i fucking hate youtube page 3

75 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

it has been done before

Wha?

Are you referring to his google takeover idea? Because nothing like that has happened before.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

it has been done before

Wha?

Are you referring to his google takeover idea? Because nothing like that has happened before.

Yeah I’m confused too.

 
Flag Post

lol. i mean “take-overs” have happened. as have trojan horses.

 
Flag Post

Like massive, crippling, worldwide takeovers by evil corporations? Or like Anonymous screwing around with Scientology? Or like getting a virus in my gmail account? Note the absence of moustache-twirling capitalists from the latter two examples.

 
Flag Post

At the end of the day Omega, it is your choice to use the service. You use it, you accelt the terms and conditions hat come with it.

Don’t like the terms and conditions? Stop using it!

It really is that simple. youTube’s rules won’t bother you if you stop going there. Continuing to go there and just moaning whilst clearly not understanding anything you are moaning about, is a pathetic and pointless position to be in.

 
Flag Post

no i love the database that was started by the people that created youtube and the community that liked what they created and made all of that content – they made it. i hate what Google has turned it into. how they capitalise on a community’s efforts, destroying a good thing.

“don’t like it? stop using it!” is a completely invalid argument. that’s like saying when the phone company starts listening in on all your conversations and cutting it whenever they don’t like your conversation you would say “don’t like it? stop using telephones!”

it’s a service that we need. it’s healthy for people to have. for society. we shouldn’t allow an acquiring company to fuck it up.

it’s like a library of information, and like a library, it should be a public service.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Like massive, crippling, worldwide takeovers by evil corporations? Or like Anonymous screwing around with Scientology? Or like getting a virus in my gmail account? Note the absence of moustache-twirling capitalists from the latter two examples.

yes to the first. well not worldwide yet, of course. what about Anonymous and Scientology?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

“don’t like it? stop using it!” is a completely invalid argument. that’s like saying when the phone company starts listening in on all your conversations and cutting it whenever they don’t like your conversation you would say “don’t like it? stop using telephones!”

Or you actually use your common sense, and just switch to another telephone provider.

There are tens of millions of websites out there, pick another one. Nobody is sitting you down and forcing you to use Google’s YouTube service.

Hell, you can even still use it and just not sign in.

it’s a service that we need. it’s healthy for people to have. for society. we shouldn’t allow an acquiring company to fuck it up.

Its not a service that we need. There is no breach of fundamental human rights in not being able to access a specific commercial video archive. It is a luxury service, hosted by a private company. That is all.

 
Flag Post

you could say the exact same thing of telephones. it/s also a luxury service, and no human rights are breached in not being able to access it.

and i don’t know about Scotland, but you can’t switch telephone company over here. you can switch provider, but there’s only one central agency. i’ll bet it’s the same in Scotland.

and no there isn’t any other website, where all this community generated content is available on. there’s a few where some of that is available on, but those suck now too, and only have a small portion.

if i’m interested in a video game, first thing i do is look up gameplay videos. where else than on youtube? if i want to see the actual footage that i keep hearing about of extreme misconduct of government components in Syria, where else am i going to find this but on youtube? if i want to see current events torn apart by opionated independants, where else than on youtube?

if we have something like that, built up by a community, and a new corporation acquires it and fucks it up, you don’t just abandon it. why would you want to keep people stupid like that?

it’s a communicative line bewteen people; an aorta for the communal mind and zeitgeist. it’s shouldn’t be onwed by privates.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

you could say the exact same thing of telephones. it/s also a luxury service, and no human rights are breached in not being able to access it.

Untrue. The EU holds access to telecommunications as a fundamental human right.

and i don’t know about Scotland, but you can’t switch telephone company over here. you can switch provider, but there’s only one central agency. i’ll bet it’s the same in Scotland.

BT started monitoring internet access as standard practic year before last, in order to serve targetted advertising. I switched to another line rental company, bypassing them entirely. so many switched, that they were forced to drop the policy.

if i’m interested in a video game, first thing i do is look up gameplay videos. where else than on youtube?

You could try the site of the company who make the game, or you could try a game review site.

if i want to see the actual footage that i keep hearing about of extreme misconduct of government components in Syria, where else am i going to find this but on youtube?

Fora, Vimeo, an actual news agency.

if i want to see current events torn apart by opionated independants, where else than on youtube?

