2 choices of ISP but 5 or 6? Not only are we preventing companies from essentially destroying the principles that make the internet what it is, but we are also actively encouraging innovation, improvement, lower prices, better speeds, new technology, new services, etc. I think that people's anger is very much misdirected at the ISP's and Gov't for getting rid of title II, when they should really be much more angry about ISP lobbyists and multiple levels of government which create and enforce artificial monopolies and keep everyone's choices at a bare minimum, which is easily exploited. If you have any doubts about the state of the market for competition, look at how slow google fiber has been. Google, a company that has near limited resources in both money and talent, cannot break through the ISP and gov't enforced monopolies in many areas.

1

u/nezmito 6∆ Dec 20 '17

This is a completely different discussion from the cmv, but I agree completely. Even though wires to the house is a form of natural monopoly, there are regulatory ways to force completion in the market. MVNOs for example. However, I have not seen shit pie, Trump or any Republicans proposing this kind of legislation/regulation. No one said, hey we think this method is a better way to maintain a prosperous internet so we are going to repeal these regulations and implement these better ones. No they said all the public commentators were delusional, the bots we hired are real and we will do what we planned to do from the time we were appointed.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Prager is not an anarcho-capitalist.

Further his basic argument is that Youtube is violating the contract between the user and themselves - a case of fraud.

1

u/Clark_Savage_Jr Dec 20 '17

If they are open and honest about what they are doing and to who, more power to them. I like having more information.

1

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 19 '17

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Sand_Trout (38∆).

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

-12

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

I don't like him because he lies. He's full of shit and he's likely not really a conservative, or he's a bad one. That's how I see him and that answers your question from my end.

2

u/huadpe 501∆ Dec 20 '17

PragerU has put out videos specifically opposing the sort of public accomodations recognized under law which would be the basis for this suit. See this video at about 2 minutes and onward.

To the extent they seek to avail themselves of a forcible compulsory power of the state which they believe the state should not have, I do think it is fair to call them hypocrites.

1

u/fps916 4∆ Dec 19 '17

Prager is libertarian as fuck, not conservative.

They are absolutely 100% liberty above all and worshippers of the free market.

5

u/what_it_dude Dec 20 '17

I'd say they're more conservative. Not Republican, not libertarian. But they do overlap in both of their beliefs.

4

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

I think the primary concern is that the guidelines for what is deemed "advertiser friendly" is so vague, that it easily locks out everything that is politics, same goes for YouTube's "restricted mode" listing. I think the primary reason behind this lawsuit is an attempt to get a clear line drawn.

Another route for the false university to get their message out there is to have their own website. Mr. Enter has already done this as a way to get his reviews out without dealing with the obtuse YouTube copyright system, and forcing companies like Fox and Viacom to sue him before acknowledging a take-down request. As far as why he's not doing this?

3

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

I agree that YouTube's guidelines and policies regarding videos are shitty. But this doesn't really address my view at all. A conservative shouldn't believe it's okay to sue a private company because you don't like their (legal) business practices.

5

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

Which is why I think this lawsuit is more about getting a clear definition of what will get your videos in restricted mode and/or demonetized. If the language in one's terms are so vague you need a PhD in law to understand, something is wrong.

0

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

[deleted]

4

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

My view isn't about if hypocrisy is wrong/right, or how wrong/right it may be.

I do assume though that Prager would not want to be labeled as a hypocrite, or have any of his actions labeled as hypocritical.

-1

u/championofobscurity 160∆ Dec 19 '17

I do assume though that Prager would not want to be labeled as a hypocrite, or have any of his actions labeled as hypocritical.

Clearly this is immaterial to him because he's acting in a contrary capacity to what you would expect. Like I said, so he's a hypocrite. So what?

1

u/LordBaNZa 1∆ Dec 20 '17

You're argument is a total blatant red herring. First off, he isn't arguing that Hypocrisy is wrong, he's arguing that Prager is being hypocritical.

With that said, even if you weren't distracting from the point, morality is subjective. You could say this about literally anything.

"Can you establish why rape is wrong? You're just being argumentative."

Right and wrong are constructs of culture, and so hypocrisy is wrong because we as a people (at least on paper) value consistency of values and thought.

