DarksydePhil / TheyCallMeDSP / Phil Burnell - General Discussion

Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Destacado
Are we even sure Phil is telling the truth on this? Has he provided any evidence?

I'm not for seeing Phil deplatformed, but losing his partnership isn't being deplatformed. Hell, with the amount of money he was pulling in tips. he likely would've been reinstated in time.

Phil doesn't burn bridges, he nukes the area from orbit. This has always been his problem.

Phil sees his loss of partner as a end all be all when there's absolutely no evidence to confirm that to be the case.
 
bajagoogoo dijo:
Are we even sure Phil is telling the truth on this? Has he provided any evidence?

I'm not for seeing Phil deplatformed, but losing his partnership isn't being deplatformed. Hell, with the amount of money he was pulling in tips. he likely would've been reinstated in time.

Phil doesn't burn bridges, he nukes the area from orbit. This has always been his problem.

Phil sees his loss of partner as a end all be all when there's absolutely no evidence to confirm that to be the case.
Presiona para expandir...
You foget this whole issue involves twitch a year to 6 months back using PI to thought Police people.

& also alinity got hit for bad press & hot tub stream issue.

 
Dread Pirate Retard dijo:
If the Waltons suddenly became based and banned all troons from Wal-Mart would you support the Feds shutting them down since they're the largest brick and mortar retailer in the county?
Presiona para expandir...
Uh, no? Walmart crushed all local businesses. For most people, if you want food, you need to go to Walmart.

My POV is this: You can either be a monopoly, or you ban anyone you like. With massive platforms like Twitch, YouTube, and with financial intermediaries like Mastercard and Visa, they should be required to do business with everyone (barring criminal behavior).

The fags that sued the cake company drove past 10+ different bakeries to find the only publicly Christian bakery. It was a set up. They had MANY other options they ignored because they WANTED to sue because fags are mentally ill.

I think that all liberals, trannies, niggers, fat retards, based gamers, and people of all stripes should be allowed to go online, use large platforms, and monetize their content without anyone being able to tell them otherwise.

And the logic "oh what if this business hurts their ad revenue?" Having a law that mandates neutrality is a great excuse for them. It's not even their choice, they can defer complaints to the government.
 
oroturtle.png
 
See thats the issue with people talking about freedom of speech, they construe their own definition of it. Where in the 1st Amendment it says if you don't get paid to talk that is breach of the 1st. Its not, people can say whatever dumb shit they want. But the moment you use a private companies site to yell faggot and that company has a rule on their site not to say that then oh well.

Plus Phil is using up their servers and services for free, so if he cant complie to those rules well sorry numbnut get out. Its like saying i invited someone to my house and they can use all my amenities and I pay them for bringing in more people. But then you decide to curse at the other roommates, ban people from entering rooms you are in, and talk shit about me, the home owner. Then I decide to kick you out for not following my house rules I gave you when you agreed to enter my home.

However, Twitch didnt remove his freedom of speech in this case. Why? HE IS STILL ON TWITCH. Phil still has his 1st Amendment because he can still talk on Twitch, just Twitch wont give him money for acting like a toxic fuck. Twitch didnt like his behavior and decided "Why should WE pay this asshole and give him extra privileges on our site when he is breaking our conduct rules?". Twitch just decided not to pay him which they have the right to do. Afterall, last time i checked an employer can stop giving me money if I dont follow the rules of conduct at the workplace. Phil still has 1st Amendment right on Twitch since he wasnt banned and still can use the platform. Twitch has no reason to help anyone make money if they dont follow their rules.
 
If anything, I think we can all agree this is probably one of the worst reasons that DSP lost his partnership, regardless of whether or not you take MUH RIGHTS side or the correct side.

Put me in the camp that thinks this was a response to his recent ban and not his departnering. His 24 hour rule violation was so blatant even he couldn’t argue against it besides “I’ve been doing it so long without repercussions, they can’t change that now!”
 
Null dijo:
Demonetization is flatly restriction of speech. If you tell independent contractors, whom you have no employment contract with and who does not represent your company in any way, that they will either say what you tell them they can say or you will not allow them to make money, you are restricting speech.

All censorship you see today is the result of big companies, ESPECIALLY Mastercard and Visa, imposing rules on little guys. Do you want to make money? Do you want food? Do you want to pay rent? You love niggers, you love trannies, you love fags, and you don't ever talk about this list of topics. That is the reality we are currently in and people should be pissed that a company as fucking huge as Twitch/Amazon is stomping some random fat faggot because he called people retards and said the nigger word 10 years ago.