Fora, Vimeo, an actual news agency.

if we have something like that, built up by a community, and a new corporation acquires it and fucks it up, you don’t just abandon it. why would you want to keep people stupid like that?

Those people are well within their rights to remove their content and repost it elsewhere. That they are not doing so in droves suggests few of them have the same isues with the service that you do.

it’s a communicative line bewteen people; an aorta for the communal mind and zeitgeist. it’s shouldn’t be onwed by privates.

Then campaign for a government-owned copy of YouTube.

 
Flag Post
Untrue. The EU holds access to telecommunications as a fundamental human right.

so? you could still say the exact same thing of telephones. that the EU would disagree doesn’t fundamentally change if it’s inherently a right or not.

i hold access to “youtube” as a principle (as opposed to Youtube™) to be a human right. in fact, isn’t it a form of telecommunication?

you accuse me of not going along with the time. but it’s you who is advocating defending the retardation of progress.

BT started monitoring internet access as standard practic year before last, in order to serve targetted advertising. I switched to another line rental company, bypassing them entirely. so many switched, that they were forced to drop the policy.

yes, that’s how free-market ideal of choice is supposed to work. which is an outdated theory that doesn’t aply very well to the digital world. because there is only Youtube.

one solution could be to have a public database, and different companies to tunnel from this public database, rather than companies having their own database. just like phone-companies are forced to be compatible. just like all TV stations can be picked up by the same TVs. just like electicity companies all provide power through the same energy net. just like game-consoles are all compatible, so you don’t have to own all three to not be left out when just the right game comes out… oh wait…

You could try the site of the company who make the game, or you could try a game review site.

how independent :/. and yes, i check game-reviews from time to time. guess where… anyway, that’s not really first hand gameplay. they often just show flashing screens of cinematics and action shots. that doesn’t actually show you what it is like to actually play that game. like, for instance, often they fail to show how the controls work, like if you directly move characters, or you give them orders to, or they move by themselves and all you do is aim or select abilities, and how you select abilities, like that kinda stuff. especially what the typical, average content of a game is, like what you spend most of your time doing.

often you only really learn by watching first hand videos of gameplay by consumers, before the last step of playable demos or detour fully playable DRM-free “demos”.

Fora, Vimeo, an actual news agency.
Fora, Vimeo, an actual news agency.

actual news agencies cut and censor, which can never be trusted to be done without an agenda or bias. it’s not an independent source.
since you suggest they’re worth my time i guess i’ll check out Fora and Vimeo, but they seem to have a narrow focus. reads like Fora is for publication of college lectures and stuff like that (*sleeps*), and Vimeo is for publication of indie films. and while Fora isn’t even listed as a video sharing website, Vimeo has far less content than even Metacafe or Dailymotion.

Those people are well within their rights to remove their content and repost it elsewhere. That they are not doing so in droves suggests few of them have the same isues with the service that you do.

catch 22. there’s no popular “elsewhere”, especially no such elsewhere that can be trusted not to fuck up the same way.

Then campaign for a government-owned copy of YouTube.

someone with the resources to do so really aughta. but then…what government?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
Untrue. The EU holds access to telecommunications as a fundamental human right.

so? you could still say the exact same thing of telephones. that the EU would disagree doesn’t fundamentally change if it’s inherently a right or not.

Of course it does. It is only an inherent right because the power in charge says it is.

i hold access to “youtube” as a principle (as opposed to Youtube™) to be a human right. in fact, isn’t it a form of telecommunication?

No. It is a single company. In the same vein, if Kongregate banned your account, would you be able to sue them for depriving you of a fundamental human right to access their site? If a newsagent bans you from their shop, would you be able to sue for a breach of your fundamental human right to enter their building?

YouTube is a single company, offering a single, optional service. How they run their service is up to them. If they are too draconian, users will vote with their feet and leave. At the end of the day, they have to make a profit to survive, and if all the users leave, their profits will vanish.

yes, that’s how free-market ideal of choice is supposed to work. which is an outdated theory that doesn’t aply very well to the digital world. because there is only Youtube.

Well, YouTube and every other site I mentioned.

Seriously, how are you accessing Kongregate, if YouTube is the single and only service on your internet, Omega?

>one solution could be to have a public database, and different companies to tunnel from this public database, rather than companies having their own database.

Then fight for that. Make your case. Convince your local councillors. Establish a movement, and win the politicians over one by one until they enact it. If you want progress, you have to fight for it. I personally wouldn’t call it progress, but if you believe so strongly in it, fight for it.

anyway, that’s not really first hand gameplay. they often just show flashing screens of cinematics and action shots. that doesn’t actually show you what it is like to actually play that game.

