Notice Adsense Warning/Update Regarding Ukraine

[Phil]

4 minutes ago, Zuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuc said:

  

You're challenging my vocabulary with that first sentence lol.

 

I understand the reason behind it, I just found it very vague and it's basically not saying anything other than giving them the "power" to demonize the site if they feel we violate a rule they'll define themselves. Maybe I'm just being too cynical.

 

That's correct. It's how these types of policies are crafted because it's impossible to carve out a perfect lane here.

[siddious]

2 hours ago, Cash or Czech said:

Phil should start an OnlyFans to pay for the server. All the Gen Z are doing it. 

Bring back the hot chicks thread but put it behind a paywall. Phil wouldn’t have to work another day in his life. 

Edited April 21, 2022 by siddious

[Cr00zng]

On 4/20/2022 at 9:43 AM, SaveByRichter35 said:

Yeaaaaa, not to come off like an asshole, but, I'd rather not pay for the website just because you don't wanna have to talk about Russia in any which way or the other.  Just don't talk about Russia.  No one is forced to talk about politics.  If it bothers you either way just ignore the section.  I totally get what you're saying.  Its pretty stupid that Google is forcing anyone to talk about a given country one way or another or risk facing fines, etc.*  But I don't care enough to want to pay for a message board that is currently paid for via advertisements.  I'll just continue to ignore the politics on the hockey forum and focus on the hockey on the hockey forum...

*-That had been my initial objection against the new policy, but my comments had been taken out of context. The slack that my OP received just confirmed that this country is pretty close to rabid hole, as stated earlier. Google is doing that former Warsaw Pact governments did, silencing dissenting voices. Looking at events in one way never gives the full picture, recent history in the US and other countries confirmed that years later.

 

I understand that members don't want pay for membership, it has been just a suggestion. I'll join you in exiting the political forum and just focus on hockey...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

33 minutes ago, Cr00zng said:

*-That had been my initial objection against the new policy, but my comments had been taken out of context. The slack that my OP received just confirmed that this country is pretty close to rabid hole, as stated earlier. Google is doing that former Warsaw Pact governments did, silencing dissenting voices. Looking at events in one way never gives the full picture, recent history in the US and other countries confirmed that years later.

 

I understand that members don't want pay for membership, it has been just a suggestion. I'll join you in exiting the political forum and just focus on hockey...

The main difference being, this isn't the Unites States of Alphabet.

[Cr00zng]

3 hours ago, Pete said:

The main difference being, this isn't the Unites States of Alphabet.

 

Do you really think that? Asides from the US of A is kind of part of the alphabet....

 

Let's say we leave these decision to the government and tech companies, the government not stopping Google can easily be construed as an agreement to their action.  In which case "facts" will ultimately become entwined with their agendas. In other words, censorship to prevent disinfo can turn into another form of disinfo. I've already lived in such a system and it's ain't fun seeing the seeds of it here....

 

 

 

 

[Pete]

13 minutes ago, Cr00zng said:

 

Do you really think that? Asides from the US of A is kind of part of the alphabet....

 

Let's say we leave these decision to the government and tech companies, the government not stopping Google can easily be construed as an agreement to their action.  In which case "facts" will ultimately become entwined with their agendas. In other words, censorship to prevent disinfo can turn into another form of disinfo. I've already lived in such a system and it's ain't fun seeing the seeds of it here....

 

 

 

 

Sorry I'm not buying it. The government agrees. So what?

[Cr00zng]

2 hours ago, Pete said:

Sorry I'm not buying it. The government agrees. So what?

If I’d have to explain it to you, you wouldn’t understand anyway…

[Pete]

10 minutes ago, Cr00zng said:

If I’d have to explain it to you, you wouldn’t understand anyway…

So we should never do anything the government agrees with? k.

 

Yes, maybe stick to the hockey section. 

[Cr00zng]

On 4/21/2022 at 10:22 PM, Pete said:

So we should never do anything the government agrees with? k.

 

You just make up shit as you please, don't you, with disregard to the actual content. Show me where I did say, that we should never agree with the government. My problem had been with Google censorship and the government agreeing with it.

 

You may have some problem comprehending this, but let's try it anyway:

 

Quote

A group of former intelligence and national security officials on Monday issued a jointly signed letter warning that pending legislative attempts to restrict or break up the power of Big Tech monopolies — Facebook, Google, and Amazon — would jeopardize national security because, they argue, their centralized censorship power is crucial to advancing U.S. foreign policy. 

Source

 

No matter how you twist it, a centralized censorship has no place in a free and democratic country. Weather it is just the tech companies, or in collusion with the government.

 

If you believe that centralized censorship is a OK, you would've had a great life in the former Warsaw Pact countries...

 

 

[Pete]

45 minutes ago, Cr00zng said:

 

You just make up shit as you please, don't you, with disregard to the actual content. Show me where I did say, that we should never agree with the government. My problem had been with Google censorship and the government agreeing with it.

 

You may have some problem comprehending this, but let's try it anyway:

 

Source

 

No matter how you twist it, a centralized censorship has no place in a free and democratic country. Weather it is just the tech companies, or in collusion with the government.

 

If you believe that centralized censorship is a OK, you would've had a great life in the former Warsaw Pact countries...

 

 

You're talking about people making shit up and then you totally misquote what I said.

 

There is no centralized censorship. We're talking about about Phil making $63 with ads on the internet to support a forum. 

[Phil]

This isn't the place for high level debates over the concept of free speech, national security, etc. We literally have a forum for that if it's something you're earnestly interested in.

 

I've already said I will look into the idea of subscriptions this summer, but don't hold your breath, because this and "sexual content" are the only "issues" we've ever encountered with regard to utilizing AdSense to offset forum costs.

 

There may be a way to offer users an ad-free experience, for example, by allowing them to pay for a subscription that removes ads and offers them a perk or two, but the idea of moving the entire financial backing to subscriptions, established as a direct response to  Google's crackdown on Russian propaganda isn't one I'm remotely interested in.

 

As was said earlier, if you want to play dis/misinformation games, do so somewhere else. I'm not upending the entire financial structure that I'm very comfortable with due to its reliability over this. I'm just not.

[Dory01]

If more people were thinking like you maybe we would live in a better place and world...

[Br4d]

Any site that gets a lot of hits will be used for propaganda purposes eventually.  It's just the world we live in.

 

Hopefully we get a handle on this over the next generation and do not wind up fighting each other incessantly just because the internet offers a blank canvas and some people just want to spill blood all over it.