Youtube censorship time to allow embedded videos from other sites?

Overheal

da_miser wrote: »

In a nut shell, thats whats wrong with the world, you know the type,100 previous convictions and yet again given the probation act.
If you break the law habitually and Arbery did this, its hard for me to have any sympathy, black,white ,brown or yellow , i dont care, if your a scumbag you get what you deserve, his was on the extreme end of the scale, but i care not, he would have just continued to be a scumbag getting into trouble with the law until he either ended up in jail or dead.
That's harsh but the way i feel, i have lived my entire life as have 99% of the population and have have never come to the attention of the law, i'v had my fill of the bleeding hearts, he wont be missed.
Censorship wont change the way i feel, most likely confirm im correct, so convince me im wrong

Define “habitually,” as it appears inside your world view?

pjohnson

Overheal wrote: »

Define “habitually,” as it appears inside your world view?

Sorry Overheal. I think my "facts" scared him away.

Theres not been a third to pipe up and carry the torch yet

Overheal

pjohnson wrote: »

Sorry Overheal. I think my "facts" scared him away.

Theres not been a third to pipe up and carry the torch yet

But I didn’t even censor them yet! What a farce!

Roger the cabin boy

nthclare wrote: »

It seems to be either one way or the other, there's people who are making hay while the sun shines.
Looking after their house's and gardens, enjoying the break and adhering to the rules and suggested guidelines.
Making good time with the family.
Enjoying Art and creativity.
Looking out for their neighbours and local vulnerable people.

Then you've bitter and twisted people who are getting more violent, hiding out in dark rooms gone totally underground and joining internet groups like anything to do with social justice, incels moaning about toxic masculinity and agreeing with the third wave femminism movement just because they want to get laid.
Negative people posting up positive meme's on Facebook to hide their bitterness towards the outside world.
People plagiarising other famous people's quotes and pawning it off as their own or just posting it to make themselves sound like they really care about humanity.

Another one I notice is the amount of twisted bitches and cruel bastard's who are posting animal cruelty video's on Facebook and pretending they really care about animals.
These cnts make me sick.
Sharing animal cruelty is disgusting and only adding to real animal lover's pain by gloryfying your own sickness.
And the stupid post's about Donald Trump, why are these lefty liberal goons so obsessed with The Don, he never did me any harm.

I was off Facebook for 10 year's and rejoined to catch up with friends and family and listen to live DJ sets.. which is cool.

Then the snakes come out of the grass, hissing around my page.
I take one look at their page, I see a plethora of famous people's quotes, social justice bull****.
Animal lover's posting clips of animal cruelty and they have shown the problem and show no interest in a solution...pricks

What's happened to people, I leave Facebook for 10 year's and I'd say 20% of people are original and the rest are like clones of each other.

Tk fck I can accept,look at their page unfriend block...

I'm a little unsure of the thrust of this post but, if you are dissing people because they are being negative, Bertie A and his GFC says hi.

Kidchameleon

Overheal wrote: »

Water.

Funny how the homeowner changed his story from fishing gear going missing to nothing going missing when he started receiving death threats from an angry mob. He never brought up water source angle until his layer did, weeks after the McMichaels arrest. The homeowner installed the cameras inside the house that filmed Arbery inside it BECAUSE things were going missing. There are texts or emails from the homeowner to the authorities regarding breakins to his property. Arbery was in that property MANY times, he was up to no good, we all know this.

KiKi III wrote: »

ISee in my opinion even if someone is guilty of burglary you don’t get to shoot them dead in the street.

They didn't shoot him dead. Watch the video. They had 30+ seconds to shoot him. The shot went off when Arbery tried to wrestle the gun from Travis. This is as clear as day. Look at the estate on Google maps, there is directions in 360 degrees where he could have run to, the neighbor behind (afaik) was unarmed, he could have run that way, to the left, the right. Into any of the houses surrounding him. Comon, admit it, he ran at them to take the gun because he was on his last warning and was headed to jail. This is the unfortunate reality.

da_miser wrote: »

If you break the law habitually and Arbery did this, its hard for me to have any sympathy, black,white ,brown or yellow , i dont care, if your a scumbag you get what you deserve

100% agree. There is a new video of him now in a park known for drug crime. He is resisting the cops searching his car (why???). The way he speaks to them... He was a complete and total ANIMAL

KiKi III wrote: »

Can you link me to Ahmaud Arbaury’s criminal record that has led you to believe that this murder victim was a “scumbag”?
.

