Youtube censorship time to allow embedded videos from other sites?

Eric Cartman

whippet wrote: »

Isn’t she tied in with the Irish freedom party ... the one with Hermon Kelly and Ben Gilroy as candidates at the last election ... no wonder her stuff is being shared widely by all the usual suspects

probably a doctorate in media studies or something.

Kidchameleon

KiKi III wrote: »

I’m giving you actual, verifiable facts and you’re giving ideology-driven babble.

So did Donald Trump collude with Russia or what? Can you verify that for me please with links.


Here is one article that backs up my claim that the Russia narrative began before the election....


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/07/us-russia-dnc-hack-interfering-presidential-election


Here we can see the collusion story being teed up

suicide_circus

one thing that pisses me off about youtube is the android app.

if you have a US vpn running on your phone you can minimize the video by pressing the home button and it will keep playing on a mini floating screen while you can access other apps etc on the phone but this feature is only active for ppl in the states, hence why it works with vpn.

Guy:Incognito

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Millions of videos on that site.

As regards conspiracy stuff if it can be debunked it is best to debunk it not ban it.

This is a good video from an Irish poster.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/O0fsg8ijn8E/

Should boards allow racists and homophobes that encourage attacks on or discrimination against these groups?

I mean, we can all just explain to these people why their views are wrong and everything will be fine, right?

Guy:Incognito

statesaver wrote: »

A lot of posters here seem to agree with censorship and that is scary.

Freedom of speech must always be protected.

Youre free to start a website and air your views all you like. No one else has to be force to air them for you. Surely the freedom goes both ways?

Mister Vain

It's not just conspiracy theorists that are having their videos removed from youtube. Doctors and immunologists that disagree with the official narrative are having their videos pulled too.

Guy:Incognito

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Orange man bad.

Stupid man child that expresses stupid views and cant raise himself above the level of a 6 year old by resisting the urge to call anyone he doesn't like a childish name when referring to them , bad.

storker

osarusan wrote: »

Argument by youtube video is always a sign that somebody can't make their own argument.

The longer the better in the hope that people won't actually watch it and assume that it adequately supports the poster's case.

statesaver

statesaver wrote: »

Just looked him up :pac::pac:


He's got 442K subscribers on YouTube

How many do you have ?

The saying that there is one born every minute comes to mind.

suicide_circus

i think the scope and the reach of the platforms got away from the companies that run them. the beast is too big. they are learning as they go. these platforms and the way humans interact with them are new phenomena.

storker

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Youre free to start a website and air youre views all you like. No one else has to be force to air them for you. Surely the freedom goes both ways?

This. YouTube is under no more obligation to host someone's sh1te than a publisher is required to publish their book or a newspaper to print their letter or Joe Duffy to take their call. It's not censorship, it's an editorial policy.

If they can upload it somewhere else, or host it on their own website, then they're not being censored.

Guy:Incognito

statesaver wrote: »

Just looked him up :pac::pac:


He's got 442K subscribers on YouTube

How many do you have ?

Gemma O'Doherty has 54k twitter followers. If that **** can get those numbers, 442k for someone in a country 65 times bigger, population wise, isnt that great an achievement.

Followers on social media isnt any metric for how valid your views are.

suicide_circus

absolutely platforms can choose what is and isnt allowed. but at that point they become publishers.

storker

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty has 54k twitter followers. If that **** can get those numbers, 442k for someone in a country 65 times bigger, population wise, isnt that great an achievement.

Followers on social media isnt any metric for how valid your views are.

Granted, not many people may have heard the term "argumentum ad populum", but most people capable of a bit of critical thinking have figured it out for themselves anyway.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

He's a boards member so have a bit of respect

So what, since when does joining a discussion site mean someone is to be respected'?

Going by the logic of your post If someone who is a career criminal, say the type that breaks into homes of the elderly, joins the site we should be treating them with respect.

KiKi III

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Gemma O'Doherty has 54k twitter followers. If that **** can get those numbers, 442k for someone in a country 65 times bigger, population wise, isnt that great an achievement.

Followers on social media isnt any metric for how valid your views are.

She has fewer than 100 engaged followers on most tweets. That’s a percentage so low it seems probable that she’s bought fake followers at some point.

Her super high engagement posts get maybe 300 likes, many of the comments are trolling/ questioning her.

Kidchameleon

DubInMeath wrote: »

So what, since when does joining a discussion site mean someone is to be respected'?

Going by the logic of your post If someone who is a career criminal, say the type that breaks into homes of the elderly, joins the site we should be treating them with respect.

