Ive already go that in my video feed tubular juat slips it in next to my yt vids.

Not this one lemmy.ml is to be avoided for censorship reasons.

All of the above

Well peertube is struggling already so thats a valid question. Idk if they using peertube style bitorrent video delivery that might help offload the cost a little.

Whoever is in charge o blackrock

Hey for the record ive been banned for saying this perfectly proving my point.

So you’re a sociopath.

nope, we are currently disagreeing about the social contract hence proving we have different subjective understanding of what it includes. also calling someone a sociopath doesn’t seem like a good faith argument.

No, that would be a normal contract.

no shit Sherlock that would provide an objective contract thus solving the whole subjective issue.

No. Laws are a stopgap that puts our more important social contracts into an enforcement structure, but most of them we just live by.

sure so laws are the objective part of the social contract a majority of people have agreed (people still disagree about what laws should be)

So you want to change the social contract.

that’s called an opinion ones uses them to shift the social contract to better fit their subjective viewpoint

The free market only works to self-regulate when all actors (the company, the employees, and the public) have generally equivalent levels of power.

The marketplace of ideas in the conceptual gives every single person or organization an exactly equal level of power through the concept of free speech. I would argue lemmy has captured this ideal far better than anything yet by implementing censoring we destroy that equality we have sought to create. If fox’s ideas stop being supported/downvoted they fall out of the marketplace of ideas at which point they either adapt or die.

There’s also a demand for cannibalism by many people. Is that therefore a valid viewpoint? There were 18,456 murderers walking the streets in 2023.

absolutely we should let them speak and their ideas will be filtered by the marketplace.

Should we consider their viewpoints valid and entertain them without government regulations?

Doesn’t the first amendment literally prevent the government from regulating said viewpoints isn’t that the whole fucking point? Let people have an opinion and express that opinion as they wish. I fully support your right to advocate for cannibalism or murder (as long as its not directed at a particular person or group) i will most certainly down-vote it and call you a fucking evil monster but I support your right to say it.

Fox has created that demand, though; through fearmongering and misinformation.

That’s called good marketing

he should have that monopoly taken away from him.

Fox doesn’t have a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas nobody in history has ever had a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas to acheive that u would need to drive out every single person or organization capable of independent thought, or just start censoring people what you are actively arguing for

They’ve flouted the social contract in order to increase viewers.

At the end of the day the social contract is just that a SOCIAL contract so in reality its not really a contract is it but a convention most people choose to obey. If it is beneficial to disregard it people will disregard it that’s how evolution works. its your choice what parts of the social construct you want to follow. If you live strictly adhering to it then you are playing life at a disadvantage. Think about it this way your actions are being controlled by subjective contract that nobody else has to obey I would call that NPC behavior.

Im sick of hearing about the fucking social contract this social contract that. The social contract is a construct that exists purly in the subjective. I have no problwm calling u a cunt munching retard and have no proboem u call me the same or worse. I can say fucked shit to u and u can say fucked shit to me there are people who would say thats part of the social construct there are people who wouldnt. Unless u want to write said contract on paper and get everyone to sign it (is that not what laws are?) its purly subjective if not usfull way to explain the actions of people.

Lets take it all the back to the basic concepts of a liberal society. There exists the marketplace of ideas anyone or thing is welcome to add whatever they want to this marketplace like any other marketplace demand then governs the rest. There is a demand for fox by many people they are theirfore a valid (not nessasarilly correct) viewpoint. To ignore this view and/or to ban it is to ignore a vast amount of peoples demand for such ideas within the marketplace.

I believe what i said is a very traditionally liberal veiwpoint which is almost by defininition the center of the spectrum so if u think thats right wing u must be so far into extreme comunist country u think starlin did nothing wrong.

Fuck i really must the spastic cunt.

Exactly you are under no obligation to entertain their nonsence this is no reason to ban and silence them

Dont we all guess we gotta make up for it by listening to everyones spin and then making a judgement ourselves.

They are not absolutly winning that is russian propaganda to slow western support. Without the continue support from the west ukraine will fall.

Just say retarded u friggin retard.

Can we not just ban news orgs cos they have beleifs u dont like. For discussion to take place u need a varied source of opinions and points of view.

Didnt the us try to tell u and u did nothing about it. Or was that just the us flexing its survelence on to the kgb

So sexism is outrage performance art now?

Really oracles hosting will let me do that for free? Do i need a domain ur can i use some subdomain service for it?

I might do that, are they gonna ban me for arguing with almost everyone tho?

I wish i could, dont have the money to pay for hosting and my own internet is wayyy to slow for that