So torrent yourself a copy, and play it. No video will ever show you ‘what it is actually like to play that game’. Only playing that game will show you ‘what it is actually like to play that game’. Then you can decide whether to buy it or not.

Fora, Vimeo, an actual news agency.

actual news agencies cut and censor, which can never be trusted to be done without an agenda or bias. it’s not an independent source.

Then use Fora, or Vimeo, if you don’t trust any news agency. Both rely on submitted videos. Fora takes them from event organisers, Vimeo from the general public. There are plenty of others that take videos from the general public, those two are just the ones I use most often.

I do use YouTube as well, but its never given me any trouble, so I cannot attest to the difficulties you have. Well, it does keep trying to change my settings from ‘worldwide’ to ‘UK’ on a regular basis, but wiping cookies at the end of the session fixes that. But then YouTube also rarely has the sort of video I find interesting, and even if it does, I can contact the owner of the video and have an original sent over anyway.

Then campaign for a government-owned copy of YouTube.

someone with the resources to do so really aughta.

Yes, and to get those resouces, you either need to be a government – who can then ban private ownership of information, as you seek to do, or a corporate interest like Google, with a vested interest in advertising to its members interests to generate revenue.

 
Flag Post

also i was thinking…i’d easily pay up to €10 per month to use Youtube without all the bullshit.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

also i was thinking…i’d easily pay up to €10 per month to use Youtube without all the bullshit.

Then suggest it. Start a poll, submit those signatures to google. Only through whipping up enough support will you see change, of any type.

Its no good sitting back and waiting for someone else to change the world, Omega. They won’t change it the way you wish it changed.

 
Flag Post
In the same vein, if Kongregate banned your account, would you be able to sue them for depriving you of a fundamental human right to access their site

if there weren’t easy ways around it i bet i would.

If a newsagent bans you from their shop, would you be able to sue for a breach of your fundamental human right to enter their building?

yes. if that’s their only vendor then yes i could.

YouTube is a single company, offering a single, optional service. How they run their service is up to them. If they are too draconian, users will vote with their feet and leave. At the end of the day, they have to make a profit to survive, and if all the users leave, their profits will vanish.

exactly. first of all it shouldn’t be up to them, it should be up to the users. especially with something community generated. but also, that’s right, if people will start protesting Youtube and demand better, Youtube will have to comply. that’s my point.

Well, YouTube and every other site I mentioned.

Seriously, how are you accessing Kongregate, if YouTube is the single and only service on your internet, Omega?

where did i say it’s the only website? it’s the only place where the community has centrally stored all that content.

Then fight for that. Make your case. Convince your local councillors. Establish a movement, and win the politicians over one by one until they enact it. If you want progress, you have to fight for it. I personally wouldn’t call it progress, but if you believe so strongly in it, fight for it.

errr..some day. do i have to leave the house for that?

can’t i just inspire someone else to do all that? =P

So torrent yourself a copy, and play it. No video will ever show you ‘what it is actually like to play that game’. Only playing that game will show you ‘what it is actually like to play that game’. Then you can decide whether to buy it or not.

1. they’re trying to shoot that ability down, are they not?
2. how do i decide which game to download? it’s not that easy.
3. what about console games i don’t have the console for?
4. what about games that aren’t out yet?
5. what about unpiratable games or multiplayer content?

my top two favorites i wanna try out are Warhammer: Dawn of War and the standalone expension of Company of Heroes. the latter i downloaded unsuccesfully cause it can’t be pirated, it just won’t work; and Dawn of War actually crashed my system.

But then YouTube also rarely has the sort of video I find interesting, and even if it does, I can contact the owner of the video and have an original sent over anyway.

we use it for very different purposes. i rarely spend more than about 10 minutes on any video (usually far less), and whenever i do it’s probably a copyright breaching video.

Yes, and to get those resouces, you either need to be a government

in theory we are the governments. they are supposed to speak for us. hence i advocate…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
In the same vein, if Kongregate banned your account, would you be able to sue them for depriving you of a fundamental human right to access their site

if there weren’t easy ways around it i bet i would.

Nope. It is their property, so it is their right to keep you out.

If a newsagent bans you from their shop, would you be able to sue for a breach of your fundamental human right to enter their building?

yes. if that’s their only vendor than yes i could.

