Patreon's, Youtube's and Facebook's "Community Standards" they are not mine!

[crusherg]

So I was playing a game I like called Glamour and I reached as far as I could until I reached the end of line so to speak.
I went to their Patreon page to see if their was any updates to the game and bam Patreon took their page off and they
are investigating the site for possibly violating the "Community Standards" part of their site. Well first off all It's their rules
not the community...second isn't what Patreon doing might be considered censorship? Anyway another game or company
soon to be gone. What do you all think?

 

[Fantabaldu]

So I was playing a game I like called Glamour and I reached as far as I could until I reached the end of line so to speak.
I went to their Patreon page to see if their was any updates to the game and bam Patreon took their page off and they
are investigating the site for possibly violating the "Community Standards" part of their site. Well first off all It's their rules
not the community...second isn't what Patreon doing might be considered censorship? Anyway another game or company
soon to be gone. What do you all think?

Look at the thread ... you can find already some answer Glamour

 

[Ultralazuli]

Censorship isn't really a thing in these kinds of circumstances. You agree to abide by a website's rules and such, and then violate them. They have every right to tell you to fuck off. It's not your website, you didn't setup any of it aside from what was on your particular page, and that shit's easy.
Do I think some companies take it too far? Sure. Companies like Google are pretty infamously notorious for removing or blocking or commandeering content published on their platform, even when it violates no particular law or policy. But by all rights, they can do whatever the fuck they wanna do. And they can tell you exactly what they want you to do if you want to keep being something on any of these sites.
Unless you yourself make something, or you convince these companies to write up different contracts/ToS/EULA/etc for you to sign with them, in which the legal advantages are yours (never gunna happen), then learn to deal with it.

 

[Buddawg]

I dont get why they get to do this tbh.
If the game in itself is legal to make and play, they shouldnt be allowed to remove it at all, regardless of their "conditions".
We dont allow ppl to make a sign at their store saying, no fags in my store. No jews allowed. No <removed>s can enter premises. No bikers permitted. Smokers arent allowed inside (ei, smokers as the person not the act). White females are only allowed access with a male antendant. Make any examples you want.
This is the excact same thing, just hidden behind "moral clauses". Just like many of these were when they were in effect.
You put up a store, you dont get to decide who uses it or for what reasons. They dont ruin the website, they dont break the law. The only thing they do, is that they are into something the owners dont like or want to be associated with.

If the game violated the law, ban it. Then its your right. If not, then youre just a bad person dictating what others should think/do.

 

[redknight00]

I dont get why they get to do this tbh.
If the game in itself is legal to make and play, they shouldnt be allowed to remove it at all, regardless of their "conditions".
We dont allow ppl to make a sign at their store saying, no fags in my store. No jews allowed. No <removed>s can enter premises. No bikers permitted. Smokers arent allowed inside (ei, smokers as the person not the act). White females are only allowed access with a male antendant. Make any examples you want.
This is the excact same thing, just hidden behind "moral clauses". Just like many of these were when they were in effect.
You put up a store, you dont get to decide who uses it or for what reasons. They dont ruin the website, they dont break the law. The only thing they do, is that they are into something the owners dont like or want to be associated with.

If the game violated the law, ban it. Then its your right. If not, then youre just a bad person dictating what others should think/do.

Forbidding people based on race/religion would constitute a crime, so stores can't do that, they and often do restrict service based on reasonable standards of conduct, such as denying people service if they are shirtless or with helmet/mask. It's the same with patreon/youtube/google, what they do is not illegal because all they are asking are reasonable (from a legal standpoint) guidelines on how to behave in their turf.

 

[polywog]

If you have a billboard in your yard, and you rent space on it to advertisers, you have some say of what can be posted on your site. Free speech doesn't apply on personal property.

 

[polywog]

Censorship isn't really a thing in these kinds of circumstances. You agree to abide by a website's rules and such, and then violate them. They have every right to tell you to fuck off. It's not your website, you didn't setup any of it aside from what was on your particular page, and that shit's easy.
Do I think some companies take it too far? Sure. Companies like Google are pretty infamously notorious for removing or blocking or commandeering content published on their platform, even when it violates no particular law or policy. But by all rights, they can do whatever the fuck they wanna do. And they can tell you exactly what they want you to do if you want to keep being something on any of these sites.
Unless you yourself make something, or you convince these companies to write up different contracts/ToS/EULA/etc for you to sign with them, in which the legal advantages are yours (never gunna happen), then learn to deal with it.

One female Exec at Google, a notorious Cougar... rawr used her position to prohibit cougar websites from coming up in google searches. Presumably to make it harder for other women to get the hot guys she wants for herself. A clear case of censorship, if there ever was one.

 

[Joshua Tree]

One female Exec at Google, a notorious Cougar... rawr used her position to prohibit cougar websites from coming up in google searches. Presumably to make it harder for other women to get the hot guys she wants for herself. A clear case of censorship, if there ever was one.

Would be nice with actual references on such claims. Got any? I found quickly the story about Andy Rubin's sexual misconduct. Not so much about any cougar at google abuse her position. They did back in 2010 restrict adds for cougar sites though. For public interest or not @

You must be registered to see the links

If you google like "cougar dating" today, you will get a whole lot of resorts, so if this something they did back peddle on later, idk.

So who was that notorious cougar then? Name? or is pointing fingers with no reference all it take these days?

 

[polywog]

Would be nice with actual references on such claims. Got any? I found quickly the story about Andy Rubin's sexual misconduct. Not so much about any cougar at google abuse her position. They did back in 2010 restrict adds for cougar sites though. For public interest or not @

You must be registered to see the links

If you google like "cougar dating" today, you will get a whole lot of resorts, so if this something they did back peddle on later, idk.