Nobody is denying he has a criminal record. He does. The funny thing is, you need to go to BitChute to find pictures of his mugshot. The mainstream media only show him in his tuxedo, funny that. We all know the tricks the media play, if they want to bad mouth a celebrity for example, they will pic the worst photo they can find out of 10's of thousands.

pjohnson wrote: »

If anyone has a dodgy past its the lazy daddy Batman wannabe who appears to have not even managed the bare minimum to keep himself employed.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/14/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-gregory-mcmichael-records

Funny what you find when you look up peoples past.

Completely irrelevent, he had the power to make a citizens arrest. He fell behind in his training because his wife had cancer and his daughter had mental health issues. Strangly, the article you linked doesnt mention that.

pjohnson wrote: »

So for future reference when you say

"There has" you mean "I believe"?

Yes we are all human and misspeak from time to time.

Overheal wrote: »

They chased him for 4 minutes with 2 vehicles and at least 1 shotgun if not other firearms. Where was he supposed to go? You’re perched on your armchair pretending to have known how he could have avoided getting chased down by 3 squirrelly hillbillies who were locked and loaded.

YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

I'm not discussing the Arbery situation anymore, I am already receiving threats on Youtube about it. Threats because I am describing exactly what is happening in a video that my attacker has in front of them. People do not want to believe reality in this situation because they are brain washed by the mainstream media. I have dealt with people like yourself all week on this issue. They want to believe a fairy story about a man jogging and being cornered despite ALL EVIDENCE to the contrary. We shall see when the trial is over who is right. Remember, they were not arrested until months after the indecent when the mob pressure became too much for the officials. I believe they will be found not guilty.

I "BROUGHT IT UP" to illustrate that the mainstream media can spin a story and cause harm to the public. I believe I achieved that even though many here will not admit it.

Again I am not discussing the Arbery case any more because it is nothing to do with the thread, start a new one if yo want to discuss it.

pjohnson

Sticking to the hopelessly disproved fantasy facts and evidence from your own fairytale is a bold face saving strategy!

2u2me

So a conspiracy theory moderator comes into this thread to argue how conspiracy theories should be banned. (Not joking). How come the arguments went from reasonable and respectful to suddenly all playing the man? Rinse and repeat around here with these kind of threads.

Overheal wrote: »

You have no idea what you’re talking about and are roped into fantasy.

pjohnson wrote: »

But given your suicide fantasy was debunked

Overheal wrote: »

You’re offended on behalf of Alex Jones and David Icke surely that makes you the pinko liberal nazi here.

KiKi III wrote: »

Yeah, you’ve said that already and it’s cute that you’re naive enough to think it’s true.
Get real.

Overheal wrote: »

If you want a Trump safe space I somehow suspect Stormfront will treat trump detractors the way you want them to be treated on their platform.

DubInMeath wrote: »

For someone who claims to be so clued in you don't seem to be able to look up information on SYL's criminal record

The local cabal have taken up their arms.

pjohnson wrote: »

Sorry Overheal. I think my "facts" scared him away.

No, it wasn't facts that drove people away pjohnson. It was the way that you guys argue. No body wants to bother with you. Why would they.

pjohnson

2u2me wrote: »

No, it wasn't facts that drove people away pjohnson. It was the way that you guys argue. No body wants to bother with you. Why would they.

The way I argue by telling Kid what the police themselves said instead of his fantasy murder suicide tribute killing shìte?

Kids whole fantasy fell apart almost instantly after ONE google search. And then he ran off crying until morning when he feebly doubled down.


You guys want an echo chamber not any type of facts/discussion. Thats why you all love Bitchute.