Nope. It is their property, so it is their right to keep you out.

Have you ever considered walking into a random neighbour’s house, falling down on their couch and telling them to fuck off? Then when they call the police, sueing them for throwing you out of their property when you wish to be there? Its the same concept in action.

Private property, means private rules on behavior and private rules on access.

YouTube is a single company, offering a single, optional service. How they run their service is up to them. If they are too draconian, users will vote with their feet and leave. At the end of the day, they have to make a profit to survive, and if all the users leave, their profits will vanish.

exactly. first of all it shouldn’t be up to them, it should be up to the users. especially with something community generated. but also, that’s right, if people will start protesting Youtube and demand better, Youtube will have to comply. that’s my point.

So start campaigning and gather followers. Prove to Google that you’re more than a single user with a piss-poor understanding of the law. Get off your backside and start working on it, in other words.

Yes, and to get those resouces, you either need to be a government

in theory we are the governments. they are supposed to speak for us. hence i advocate…

You need to speak to your representatives and whip up a case. Crying ‘poor, poor me’ from your chair when you are too bone idle to actually do anything about it, will get you precisely nowhere.

 
Flag Post
Nope. It is their property, so it is their right to keep you out.

Private property, means private rules on behavior and private rules on access.

not really. they need to have a license to sell newspapers. part of that license is the condition that they service the people undiscriminatorily. if they ban me from using their service without being able to provide a good reason, then fuck yes i can sue them. i totally can and would. in fact i could probably try to claim for damages for being discriminated against (at least, if i’m some sort of minority that is).

with a piss-poor understanding of the law

better than yours, apparently.

So start campaigning and gather followers. […] Get off your backside and start working on it, in other words.

meh…complaining about it on a completely unrelated flash-gaming website should be similarly effective.

You need to speak to your representatives and whip up a case. Crying ‘poor, poor me’ from your chair when you are too bone idle to actually do anything about it, will get you precisely nowhere.

first need to find like-minded people with similar objections and similar solutions. and before that i gotta find ways to adress the issues in ways that people will comprehend what i’m trying to convey. it may totally be wasted and go on deaf ears here, but it’s something of a starting place.

but a far bigger problem is the education system. i really wanna work on that; easily takes priority. it’s all part of the same issue anyway, and it’s way bigger than i can just go and fix with my magic wand.

the time for that is not yet. maybe someday. but i’m no magician. all i can do is point it out, express myself, and screw humanity. i’m no saviour…but that doesn’t mean i can’t be a critic.

ironically, the best way to go about it may just be to try to make viral videos on youtube.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:
Nope. It is their property, so it is their right to keep you out.

Private property, means private rules on behavior and private rules on access.

not really. they need to have a license to sell newspapers. part of that license is the condition that they service the people undiscriminatorily. if they ban me from using their service without being able to provide a good reason, then fuck yes i can sue them.

I like how you only give a qualifier for your argument, after I defeated it. What you were claiming before, was that you could sue them, simply because you were denied access to their service for whatever reason. As in if Kong had a reason to ban you, and did so, you would sue them for depriving you of your fundamental right to use their property, regardless of any rules they stipulated you had to follow.

YouTube is the same way. You wish to open an account with them, they choose how that account is managed, and what other relevant information to ask for.

You don’t get to sue them, just because you don’t like the request they’ve put in. It’s not your fundamental right to use any particular company’s services, any more than it is your fundamental right to barge into whatever house you please, and help yourself to their fridge.

There are rules laid down for entering. Commercial institutions are taken to have an open door, but they lay the groundrules for how you behave on their premises. Don’t play by their rules, and out you go.

 
Flag Post
Of course it does. It is only an inherent right because the power in charge says it is.

no. clearly if a power has to declare it a right, it is not an inherent right. if you don’t get that, look up “inherent” in a dictionary. (though i’m sure your vocabulary matches that of any dictionary)


I like how you only give a qualifier for your argument, after I defeated it.

vika… come on now. no. YOU came with that argument, not me. YOU are now adding a qualifyer after I already defeated it, not the other way around. that’s beneath you vika.

and your argument here is lost, anyway. a news agency can not simply make their own rules and decide who to ban, without being sued for it. in the end, the government will decide who they can ban based on judgement and/or policies regarding that sortof thing, usually written whenever such a situation has a precedent.

