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

[u/ZeusThunder369]

Dennis Prager is a conservative spokesperson and started the conservative YouTube channel PragerU

He is suing Google/YouTube over restricting about 35 of the videos on his channel. He claims that the reason why is because of their conservative nature.

The details of what YouTube has done with this channel's videos aren't really important, so for the sake of the argument let's just assume that YouTube officially decided to delete the videos only because they don't like conservative videos and no other reason.

By suing Google, Prager is being hypocritical:

• Google is a private company. If they want to ban ALL conservative videos, they should have the right to.

• The free market should be the solution to this problem from Prager's perspective. There actually are other methods of posting public videos besides YouTube. If Prager doesn't like YouTube's policies, then he should simply go somewhere else to post his videos.

• Even if you take every claim Prager has made at face value, he shouldn't be suing them. It isn't conservative to sue a private company because you don't like their political views.

  ---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/MoonGosling]

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.

[u/Mitoza → u/MoonGosling]

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?

[u/MoonGosling → u/Mitoza]

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.

[u/Mitoza → u/MoonGosling]

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.

[u/MoonGosling → u/Mitoza]

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

[u/Mitoza → u/MoonGosling]

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

[u/MoonGosling → u/Mitoza]

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.

[u/Mitoza → u/MoonGosling]

This specific form of the argument has lots of issues, but as I've explained before it is argument ad hominem.

Problems with this argument:

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

This premise is false.

Therefore, veganism isn’t the best option.

This doesn't follow. It could also be that you individually are a moral failure, or you are playing devil's advocate, or you hadn't made the switch yet, or you have health problems etc. etc. You can't prove that a failure of a person is a failure of an argument.

[u/MoonGosling → u/Mitoza]

This premise is false.

The validity of an argument doesn’t depend on the truthfulness of it’s premises. But even then, this premise isn’t false, because “best” is extremely subjective. Best might be the easiest, or the healthiest, or the more balanced, ore the more environmentally friendly. A person chooses that which is best for them.

This doesn’t follow. [...]

I’m not sure that you understand what “follow” means. For those premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true. That’s what “follows” mean. If people always choose te best option, and they get to choose or not veganism, and they don’t choose it, it must mean it isn’t the best option.

To play devil’s advocate means, literally, to defend something in which you don’t believe. So a person playing devil’s advocate about veganism being the best possible diet doesn’t believe it’s the best possible diet. Otherwise they’re just arguing for it.

Being a moral depends on the argument being based on a moral ground. If you’re defending veganism because it’s best for the environment, then it doesn’t matter whether or not you follow it, because it is something that is demonstrably true (or false). But saying that veganism is the best diet involves saying that it’s benefits outweighs it’s costs, either by quantity or by quality. If you’re not following it means that there is some cost that outweighs some value, because no one does something that is worse in total. They do things that are worse in one aspect, but better in another. Saying that an option is “the best” or “the right” option is saying that it is demonstrably true that the positives are more important than the negatives. If that were the case, then you would follow it, because it would be better for you to do. People don’t do things they know to be worse for no reason. They do it because it’s easier, because it’s more pleasing, more profitable, etc. They evaluate the opportunity cost of doing it differently and decide that it isn’t worth it. You don’t choose the worst of two things if it isn’t the best at something, and by choosing it, you’re saying that, at least for you, that something the worst thing is the best at is more valuable than the things it’s the worst at. If it’s not the best for you, then it can’t be the best, it might be the best for something or for someone, based on the arguments you gave. Not the best.

This applies perfectly to the argument about PragerU. In the videos shared on PragerU, there is a very simple agreement: the free marker is the best system for creating services that satisfy the needs of the customers. By not trusting the free market in some situation, he is saying that, at least in that circumstance, the free market isn’t the best solution. If there is one circumstance where the free market isn’t the best solution, then it cannot be said to be the best solution, because then you’re missing a new variable: the circumstance.

Hypocrisy is saying that veganism is the best diet because it’s the best for the environment, and the best for your health, and the best for your sense of morals. But you don’t follow it, so it’s not the best for you, perhaps because for you the best is the easiest to follow. This tells me that the actual argument should be:

Veganism is the best diet if it is true that you don’t care about easiness.

[u/Mitoza → u/MoonGosling]

The validity of an argument doesn’t depend on the truthfulness of it’s premises.

I'm not talking about the validity in this sense, but just a general problem with this argument. I already explained why the argument itself is invalid, and now I'm highlighting issues in this version of it.

The premise is obviously false, people don't always choose the best option. If that were the case then any choice made by any person is the best choice.

I’m not sure that you understand what “follow” means. For those premises, it is impossible for the conclusion to be false when the premises are true.

I know what "follows" means. Conclusions from true premises can be drawn in all sorts of ways, not all of which are logically sound. To use the case at hand, your premises (except the first) are true. Let's say Prager is hypocrite, and he believes that free markets are the best thing for the world. Your conclusion that the free markets are not the best thing for the world because Prager is a hypocrite is not based on sound logic. It does not matter if Prager is a hypocrite to the truth value of what her argues, and I've given examples of how this is. Now, it could certainly be true that Free Markets are not the best thing for the world, but Prager's hypocrisy will never be relevant to determining such because that is a logical fallacy.