You guys have to wake up out of this spell of "it's based when it happens to them". You don't like Phil or whatever, fine, but people don't like you and want you literally starving in the streets and your children sold off to tranny brothels by the state because you called someone a nigger in a video game.
Presiona para expandir...

I DON'T think it's based when it happens to anyone, I think it's fucking retarded, and I agree that big corps, especially ones on the internet, are trying to police their spaces and making them dens of tyrannical puritans who don't want anyone saying shit they don't like or isn't palatable.

Twitch owes nothing to DSP. They don't have to pay him, they don't have to make him be a partner. Just like the small landscaping company I used to work for didn't have to keep some of the contractors they employed when they started showing up for work drunk or being shitheads to clients. In both cases, DSP and these contractors represented the company they contracted to and they don't need to keep them on.

Don't get me wrong, there's no love lost between me and megacorps, they're running the world and a lot of people are too quick to just let it go, but the issue here is where does the line get drawn, exactly? If we apply it that businesses can't choose to let someone go because they are acting or saying things that reflect poorly on the company, what is the recourse for small companies if they make a bad hire and have a guy, walking around in a shirt with their business's name on it, while working for them, calling black people who are customers or potential customers niggers?

I will openly call myself an advocate for free speech, and I do think there needs to be a serious discussion about what and how companies can act in regards to peoples speech, especially companies like twitch who are based around people interacting socially, about what they can and can't do. My biggest concern is the rights that everyone has to have, and that includes business owners, even of the huge corporations, since most any law you make to affect the big companies is going to trickle down and affect small ones too.
 
Maldron the Assassin dijo:
The source of the problem is that he was departnered but not banned. We all speculated that he did something to violate the partnership agreement but not the site rules because of this. However this no longer seems like the case. Why is a pattern of using hateful slurs not the pretext for a ban? Why is it inappropriate for him to continue representing Twitch as a partner but okay for him to keep streaming on the website? I understand completely why a company wouldn't want an employee to call customers retarded and such, but then in that case why allow him to squat on your site?

Half measures like this always end up causing problems.
Presiona para expandir...
Probably because this isn't the end of it. There's probably more, and with what Phil did today, it's probably going to result in more hilarity.
 
Null dijo:
Uh, no? Walmart crushed all local businesses. For most people, if you want food, you need to go to Walmart.

My POV is this: You can either be a monopoly, or you ban anyone you like. With massive platforms like Twitch, YouTube, and with financial intermediaries like Mastercard and Visa, they should be required to do business with everyone (barring criminal behavior).

The fags that sued the cake company drove past 10+ different bakeries to find the only publicly Christian bakery. It was a set up. They had MANY other options they ignored because they WANTED to sue because fags are mentally ill.

I think that all liberals, trannies, niggers, fat retards, based gamers, and people of all stripes should be allowed to go online, use large platforms, and monetize their content without anyone being able to tell them otherwise.

And the logic "oh what if this business hurts their ad revenue?" Having a law that mandates neutrality is a great excuse for them. It's not even their choice, they can defer complaints to the government.
Presiona para expandir...
Yes all censorship is bad but there's only so many times a company will let a fucking employee spit in the face of a customer before they kick him out

DSP wasn't censored for an opinion or statement on political issues, he was kicked out because he called paying customers mentally ill, retarded shit heads on a literal hourly basis.
 
DukeMorty dijo:
Where in the 1st Amendment it says if you don't get paid to talk that is breach of the 1st.
Presiona para expandir...
Slit your throat you stupid faggot.

Null dijo:
Demonetization is flatly restriction of speech. If you tell independent contractors, whom you have no employment contract with and who does not represent your company in any way, that they will either say what you tell them they can say or you will not allow them to make money, you are restricting speech.

All censorship you see today is the result of big companies, ESPECIALLY Mastercard and Visa, imposing rules on little guys. Do you want to make money? Do you want food? Do you want to pay rent? You love niggers, you love trannies, you love fags, and you don't ever talk about this list of topics. That is the reality we are currently in and people should be pissed that a company as fucking huge as Twitch/Amazon is stomping some random fat faggot because he called people retards and said the nigger word 10 years ago.

You guys have to wake up out of this spell of "it's based when it happens to them". You don't like Phil or whatever, fine, but people don't like you and want you literally starving in the streets and your children sold off to tranny brothels by the state because you called someone a nigger in a video game.
Presiona para expandir...

hundredthousand dijo:
Thank you for shitting up this thread. Fucking christ.
Presiona para expandir...
You're welcome. I'm going to put the board into "sub only mode" and then go to sleep. Feel free to set up your hate speech site competitors in the mean time.

Dense fucks.
 
Destacado
Estado
No está abierto para más respuestas.
Atrás
Top Abajo