90
Comments
  • 12
    Well, on YouTube you will already lose your ad revenue if your content contains the tiniest clip of someone else's work. Hopefully, if these laws really go through, there will be a large enough backlash to solve all these problems, and the privacy issues at the same time.
  • 7
    The second tag 😍😍
  • 7
    Big government isn't bad it's just the bitches in the European union who want to make all their money through lawsuits rather than taxes.
  • 7
    @electrineer do you realise how much Google invested in creating the Content ID system for YouTube? This ensures that youtube will never have a competitor
  • 15
    @qwerty77asdf Not trying to discuss politics, but when do governments / governmental programs do anything right? 😋
  • 9
    @Root i actually like the government model of Canada. Canada is fine. I have my doubts about how we go about things here in the U.S. And I ain't even want to think about Mexico.
  • 5
    @Root good point :P
  • 4
    Probably the first political statement we agree upon ;)
  • 5
    Shit. I dont watch politics or laws so what did i miss ?
  • 4
  • 8
    Probably not time to disband the EU (it's got a lot of good qualities) but this is a huge fuckup. Even after all the direct lobbying from EU citizens.. still nothing got through those fucks' dense heads. Especially those conservatives which were the main perpetrators. Disband the EU Parliament? I'm all for it. Each member state still has their own governments anyway.
  • 4
  • 5
  • 4
  • 7
    @Root *cough* prism *cough*
  • 5
    And oopsie: F.

    😅
  • 4
    F for Fuck!
  • 3
    Looks like I forgot my F as well...
    F.uck you EU shitheads! 🖕
  • 7
    its the newest episode of "old people vote about stuff they dont understand", or rather, they might have a grasp but can never realize the full scope, further some 3rd party made sure they dont look further into it (par example: look who benefited from the german Leistungsschutzrecht).

    its a complex problem that probably needs a higher general public intelligence to get permanently fixed, so never
  • 2
  • 1
    No F given? :v

    jk.
  • 2
    @BurnoutDV It's a newest episode of an old topic called "Money can buy everything"
  • 1
  • 2
  • 2
    People who think government is bad tend to be from countries with terrible governments. But pulling shit like this is exactly what makes people hate governments.
  • 1
  • 6
    @Condor In a real democracy getting the people's will through a politician's thick or whatever skull should not really be up to the politician's choice,rather it's compulsory to follow people's will. Trying to "persuade" politicians is not what democracy should really be about. EU is nowhere near a democracy of course, like the vast majority of the earth's governments.
  • 6
    @Teabagging4Life The government serves the people, not the other way around.

    Officials are public servants, and serve only at the will of their constituents. When this begins to change, you know the system (and therefore officials) are corrupt.

    However, politicians (especially when corrupt) lie well and have very far-reaching influence, and can therefore easily change the desires of the people. In such a case, listening to the masses is not always desirable, for they can easily be pushing for those same corrupt political goals.

    As with everything, due diligence. Especially in politics.
  • 4
    @Root Good point. That's why I think that it should be talked about more. Regardless of our own political compasses (of which mine has many poles) it's in everyone's interest for our governments to stay in line. Corruptness is something that I don't think anyone would want to infest our governments.
  • 3
    @Root basically, democracy does not work for a large group of people. The "democracy" nowadays is something like multi monarchism: people somewhat choose government but the government is doing it's own things almost all the time persuading it's own goals, not the people's.
  • 3
    @irene How about direct democracy though - a Reddit for political affairs? Where people can just put some idea in the hat and people can up- or downvote it, just like we're doing on the internet already anyway.
  • 3
    @Condor bad idea. Masses are easily swung by stupid ideas and ideologies. The whole idea of each vote having equal weight is utterly stupid.
  • 2
    How about anarcho syndicalism (with a "Rätedemokratie", I think that should translate to something as "Civil Councils")?
  • 4
    @irene Hmm, good point. A while back I've heard this thing in a video somewhere, criticism about the common people being able to vote on everything. In it they made the comparison to a ship, where you'd want only a captain and a crew to be responsible, but not the passengers. The idea boils down to "voting on anything requires basic education on the subject at hand". So for example, the whole copyright law would not be accessible to the techno-dinosaurs in EU Parliament but rather to us - the technologists - to cast our votes on. Something that affects plumbers would be voted on by plumbers, and so forth. Meritocracy is a great thing, and I think that politics should adopt it. All voices are equal, but the only valid voice is an educated one.
  • 3
    @Condor BTW, the whole anti-meritocracy thing that is being pushed by sjws is a retarded idea, I'm. Meritocracy is the best way for intelligence based species.
  • 3
    @Condor and I agree with you on all that.
  • 4
    @irene SJW's will make for the end of society as we know it, if they can push their narrative everywhere.. it's like Ebola, deadly, inhabited by a few and God forbid you or your close relatives from getting it. Or cancer or HIV or something like that.