Kidchameleon

pjohnson wrote: »

The way I argue by telling Kid what the police themselves said instead of his fantasy murder suicide tribute killing shìte?

Well the article's I linked said they did not know weather he died by suicide or the shootout. I conceded that he died as a result of the shootout when the information was presented to me. I then said, so what? Why is it relevant? This is all in thread if you care to read back. It remains that he (IMHO) shot those people because of the media lies in the Arbery case.

pjohnson

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well the article's I linked said they did not know weather he died by suicide or the shootout. I conceded that he died as a result of the shootout when the information was presented to me. I then said, so what? Why is it relevant? This is all in thread if you care to read back. It remains that he (IMHO) shot those people because of the media lies in the Arbery case.

Well it was literally never relevant until you tried to present your fantasy facts that it was. Until you later clarified that when you say "there has" you actually mean "I believe". Also try to read actual decent standard of articles to get facts.

Your cluelessness over the actual Arbery case vs. your fantasies about the case are a whole other problem you have.

2u2me

pjohnson wrote: »

The way I argue by telling Kid what the police themselves said instead of his fantasy murder suicide tribute killing shìte?

Kids whole fantasy fell apart almost instantly after ONE google search. And then he ran off crying until morning when he feebly doubled down.


You guys want an echo chamber not any type of facts/discussion. Thats why you all love Bitchute.

My takeaway from the case is just how bad it is to censor things. You end up with peple believing all sorts of things because they don't trust the 'authoritarian' sources which in a way is understandable. If these ideas were out in the open they would be much easier to swat down or be revealed as true, either way win-win.

What is not a victory for anybody is throwing insults around and trying silence others.

Kidchameleon

pjohnson wrote: »

Well it was literally never relevant until you tried to present your fantasy facts that it was. Until you later clarified that when you say "there has" you actually mean "I believe". Also try to read actual decent standard of articles to get facts.

Your cluelessness over the actual Arbery case vs. your fantasies about the case are a whole other problem you have.

OK so he was out "jogging" 12 miles from his home. He was filmed in a property multiple times where 1000's of dollars worth of equipment went missing but it had nothing to do with him. He has previous for resisting arrest and firearms offenses and they "cornered" him despite the fact that he had a whole 360 degree avenue of escape. Grand, I'm the one living in fantasy land.



Also the fact that it other case was not a suicide strengthens my argument so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

donspeekinglesh

da_miser wrote: »

Thats the problem, the little guys are NOT infringing the copyright of other people’s intellectual property.
Under fair use/fair deal copyright laws, you are allowed to use pictures, short video clips in a review of media, this is what the little people do, the giant media corporations send out spurious copyright claims and get the videos demonitised or taken down, by the time the issue is resolved, almost always in favour of the little guy, its too late, the movie is out for a month, another 3-4 episodes of the TV show have aired and no one is looking on Youtube to see the reviews, the little guys dont make a penny.
Dont know if any of you have watched Star Trek Picard, it is a truly terrible show, CBS where doing everything to suppress reviews of the show on Youtube, as 90% of the reviews are saying its a bad show.

This is not YouTube's choice, this is YouTube following the DMCA. Any other site what wants to avoid being being sued has to do the same.

And I really liked Picard.

circadian

Kidchameleon wrote: »

OK so he was out "jogging" 12 miles from his home. He was filmed in a property multiple times where 1000's of dollars worth of equipment went missing but it had nothing to do with him. He has previous for resisting arrest and firearms offenses and they "cornered" him despite the fact that he had a whole 360 degree avenue of escape. Grand, I'm the one living in fantasy land.



Also the fact that it other case was not a suicide strengthens my argument so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Can't believe you've spent several pages trying to justify the murder. Even if he was responsible for thefts or whatever it doesn't mean he deserves to be gunned down in cold blood, which is exactly what it was. Saying that he was wrestling the gun off the attacker meant he was armed is absolutely stupid.

Kidchameleon

circadian wrote: »

Saying that he was wrestling the gun off the attacker meant he was armed is absolutely stupid.