It is a rule in the sites charter. Which you signed up to... I dont make the rules so dont blame me

Kidchameleon

KiKi III wrote: »

it seems probable that she’s bought fake followers at some point.

.

How ironic. You think Gemma pulls things out of her ar5e yet here you are, literally pulling things out of yours. Have you anything to back that up, that Gemma "bought" followers?

Kidchameleon

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Stupid man child that expresses stupid views and cant raise himself above the level of a 6 year old by resisting the urge to call anyone he doesn't like a childish name when referring to them , bad.

He's a multi billionairre. Your literally spewing the mainstream narritive word for word here. He is not stupid, he is playing them at their own game and winning

Robert ninja

If Google was actually clear on what was allowed on Youtube I don't think people would have a problem with it. That could be said for every major social media platform, too. For the last few years they've shown infuriating double standards and implemented purposefully vague policies. They demonitise, shadowban and demote anything that they don't agree with without being forthcoming about it while promoting late night TV show hosts and other mainstream made-for-TV trash, as well as pure degenerates like the Paul family.

That's not what old youtube was like and it's not what the internet is good for. I want the random normal folk talking about controversial stuff in their rooms, not Google-sponsored/approved content.

KiKi III

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How ironic. You think Gemma pulls things out of her ar5e yet here you are, literally pulling things out of yours. Have you anything to back that up, that Gemma "bought" followers?

Yes, if you read my full post you would have seen my reasoning.

50,000+ followers but far less than 1% of them engage with her posts. Dead giveaway that someone has bought followers.

biko

Besides the almost unintelligible title (don't be afraid to use commas), the conspiracy theorists and the "smart" comments by the know-it-alls.

OP, if you want bitchute to embed then you should post a request in a forum for platform changes.
Help & Feedback > Site Development springs to mind.

KiKi III

biko wrote: »

Besides the almost unintelligible title (don't be afraid to use commas), the conspiracy theorists and the "smart" comments by the know-it-alls.

OP, if you want bitchute to embed then you should post a request in a forum for platform changes.
Help & Feedback > Site Development springs to mind.

But stirring up some faux outrage here is so much more fun!

ED E

biko wrote: »

Besides the almost unintelligible title (don't be afraid to use commas), the conspiracy theorists and the "smart" comments by the know-it-alls.

OP, if you want bitchute to embed then you should post a request in a forum for platform changes.
Help & Feedback > Site Development springs to mind.

It looks like you have to give them an iFrame, that allows them to pipe anything back. Might be good today, malware tomorrow. Doubt Boards-dev will ever ever ever allow that for a volatile quantity like them.

Kidchameleon

Kidchameleon wrote: »

How ironic. You think Gemma pulls things out of her ar5e yet here you are, literally pulling things out of yours. Have you anything to back that up, that Gemma "bought" followers?

Ah now now remember that your to respect other users.

Clarence Boddiker

KiKi III wrote: »

50,000+ followers but far less than 1% of them engage with her posts. Dead giveaway that someone has bought followers.

The New York Times has 46 million followers and averages around 250 likes per tweet and even less comments.

KiKi III

Clarence Boddiker wrote: »

The New York Times has 46 million followers and averages around 250 likes per tweet and even less comments.

Not sure that’s exactly comparing like with like. Had a quick look and although it’s early morning in the US, The NY Times account has already tweeted 40 times on all kinds of different stories today. Obviously each individual story only appeals to a certain subsection of their followers but I’d imagine they have a much lower proportion of completely disengaged followers. Can’t say for certain though, just an educated guess.

If you look through Gemma’s, there’s an awful lot that don’t have a real name or a profile pic uploaded.

Where’s Bloggers Unveiled when you need her, she’d be able to shed some light on it.

TheRepentent

Mister Vain wrote: »

It's not just conspiracy theorists that are having their videos removed from youtube. Doctors and immunologists that disagree with the official narrative are having their videos pulled too.

Psuedo scientific quacks and rightfully so.

Clarence Boddiker

TheRepentent wrote: »

Psuedo scientific quacks and rightfully so.

How do you know that though? Thats really just an assumption by yourself. How could you possibly know whether all the doctors, scientists etc who were banned were quacks?

That you blindly assume that anything banned must have been quackery is whats scary. Happy to assume those who are deciding what information you're 'allowed' to see are correct and have your best interests at heart.
Kind of like back in the day "well if the bishop says we shouldn't read this book then it must be true and I'll stay away from it" "Well the monsignor said this book is immoral and should be banned therefore it should be"

paw patrol

super_furry wrote: »

Bitchute is for flat-earthers and people who shouldn't be trusted with sharp pencils.

you rarely disappoint with your one-eyed view of the world.