YouTube is the same way. You wish to open an account with them, they choose how that account is managed, and what other relevant information to ask for.

that being so doesn’t make it right. all the content of youtube is community generated. this community invested that much into it, and they did so because they liked the service. if youtube then completely deteriorates this service, their fucking their own community and at some point the community should protest this. the fact that they technically have a “right” to do so doesn’t change that.
and i am in no way the only person that is mad about this…most people on youtube are mad about all the advertisement; the destroying of the lay outs of the profile pages that a lot of people on Kongregate also referenced when they did the same thing here; a whole bunch of features breaking; videos and channels being deleted because Youtube™ doesn’t agree to it; the whole deal with deleting for supposed copyright infringements and crap like that are all strongly protested.

if there was any actual alternative, everyone would have switched. but there isn’t. and that’s because we already grew this one so big, we got all this data centrally stored here. we’d already made our choice.

You don’t get to sue them, just because you don’t like the request they’ve put in. It’s not your fundamental right to use any particular company’s services, any more than it is your fundamental right to barge into whatever house you please, and help yourself to their fridge

i really aughta try your suggestion of sitting in some person’s couch uninvited and telling them to fuck off. that made me laugh.

but i’m not just mad about them asking me for my real name. it’s not that in particular; if it was just that i would have just thought “huh? that’s odd”. it’s the far bigger picture it’s a part of, that has been going on for a long time now.

There are rules laid down for entering. Commercial institutions are taken to have an open door, but they lay the groundrules for how you behave on their premises. Don’t play by their rules, and out you go.

that doesn’t mean it’s ok for them to start changing the rules once they had attracted so much investment from a community based on their previous sets of rules. nor does it mean that their rules are not going to be protested if there’s good reason to.

 
Flag Post

A few points:
1. Advertising is the reason things online are free. Better adverts = higher chance of things being free.
2. Google could know my penis size and I wouldn’t care. There is no reason for it to be wrong, unless they aim to use it maliciously. I’m certain that current laws on cyber-bullying/assault/harassment are good enough to protect me against that. If they sell that information to others, then well done to them. If I wrote a book on how to improve advertising, is that bad? Not at all. Google is basically selling information on how to make better ads. It just so happens to contain information about me.
3. There are legitimately immoral corporate acts that should make us all furious. An example is BT not closing the line rental after my mate switched to Virgin, or Virgin not keeping their promise of telling BT to close it, and being charged by two companies. Another example is adding “faults” to your mobile phone bill, as only a certain percentage of people will recognize the “fault” and demand a refund. Keeping/selling information on you to improve the quality of the product/service is not one of them, as it is not harmful (unless sending a wrinkle cream ad to an OAP is considered harmful… which, ironically, wouldn’t happen if the senders had more information on the OAP!).

 
Flag Post

sometimes i’m merely looking for the right video. like i’m looking to find a gameplay video that has sound and not stupid music playing over it. or i’m looking for unedited footage of something or other; or just any particular something that i can’t directly get the result from a key-word search for. or simply a video that’s not a rick roll.

this means i click a video, watch it for five seconds, notice it’s not what i’m looking for, click another video, and repeat and so on. sometimes it takes 20 or 30 tries to get the footage i’m looking for.

the advertisements make this cost 2 or 3 times longer than it used to. this was just the kind of thing Youtube was so great at. skimming through videos.

i can’t remember the last time the public library held me up to shout some advertisement slogans at me every second or third book i picked off a shelf to see what it’s about.

 
Flag Post

I want to make it perfectly clear what I do not intend to do in this post before I carry on with what I do wish to accomplish with it. The full truth of my conclusion I shall develop in the course of this post but the conclusion’s general outline is that YouTube had promised us liberty, equality, and fraternity. Instead, it gave us Stalinism, anarchism, and masochism. I suppose we should have seen that coming, especially since YouTube likes to argue that it should be a given a direct pipeline to the National Treasury. Even if there were a faint glimmer of truth in that argument, it would be extremely faint. The truth is that YouTube often argues that the only way to expand one’s mind is with drugs—or maybe even chocolate. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known finagler and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that to believe that the ideas of “freedom” and “credentialism” are Siamese twins is to deceive ourselves.