Suppose you successfully wrestled a gun from a person. Does that mean you are then are armed or not? At the very least, Arbery was trying to arm himself. Its basic logic. McMichaels was perfectly allowed to defend himself in such a circumstance and even at that, I have seen the video many times, its not clear what caused the discharges. It could well have been Arbery himself.

*edit* that's it I'm done talking about Arbery here, start a new thread and I'll happily discuss it there if you want

2u2me

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

This is not YouTube's choice, this is YouTube following the DMCA. Any other site what wants to avoid being being sued has to do the same.

And I really liked Picard.

There are certainly situations where Youtube are following DMCA correctly; but far too many times it's abused. Not everyone can spare 1.5years for depositions and raise nearly $200,000.

Channels can be stealing intellectual property but they can also be transforming it by fair use.

I was looking forward to Picard for years. Personally I was rather disappointed. Star Trek was one of my favourite shows ever it seems to have abandoned everything that made it good. That one episode with Riker and Diana Troy was good.
People should be free to express their opinions about it and even include clips from the show if it is transformative in nature. That's what happens on television all the time.

KiKi III

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Suppose you successfully wrestled a gun from a person. Does that mean you are then are armed or not? At the very least, Arbery was trying to arm himself. Its basic logic. McMichaels was perfectly allowed to defend himself in such a circumstance and even at that, I have seen the video many times, its not clear what caused the discharges. It could well have been Arbery himself.

*edit* that's it I'm done talking about Arbery here, start a new thread and I'll happily discuss it there if you want

He wasn’t trying to arm himself, he was trying to disarm a man who was attacking him for no good reason.

donspeekinglesh

2u2me wrote: »

There are certainly situations where Youtube are following DMCA correctly; but far too many times it's abused. Not everyone can spare 1.5years for depositions and raise nearly $200,000.

But it's not YouTube abusing the process. It's the people (often big media companies, sometimes people with thin skin and deep pockets) submitting the takedown requests, and the courts that have decided that false requests are not worthy of punishment ( even though it's perjury).

2u2me wrote: »

Channels can be stealing intellectual property but they can also be transforming it by fair use.

People should be free to express their opinions about it and even include clips from the show if it is transformative in nature. That's what happens on television all the time.

Agree 100%

Kidchameleon

KiKi III wrote: »

He wasn’t trying to arm himself, he was trying to disarm a man who was attacking him for no good reason.

I'm going to start a new discussion in Current Affairs/IMHO and with your permission I'll respond to that there because it is not the topic of this discussion...

pjohnson

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'm going to start a new discussion in Current Affairs/IMHO and with your permission I'll respond to that there because it is not the topic of this discussion...

Almost like it had no relevance at all. Have to wonder why anyone would drag it here in the first place.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

So a conspiracy theory moderator comes into this thread to argue how conspiracy theories should be banned. (Not joking). How come the arguments went from reasonable and respectful to suddenly all playing the man? Rinse and repeat around here with these kind of threads.


The local cabal have taken up their arms.



No, it wasn't facts that drove people away pjohnson. It was the way that you guys argue. No body wants to bother with you. Why would they.

Having seen what conspiracy theories can result in when presented as “forbidden fact” and not, you know, entertaining theories. Yes, I’m more than qualified to state that the likes of PizzaGate etc. being peddled as FACT resulted in at least one act of violence involving an AR-15. The parents of Sandy book received death threats. Gabriel Giffords was shot in the face. Alongside 18 other people, 6 of whom are dead, including one little girl.

Conspiracy theories are not harmless little things that you can pass off as fact unchecked.

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

Having seen what conspiracy theories can result in when presented as “forbidden fact” and not, you know, entertaining theories. Yes, I’m more than qualified to state that the likes of PizzaGate etc. being peddled as FACT resulted in at least one act of violence involving an AR-15. The parents of Sandy book received death threats. Gabriel Giffords was shot in the face. Alongside 18 other people, 6 of whom are dead, including one little girl.

Conspiracy theories are not harmless little things that you can pass off as fact unchecked.

You're right; they are a thing to be debated and challenged, not silenced. How can you change the mind of a person who holds a conspiracy theory without talking about said thing.