    Come to think of it, I've read this YouTube comment some time ago from a mother whose daughter's schizophrenic. Apparently when she isn't on her pills, she'd act just like those SJW's... Now I don't know about the legitimacy of that comment - it's been a long time since I've last seen schizophrenic patients myself - but perhaps the idea of "those SJW's should be in mental institutions" isn't too far from the truth?
  • 3
    @Condor Tests before being able to vote. That is something I absolutely agree with, feel very strongly about, and would love to see.

    However, that system definitely allows for corruption. And with how corrupt our government has been, I don't trust them to do anything fairly, let alone well.
  • 2
    @Condor might be true 🤔
    I'm not so experienced with mental health issues except depression and the ones near it.
  • 4
    @Root Hmm, good point. Who'd "certify" the people as competent in this or that field? Given my own views on certificates as absolutely pointless, I can't help but wonder about that as well.. how would you determine one's competence and ability to make an informed decision about something when the government can't certify them, and preferably have no certificates involved at all? Independent agencies? But schools or institutions like that aren't exactly known to be very competent either.. perhaps assign someone that's competent and let them test people without meeting them (to avoid personal biases) and without having them know political orientation of the applicant (to avoid political biases as well)? But how would one choose the initial examinator without introducing a point of failure in there?

    Especially when discussing the viable methods to reform it, politics sure ain't easy! :')
  • 3
    @Condor There was a study I saw publicized on CNN/etc. that compared members of both political parties to see which displayed a tendency towards psychotic behavior.

    CNN/etc. reported that it was Republicans that exhibited more psychotic behavior, but if you read the linked study, they had flipped the results; it actually said the opposite. When this came to light, the media immediately stopped talking about said study.

    Quick ddg search: https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/...
  • 2
    @Root Hmm, I can't help but think that all political members would be like that? I mean, the only reason why I can deal with all the issues in technology and see constant vulnerability news reports etc, is because I've got that psychotic tendency.. part of my (rather shitty) youth, and a blessing and a curse at the same time I guess. Given the vile nature of politics - especially when you're in the middle of it as a "people's representative", would it be possible to survive in such a climate without having a bit of that psychotic nature? Actually, any position in power that requires one to not live in a sweet lie like the common people do.. management as well for example.

    Come to think of it, psychotic and psychopathic are different things entirely... Psychopathic is the term that I was thinking about I guess. Oh well :')

    As for the whole Democrats vs Republicans thing.. that's something from the US in particular which I can't really seem to wrap my head around. Here in Belgium the left vs right (and associated parties) are much more nuanced, making the whole left vs right idea much more blurred. Personally I abide by some of the ideas from either sides, while not strictly aligning with either of them.
  • 0
    @Condor Most people throughout Europe are varying degrees of left, so that makes sense. I've only heard of a few on the political right, and fewer still in the center (my stance).

    Then again libertarians are pretty rare everywhere. I have a few ideas why, but they all make me depressed and hateful of humans.
  • 1
    @Root politicians are phychopaths by definition.
Your Job Suck?
Get a Better Job
Add Comment