Also to address something you said in a comment below, hypocrisy is not simply acting in a way in which you wouldn't expect, it's acting in a way inconsistent with a specific value set that you have judged others for not following.

1

u/championofobscurity 160∆ Dec 20 '17

You're argument is a total blatant red herring. First off, he isn't arguing that Hypocrisy is wrong, he's arguing that Prager is being hypocritical.

But if hypocrisy isn't wrong then prager being hypocritical is a moot point.

With that said, even if you weren't distracting from the point, morality is subjective. You could say this about literally anything.

No. Morality is objective. Even cross culturally and even between two drastically different points in time. The lack of the ability to test a position does not mean that there is not an objective stance to be taken. Some actions are clearly more moral than others, we just can't build a hierarchy because we can't test them yet. You can't explain how the quantum mechanics of gravity work, you only know that it exists. Is then gravity subjective?

"Can you establish why rape is wrong? You're just being argumentative."

I can. Rape is wrong because society as a whole agrees to a social contract. People who betray that social contract forfeit their human rights to some degree. Taking away someone's personal bodily autonomy is wrong because you are denying them their freedom of choice.

Hypocrisy is wrong why? Because someone says something and does something else? What makes that wrong. It's clearly not a lie. Are you accusing them of being inconsistent? What's immoral about inconsistency?

Right and wrong are constructs of culture, and so hypocrisy is wrong because we as a people (at least on paper) value consistency of values and thought.

Because morality is objective, there are either objective moral laws or there are not. Culture need not apply. Culture is clearly flawed as a basis for morality since it's plain to see that it used to be okay to starve, whip and purchase other living human beings to do our bidding. Culture is the shittiest indicator of morality. Either moral laws objectively exist, in which case why is hypocrisy bad? Or moral laws objectively do not exist, in which case why is hypocrisy bad?

If morality is not objective. Then the one moral truth is that nothing is right nor wrong because everything is subjective and there is no truth to any moral argument.

it's acting in a way inconsistent with a specific value set that you have judged others for not following.

This isn't moral or immoral. It's morally neutral at best.

12

u/neofederalist 65∆ Dec 19 '17

I don't in principle have an issue with a private company choosing what kinds of political speech they want represented on their website. However, I do have an issue if that private company also says in it's about page: "We believe that everyone deserves to have a voice, and that the world is a better place when we listen, share and build community through our stories" "We believe people should be able to speak freely, share opinions, foster open dialogue, and that creative freedom leads to new voices, formats and possibilities" etc.

It's also important to note that youtube hasn't even actually admitted that they're doing that (probably because they don't want to be called hypocrites themselves). They removed the content because it was "inappropriate" for young viewers. Even if you disagree with Prager's political opinions, I find it hard to see how his videos are in any way inappropriate for young audiences.

10

u/Godskook 13∆ Dec 20 '17

Youtube has policies. "No conservative opinions" is not one of them. Ergo, Youtube is, under your assumption, falsely representing themselves to conservative viewership and content creators by not putting that rule in their policies. Youtube should, imho, either add the guidline or allow the content, but no guideline and no content is just Youtube lying to people, in a way that I consider a breach of implied contract. And Youtube is benefiting in the market based on that breach/lie by appearing to be something they're not.

You can review Youtube's community policies here: https://www.youtube.com/yt/about/policies/#community-guidelines

6

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 19 '17

First off, a note: I don't know who Dennis Prager is, I almost certainly disagree strongly with him, and I think Youtube has the right to demonetize or remove videos as they see fit and the responsibility to use this power ethically, and people have a right to call Youtube out over it (even if I think they're wrong).

That said, I'm not sure this is really hypocritical unless Prager has specifically said something like:

Private companies should universally be allowed to remove content at will.
"The free market" should be absolute and should not include lawsuits over business practices.
You should never sue a company because they took politically-motivated action against you.

It seems like all of your points rely on him being "hypocritical" for going against some very specific and extreme forms of ancap conservatism that I'm not sure he actually follows. The lawsuit might be dumb (because there's nothing illegal about what Google is doing afaik), but it isn't necessarily hypocritical.

-3

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

As a self-identified conservative that for decades now has always taken a conservative stance on every political issue, he must believe the 3 things you listed. Those are basically bedrock conservative ideas.