The big gaping hole in your argument is to whom do you give the power to decide what a conspiracy theory is? Every example in history when someone had this power is marred with the deaths of millions of people.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

You're right; they are a thing to be debated and challenged, not silenced. How can you change the mind of a person who holds a conspiracy theory without talking about said thing.

The big gaping hole in your argument is to whom do you give the power to decide what a conspiracy theory is? Every example in history when someone had this power is marred with the deaths of millions of people.

If YouTube decides they don’t want it discussed on their platform that’s their right. They have a social responsibility. If they’re hosting bunk unchallenged and some other paranoid schitzo shoots up another 19 people with a 33 round 9mm they will be among the first people on the list to be sued for damages. Even if the chance of success is weak I’m sure they’d rather just avoid paying lawyers.

2u2me

There was a BBC documentary, "Three Girls", they were doing an expose on the abuses of the grooming gangs of Britain.

They were scared to release the documentary, and years later when they did their worst fears were proven right, a lunatic man drove a van into a group of Muslim people at a mosque after watching it.

This is absolutely horrendous and you will always find a nutjob, but in no way can you stop the release of such information because think of the amount of girls it can potentially save.

After an extensive probe (which they promised to release the findings to the public) the British have again decided not to release the information. For fear that some lunatic might drive his van into a mosque. But what about the poor girls and their plight.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

There was a BBC documentary, "Three Girls", they were doing an expose on the abuses of the grooming gangs of Britain.

They were scared to release the documentary, and years later when they did their worst fears were proven right, a lunatic man drove a van into a group of Muslim people at a mosque after watching it.

This is absolutely horrendous and you will always find a nutjob, but in no way can you stop the release of such information because think of the amount of girls it can potentially save.

After an extensive probe (which they promised to release the findings to the public) the British have again decided not to release the information. For fear that some lunatic might drive his van into a mosque. But what about the poor girls and their plight.

Would be a matter of closed investigation in law enforcement not public lynching.

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

If YouTube decides they don’t want it discussed on their platform that’s their right. They have a social responsibility.

The last few pages have proven how it's not youtube following their policies. It's youtube kowtowing the the pressure exerted on them by social justice warriors. There is no other name for them. The likes of the CCDH and Mark Di Stefano.

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

Would be a matter of closed investigation in law enforcement not public lynching.

No you're wrong. It's a matter of public interest which the British government has admitted:

The Government appreciates public interest in this matter and shares the nation’s outrage and determination to end this atrocious form of abuse. Mistakes have undoubtedly been made in the past and must never be allowed to happen again.

We will continue to work relentlessly to understand and end all forms of child sexual abuse. The most vulnerable in our society deserve our protection and we will work tirelessly to keep them safe and to bring their tormentors to justice.

Home Office

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

The last few pages have proven how it's not youtube following their policies. It's youtube kowtowing the the pressure exerted on them by social justice warriors. There is no other name for them. The likes of the CCDH and Mark Di Stefano.

They don’t have to follow their own policies. Twitter, for example, routinely shifts its policy to explain why it condones @realDonaldTrump violating their stated policies on the regular.

What you call SJWs is other people exercising their first amendment rights. It’s self-contradictory to lament their use of free speech isn’t it? They want what most people want: checks and controls on not just erroneous content, but deliberate disinformation.

Overheal

2u2me wrote: »

No you're wrong. It's a matter of public interest which the British government has admitted:

Something being in the public interest (eg. Counter-Terrorism) is not mutually exclusive from the need to perform such duties in a sensitive manner.

2u2me

Overheal wrote: »

They don’t have to follow their own policies. Twitter, for example, routinely shifts its policy to explain why it condones @realDonaldTrump violating their stated policies on the regular.

What you call SJWs is other people exercising their first amendment rights. It’s self-contradictory to lament their use of free speech isn’t it? They want what most people want: checks and controls on not just erroneous content, but deliberate disinformation.

Extortion does not fall under the rubric of 'freedom of speech'.

You are constantly strawmanning what free speech advocates are actually advocating. It demonstrates how little you actually know about the topic.