No matter what YouTube thinks, that’s not the most frightening thing about it. Have you heard that YouTube has a sixth sense that grants it an uncanny—almost supernatural—ability to smell at a distance the blood of the vulnerable? I find information like that disturbing on so many levels that I can’t help but want to criticize YouTube’s programs of Gleichschaltung publicly for their formalistic categories, their spurious claims of neutrality, and their blindness to the abuse of private power. In asserting that representative government is an outmoded system that should be replaced by a system of overt hoodlumism, YouTube demonstrates an astounding narrowness of vision. Not to change the subject or anything, but it may not be easy to remove the misunderstanding that YouTube has created in the minds of myriad people throughout the world, but it can be done. And it needs to be done. And we must always remember that when people see litigious nebbishes behaving like litigious nebbishes they begin to realize that it’s often hard to decipher YouTube’s lecherous comments. Obviously, it flees clarity whenever it involves unpleasant shouldering of responsibility, but I believe that in this case, YouTube wants to attack everyone else’s beliefs. Personally, I don’t want that. Personally, I prefer freedom. If you also prefer freedom then you should be working with me to take advantage of a rare opportunity to get people to sign a petition to limit its ability to cause trouble.

If I have a bias, it is only against impolitic braggarts who intensify or perpetuate Trotskyism. YouTube’s slaves portray themselves as fervent believers in freedom of speech and expression but are loath to reveal that when I was a child my clergyman told me, “YouTube’s legatees must mend their ways.” If you think about it you’ll see his point. Take it from me: YouTube has—not once, but several times—been able to force its moral code on the rest of us without anyone stopping it. How long can that go on? As long as its imprudent ipse dixits are kept on life support. That’s why we have to pull the plug on them and plant markers that define the limits of what is capricious and what is not. True, one positive outcome of the Law of Unintended Consequences is that if we extricate as many people as possible from YouTube’s grip then YouTube won’t be able to establish tacit boundaries and ground rules for the permissible spectrum of opinion, but it’s working towards the day when it (and only it) can dictate what you may say, whom you may know, where you may live, and how you may behave. Excuse me; that’s not entirely correct. What I meant to say is that by refusing to act, by refusing to keep our priorities in check, we are giving YouTube the power to condemn innocent people to death.

By hook or by crook we must cross-examine YouTube’s sappy, self-aggrandizing blandishments. There are important lessons in that, even apart from another reminder that YouTube pompously claims that it values our perspectives. That sort of nonsense impresses many people, unfortunately. YouTube displays the paranoid malice that is the hallmark of true prætorianism. Stated differently, its comments definitely qualify for the most vile and contemptuous pejoratives that I have in my arsenal. We can therefore extrapolate that if I didn’t think it would encourage every sort of indiscipline and degeneracy in the name of freedom, I wouldn’t say that honest people will admit that its buddies are a bunch of scientific contrarians who cling to outdated, long-refuted interpretations of science. Concerned people are not afraid to make this world a better place in which to live. And sensible people know that YouTube has gotten away with so much for so long that it’s lost all sense of caution, all sense of limits. If you think about it, only an organization without any sense of limits could desire to shove us towards an absolute state of vassalage.

YouTube’s assault on free speech was not mounted in a few weeks. Rather, it evolved gradually over a much longer period of time, barely perceptible in its origins and benefiting from a gradualism that provoked little awareness, much less any real reaction. That’s why it is now the time to ratchet up our level of understanding. The only weapons YouTube has in its intellectual arsenal are book burning, brainwashing, and intimidation. That’s all it has, and it knows it. Throughout history, there has been a clash between those who wish to lead YouTube out of a dream world and back to hard reality and those who wish to combine, in a rare mixture, bestial cruelty and an inconceivable gift for lying. Naturally, YouTube belongs to the latter category. Lastly, this is a contributing factor to the apparent decline of civilization and culture around us.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Koufuku:
Instead, it gave us Stalinism, anarchism, and masochism.

Uhh, masochism is kinda sorta completely opposite of the other two words you’re using.

You’re just thowing big words in to make your posts sound smarter, aren’t you?

Originally posted by Koufuku:
Have you heard that YouTube has a sixth sense that grants it an uncanny—almost supernatural—ability to smell at a distance the blood of the vulnerable?

Ohh, I get it; you’re trolling (or whatever adjective for not being serious, while stil being a little flame-y you use). Okay, nevermind.

 
Flag Post

Stalinism and anarchism are also antonyms.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Koufuku:

It’s okay. I got this.

 
Flag Post

YouTube asks me this about once a week, if I want to use my real name. It’s annoying, but it’s not much of a hassle to get through. 2 clicks, and I’m done for a week.