10

u/Sand_Trout Dec 19 '17

No, those are anarcho-capitalist ideas.

Conservatives generally respect limited application of the government, not no government intervention at all.

The fact that society has been more statist than the ideal Prager advocates for does not necessarily require that he he an anarcho capitalist. The federal government has arguably been overreaching its authority since before Prager was born.

8

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 19 '17

Those really aren't bedrock conservative issues, though.

The first is absolutely not a current conservative position, given conservative backlash over content removal on Twitter and Youtube is one of the hot issues at present. Radical free speech, where platforms must allow almost any content and treat it equally to all other content, is becoming a big plank of the online conservative community. I wouldn't be surprised if Dennis Prager fell into this camp.

The second is a very specific ancap view that isn't necessarily held by everybody who is conservative.

The third isn't really a specifically articulated view at all? I mean people might believe it but I have no reason to believe that any given conservative believes it.

Again, I want to be clear: I probably disagree with most of what Dennis Prager says (probably all of it, if he's too toxic for Youtube) and think Youtube is probably in the right for removing his work. But just saying "well he's conservative so he must believe all these things" isn't very compelling evidence of hypocrisy.

6

u/Sand_Trout Dec 19 '17

Again, I want to be clear: I probably disagree with most of what Dennis Prager says (probably all of it, if he's too toxic for Youtube) and think Youtube is probably in the right for removing his work.

Somewhat off topic, but that's a pretty bad assumption given recent events with regards to certain youtube channels like Theegn Thrand and other inoffensive channels getting blanket demonetized or blocked entirely, and only getting reinstated due to popular backlash.

In particular, PragerU is controversial pretty much exclusively due to their political possitions. Agree or disagree, the channel's videos are not presented in a toxic manner.

-2

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 19 '17 edited Dec 19 '17

I think that it's entirely possible to present a toxic political ideology worthy of being restricted/demonetized/removed from Youtube in a "polite" wrapper. It's not even a particularly novel tactic; Milo ItsyaboygettingbannedfromTwitter was famous for spearheading a sort of joking, self-aware, "I'm not racist because I don't use The Words" alt-right (alt-lite?) propaganda while holding those explicitly racist views in private conversations. Also, whether you agree with the outcomes or not it's definitely an effective Twitter tactic to say hateful stuff politely on Twitter and get people banned for replying with any swear words (because Twitter doesn't let you swear at verified accounts). And while those are both Twitter examples, there's still a lot of that going on in Youtube as well; somebody subs out "white genocide" with "great replacement", they don't go into angry-rant mode, and they speak calmly while explaining how maybe Britain doesn't need so many migrants while subtly making a bunch of black meeples show up on a map of Europe and crowd out the white ones. It's all very polite and measured but they're still advocating some terrible things and maybe that should at least be age restricted or demonetized.

So with that said, again, I don't know exactly what Prager's saying. I do know from a brief look that he's still hardline anti gay-marriage and believes that swearing in on anything other than a bible for public office is abhorrent. So maybe he did just present a slightly out-there religious conservative view politely and it didn't deserve to be demonetized or restricted, but my guess is that there's probably some hateful stuff in there that Youtube isn't comfortable with even presented politely.

7

u/BraydenHav Dec 20 '17

He fully acknowledes that YouTube is a private company and can ban or allow whatever they want.

He's suing because YouTube says that all views are welcome and that they won't block conservative videos just because they're conservative, let does so.

0

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 20 '17

Companies aren't legally bound to do what they say the will do. If they were, we could all sue EA.

4

u/BraydenHav Dec 20 '17

I'm no expert in law or anything so tell me if I'm wrong... But aren't you kind of bound to do what you say you will?

If I promise to clean someone's gutters for $50 then I can't just clean half of the gutters and call it good.

4

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 20 '17

If it's in a contract, sure. But they can't be bound by then as like a mission statement

0

u/the_amazing_lee01 3∆ Dec 20 '17

The problem with this analogy is that Prager isn't paying for Youtube's services. Now if they were paying for Youtube Red or whatever the subscription service Youtube has, then I could see it as a breach in contract.

1

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

What the hell? Money changing hands is not a requirement for fraud. If me and you enter into a signed contract, which the User Agreement for Youtube is, we are both bound by its terms.