So who was that notorious cougar then? Name? or is pointing fingers with no reference all it take these days?

If it means so much to you, you may quote me as the source.

 

[Joshua Tree]

If it means so much to you, you may quote me as the source.

Oh yeah that enhance the credibility of your claims. You more come across as one of those teflon meme's out there..

 

[polywog]

You more come across as one of those teflon meme's out there..

How you imagine me coming isn't really a concern of mine. If imagining teflon on my cock is your fantasy, I can't stop you.

 

[Joshua Tree]

How you imagine me coming isn't really a concern of mine. If imagining teflon on my cock is your fantasy, I can't stop you.

Don't bother you already lost the argument in lack of facts.

 

[polywog]

Don't bother you already lost the argument in lack of facts.

You fucking millenials with your "i don't understand please show me step by step"
you cited the 2010 case

back in 2010 restrict adds for cougar sites though.

obviously confirming my story, and yet you want me to spoon feed you. Go get your load from a search engine that isn't trying to bury the story.

 

[Joshua Tree]

You fucking millenials with your "i don't understand please show me step by step"
you cited the 2010 case

obviously confirming my story, and yet you want me to spoon feed you. Go get your load from a search engine that isn't trying to bury the story.

It only confirmed google did restrict such adds. It didn't confirm you pointing some finger at some cougar at google did so for her own benefit. Where I came up with a factual reference you just waved a pointy finger with nothing to back it up. See the difference?

Milenials... Hmm, yeah I think I missed that train by a decade if not more. so... doubt that. Now you lash out again rather than offer any actual facts.....

 

[polywog]

It only confirmed google did restrict such adds. It didn't confirm you pointing some finger at some cougar at google did so for her own benefit. Where I came up with a factual reference you just waved a pointy finger with nothing to back it up. See the difference?

Milenials... Hmm, yeah I think I missed that train by a decade if not more. so... doubt that. Now you lash out again rather than offer any actual facts.....

Go back and read your post where you said you couldn't find which google exec was a cougar (there are more than one now). You were the one lashing out. If you had asked nicely I probably would have answered, instead of telling you to find the lawsuit on your own.

What possible motive could a search engine have for prohibiting dating sites made for female executives with top salaries who like young studs? Nothing illegal about lustfull old bags wanting boy-toys. It wasn't prostitution *cough* Somebody didn't want their dirty little secret getting out? nah she was proud to be in a position of power. A strong woman who liked showing off her playthings. The cougar dating sites allowed other women, more attractive women a chance, and she didn't like that one bit.

 

[Joshua Tree]

Go back and read your post where you said you couldn't find which google exec was a cougar (there are more than one now). You were the one lashing out. If you had asked nicely I probably would have answered, instead of telling you to find the lawsuit on your own.

What possible motive could a search engine have for prohibiting dating sites made for female executives with top salaries who like young studs? Nothing illegal about lustfull old bags wanting boy-toys. It wasn't prostitution *cough* Somebody didn't want their dirty little secret getting out? nah she was proud to be in a position of power. A strong woman who liked showing off her playthings. The cougar dating sites allowed other women, more attractive women a chance, and she didn't like that one bit.

You still haven't provided any actual facts. Until you do, this just more rambling. If you generalize like this, we can claim there is cougars in just about any board of execs in big companies. All we need to do is point fingers with no actual facts.
Feel free to drop the name if you want come across as somewhat serious.

 

[whippetmaster]

Not sure where google fits in with "patreons, youtubes, and facebooks community standards" especially with old cats blocking dating sites. If you're worried about cougars, just scroll on facebook until you find a hotter unmarried woman, use facebook messenger and set up your cougar encounter. People do that on facebook all the time anyways. Speaking of which, facebook should include "possibility of broken marriages and relationships" in its T.O.S. cuz that's a community standard for facebook.
So get yer butts on facebook and find them cougs.

 

[polywog]

You still haven't provided any actual facts. Until you do, this just more rambling. If you generalize like this, we can claim there is cougars in just about any board of execs in big companies. All we need to do is point fingers with no actual facts.
Feel free to drop the name if you want come across as somewhat serious.

get off your knees and stop begging me to do your homework for you. I said you can quote me. I am an authority on the subject. If you spent a few minutes searching you could find the settlement. you do know how key-words work don't you?
"12 google employees say their boss ordered them to..."
what's it to you, anyway? you don't seem the type to go whiteknighting for for old ladies, or looking for a sugar mamma.

 

[Joshua Tree]

get off your knees and stop begging me to do your homework for you. I said you can quote me. I am an authority on the subject. If you spent a few minutes searching you could find the settlement. you do know how key-words work don't you?
"12 google employees say their boss ordered them to..."
what's it to you, anyway? you don't seem the type to go whiteknighting for for old ladies, or looking for a sugar mamma.

I just hate people wave hands, point fingers and throw out claims with no actual facts. That is how you get stupid shit like pizzagate and crap. Just because you claim you are an authority on a subject doesn't mean anything unless you can back up your claims. Your word at face value mean nothing. Anyone can claim whatever fck they want on the internet.

I'm not begging you for anything, I just ask you to back up your claims with actual facts, which you fail at (so far)

 

[polywog]

I just hate people wave hands, point fingers and throw out claims with no actual facts. That is how you get stupid shit like pizzagate and crap. Just because you claim you are an authority on a subject doesn't mean anything unless you can back up your claims. Your word at face value mean nothing. Anyone can claim whatever fck they want on the internet.

I'm not begging you for anything, I just ask you to back up your claims with actual facts, which you fail at (so far)

oh I see. so you're one of those people. "I don't believe anything unless I hear it from CNN"