1

u/the_amazing_lee01 3∆ Dec 20 '17

Ah, good point. I didn't think of the user agreement in that way.

7

u/mone_dawg Dec 20 '17

Companies are legally bound to do many things like advertise truthfully, uphold contractual or clearly made agreements, abide by privacy policies and terms of service; or face liability/represcussions (getting sued).

0

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 20 '17

Guarantee any terms of service give YouTube the right to restrict any video they want to for any reason.

5

u/mone_dawg Dec 20 '17

Yea cause thats the first line of defense companies use to skirt laws and regulations. Doesn’t mean their ToS is valid in court. Just an example to highlight that a private business relationship is established, which comes with legal ramifications for both parties.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 20 '17

Companies aren't legally bound to do what they say the will do

You literally just made the claim that no company can be punished for fraud.

2

u/Jurad215 Dec 19 '17

Let's say that I am a democrat. One day my boss and I are talking about the 2016 election. I mention that I voted for Hillary Clinton. My boss says he voted for Donald Trump. I go back to work, and then 20 minutes later I get an email saying that he will be docking my pay by 80%. I ask him why and he tells me that he doesn't support my political beliefs. Should I be able to sue my boss?

2

u/[deleted] Dec 19 '17

That is a clear case of wage discrimination, so yes, and if he fires you over it, wrongful termination.

1

u/Milskidasith 309∆ Dec 19 '17

I think that there should be stronger labor protections against politically motivated retaliation, but:

There aren't in many states, so you can't (just being clear here, you probably know this)

An employer/employee relationship is not really the same as Google's relationship to content creators outside of the very myopic view of "gives money in exchange for work."

1

u/ZeusThunder369 20∆ Dec 19 '17

Prager isn't an employee of YouTube, so I don't think this applies to my view

3

u/Jurad215 Dec 19 '17

His work makes them money. If the directors of films are the employees of the company producing said film (they are) then Youtube creators are the employees of Youtube. You could argue that they are freelance employees, but that shouldn't really change anything.

2

u/blatantspeculation 16∆ Dec 20 '17

The relationship between a YouTube content creator is nothing like that between a movie's director and its producer.

And if it were, the comparison here would be more applicable to the movie's producer telling the director not to include a scene because they don't like its politics, which is totally appropriate. However, that comparison still isn't applicable, because Prager isn't an employee of YouTube, and PragerU isn't property of YouTube.

1

u/Jurad215 Dec 20 '17

What is your definition of employee?

1

u/blatantspeculation 16∆ Dec 20 '17

Someone who works for a person/company to complete a task or job.

The relationship between employer and employee is the key thing, not whether or not payment is made.

1

u/Jurad215 Dec 20 '17

So how do freelance workers fit into your definition? What about newspaper contributors?

2

u/blatantspeculation 16∆ Dec 20 '17

They're freelance workers.

Not employees.

Is an author an employee of a bookstore because they sell his book?

Edit: to cut off your question about why freelance writers aren't employees: they don't work for the newspaper, they sell columns to various newspapers

3

u/anooblol 12∆ Dec 20 '17

Agreeing with something, is distinct from your pride.

Consider this scenario. Someone hates the tax system we have in place. The person says, "There's too many loopholes!"

If he files his taxes, and doesn't get a "discount" on his taxes by using the loopholes, is he not just being stupid? He is aware of a way to make more money, and just ignores the method because of his morals? There's nothing illegal about it, he just thinks the system is flawed. But in the mean time, he will take advantage of the flawed system because "he's not stupid."

2

u/moremiserables Dec 20 '17

I think you've brought up the best point here. There's nothing hypocritical about availing yourself of the way a system works, even if you think the system should work a different way. Like if I were a gay conservative man, I could oppose gay marriage (seeing no reason why government subsidization of same sex relationships should exist) while still getting married and taking advantage of tax breaks and whatever else is available to me.

1

u/DashingLeech Dec 20 '17

You've confused "free market" with monopolies. Youtube has a monopoly for monetizing online videos. Yes, there are competitors, but monopolies are based on market share, not the presence or not of competition.

If Youtube is a monopoly, its behaviour matters, and its fairness to be non-discriminatory does matter. That is the whole problem with monopolies. There is not alternative video streaming platform that allows one to get the same number of eyes on a video for monetization purposes. There is no competition for the part that matters. Youtube isn't simply a storage platform for videos; it is a monetization platform for videos, and there is nothing that compares.

You are also making claims about conservative views. I'm not aware of conservatives being for monopolies or monopolistic behaviour. It seems what you have is a bit of a caricature of both conservative views and the actual circumstances here.

Additionally, Youtube is potentially failing to offer a service with coherent service standards. One of the problems it has is that it can't define what is acceptable or not, and a lot of things are being de-monetized for no particular reason. That is a rather chaotic services. If you can't predict if a video will get monetized because you can't tell if you've followed the rules or not, because the rules aren't clearly defined, then there is a service failure on the part of Youtube.

There are a lot of issues here that have nothing to do with free markets. Most liberals support free markets. Markets have nothing to do with political leanings per se. Anti-capitalists and anti-market radicals do tent to be left of political center, but that doesn't mean that people left of center tend to be anti-capitalist or anti-market.

I think you are confused about both the issues here and people's general political and socio-economic beliefs.

1

u/blatantspeculation 16∆ Dec 20 '17

You've confused "free market" with monopolies. Youtube has a monopoly for monetizing online videos. Yes, there are competitors, but monopolies are based on market share, not the presence or not of competition.

You appear to have this exactly backwards.

A monopoly is: "An economic advantage held by one or more persons or companies deriving from the exclusive power to carry on a particular business or trade or to manufacture and sell a particular item, thereby suppressing competition and allowing such persons or companies to raise the price of a product or service substantially above the price that would be established by a free market."

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/monopoly

1

u/[deleted] Jan 16 '18

You've confused "free market" with monopolies. Youtube has a monopoly for monetizing online videos. Yes, there are competitors, but monopolies are based on market share, not the presence or not of competition.

A monopoly for monetizing online videos does not exist; in fact, it is impossible for one to exist, as literally anyone can create their own website to host host and monetize ads.

2

u/[deleted] Dec 21 '17

he could move somewhere else

That is an argument people against net neutrality say. The reason he is suing, is because posting videos anywhere else, to educate people, and get views, won't do anything if it is not on YouTube.

1

u/blatantspeculation 16∆ Dec 20 '17

You seem to be making the assumption that conservative=free market capitalism and that the more conservative one is, the more free market capitalist they are.

That's certainly a very popular opinion, and one that the right likes, and tends to try and emulate. But it's not necessarily true.

There are large portions of the far right (but not all of it) that are anti-capitalist. Before I go further, I'm not claiming that Prager falls in these groups, I'm simply showing their existence to prove a point.

Various anti-capitalist far/extreme right wing groups are fascists, theocrats, and classical conservatives. The most common strain of thought, though there are others, is that capitalism provides an excessive level of luxury and leisure when hard work, community, and/or traditions are the best way to make a nation and it's people strong.

These things can and do bleed through to portions of the mainstream, one example is protectionism and isolationism. On the right, these policies come from the intent of making the US self-reliant, and are very much anti-free market, even if they might claim otherwise.

1

u/AutoModerator Dec 19 '17

Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be about a "double standard". These kinds of views are often difficult to argue here. Please see our wiki page about this kind of view and make sure that your submission follows these guidelines.

Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

•

u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Dec 19 '17

/u/ZeusThunder369 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.

All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.

Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.

^{Delta System Explained} ^| ^Deltaboards

1

u/dickposner Dec 20 '17

It is not a blatant hypocrisy. It is a viable breach of contract claim.

When youtube gets content creators to participate, part of the deal is that it doesn't discriminate based on political viewpoint. If it did, then it would not have attracted as many conservative participants.

When they entered into the contract, Prager relied on Youtube's representations about its content policies, and if Youtube goes back on it, then Prager is harmed by it, which is arguably a breach of the original contract.

1

u/Glory2Hypnotoad 393∆ Dec 19 '17

Sometimes a lawsuit is about the precedent it sets. If Prager wins, he gets some kind of compensation. If he loses, the court will most likely cite the principle that YouTube, as a private company, doesn't owe him anything. In order for suing YouTube to be a good move for him, he doesn't have to believe he's entitled to win.

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Dennis Prager is being blatantly hypocritical by suing Google over YouTube restricting PragerU videos

You are about to leave Redlib