Youtube censorship time to allow embedded videos from other sites?

pjohnson

nthclare wrote: »

Are you a Liberal or SJW type of person Timberrrrrrr ?

Are you a lefty by any chance ?

So is this you getting outraged that Timber is capable of showing basic compassion?


Gotta love when the righties go full on shìt themselves crazy and go full parody on themselves.

2u2me

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And I'm sure that eased the pain of the dead children's families, personally i think that prìck should have been jailed for 20 years but only after visiting the families of each child killed/injured and apologising to their faces.

I wouldn't disagree with you. In the court case he argued he was 'just an entertainer', while I'm sure many of his fans would agree; I'm sure many of them took it as fact(which resulted in abuse for the poor families).

But where does this end? Should we cut off his electricity as well, pull out his tongue? Where does the punishment end?
Surely there should be a path to redemption.

pjohnson

2u2me wrote: »

I wouldn't disagree with you. In the court case he argued he was 'just an entertainer', while I'm sure many of his fans would agree; I'm sure many of them took it as fact (which resulted in abuse for the poor families).

But where does this end? Should we cut off his electricity as well, pull out his tongue? Where does the punishment end?
Surely there should be a path to redemption.

You can't sympathise with the families. Thats SJW liberal lefty talk.

2u2me

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

She clearly explains why he was banned, do you have an issue with her explanation?

Yes. It is outlined clearly in the 3.5hour video includin Jack Dorsey; how they don't*apply their rules fairly to everyone.

She ends with 'years of harrassment' yet the only substantial evidence was he 'doxed' someone, which is horrible and deserves punishment, I'm just not sure banned for life should be included.

He's a satirist he was poking fun at a movie; that's the straw that broke the camels' back; the hilarity of it is unreal. He was also jokingly going by a 'buzzfeed' badge or something. A SATIRIST!

Timberrrrrrrr

nthclare wrote: »

Are you a Liberal or SJW type of person Timberrrrrrr ?

Are you a lefty by any chance ?

WTF is a "lefty" WTF is an "SJW"?

Please explain in your own words what makes a person either of those labels.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Again, why are the church not being banned for sharing misleading information? Do you no see the CLEAR double standard? It is not about terms and conditions or public safety, it is about ideology.

What misleading info have the church shared that violates YouTube T&C's? FWIW I would have no issues if all religions folded up shop tomorrow, the world would be a better place without them imo.

Timberrrrrrrr

2u2me wrote: »

Yes. It is outlined clearly in the 3.5hour video includin Jack Dorsey; how they don't*apply their rules fairly to everyone.

She ends with 'years of harrassment' yet the only substantial evidence was he 'doxed' someone, which is horrible and deserves punishment, I'm just not sure banned for life should be included.

He's a satirist he was poking fun at a movie; that's the straw that broke the camels' back; the hilarity of it is unreal. He was also jokingly going by a 'buzzfeed' badge or something. A SATIRIST!

She clearly states that the issues go back to 2014, those 3 were the final straw. Try dox someone on here and then explain (after your ban) that you should be allowed back.

Why should he be treated any differently to other users? He doxxed someone, that's enough for a lifetime ban imo.

Yellow_Fern

Overheal wrote: »

Well, as if to perfectly illustrate my point, Alex Jones had to shell out $100,000 to settle his Defamation suit brought forward by the parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook Massacre. Last I checked, that was just the legal battle in Texas - because that's where Jones is from, and operates. His case in Connecticut, where the massacre took place, last I heard was still an unsettled matter, but the outcome in TX basically ensures it will be a slam dunk. The families demonstrated injury to the courts, that because of Jones' content, they received death threats and other harassment from the public at large.

That's not even the only Conspiracy theory causing him litigation issues. He also had a high profile case brought against him by Chobani after he said their factory was linked to a child sex assault and a rise in tuberculosis. Even before that, he was similarly checkmated by Comet Pizza, the site of the infamous Pizzagate: where a loony shot up the place with an AR-15 because he was infuriated that he didn't find a basement there, much less one full of children and pedophiles, like Jones had convinced the listeners to his program. In both cases Jones saved his own ass by issuing, timely, public apologies.

Great question.



That's a touchier subject but you certainly don't see anyone trying to defend ISISs right to recruit on youtube in the name of religious persecution. It really depends on the content itself.

People absolutely should be allowed to defend ISIS on youtube and most right wing people talking about free speech would say the same. If you think too many people have died in the name of religion, what about the much greater numbers in the 20th cen who died in the name of republican, democracy, socialist and liberation movements. Are they 'iffy'?

The mad thing is that the most vocal supporters of private enterprise are the ones that squeal loudest when a private company enforce their rules

nthclare

pjohnson wrote: »

So is this you getting outraged that Timber is capable of showing basic compassion?


Gotta love when the righties go full on shìt themselves crazy and go full parody on themselves.

No it's a simple question.

There you go, suggesting that I'm outraged because I asked him or her a question.

So you translate my question in your own head and conclude that I'm outraged, that I'm a righty going full on parody of myself.

So my question to Timberrr in your head means that I'm outraged because Timberrr is capable of showing compassion ?

Go back and read the question again, maybe you're brain isn't firing in the right direction...

Actually (nonchalantly) I don't think you're making any sense so I'm not going to respond to your post.

It almost reads like you've a strange grasp of the English language and your ability to get it all arse ways show's that you're not really on the same page as myself...

Good luck now pjohnson have a wonderful day

Kidchameleon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

What misleading info have the church shared that violates YouTube T&C's? FWIW I would have no issues if all religions folded up shop tomorrow, the world would be a better place without them imo.

You misinterpreted my post so I'll try to explain it better... the church can say whatever it wants without proof about sky fairy's, eternal life reincarnation etc etc they say these things as if they are fact... Yet Ike cannot put forward something that he states is a theory. Why the double standard?

nthclare

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

WTF is a "lefty" WTF is an "SJW"?

Please explain in your own words what makes a person either of those labels.

Actually I'll leave it there, these discussions are not really interesting.

I think you can Google lefty and SJW and make up your own mind, you don't need to know my opinion or what I think these SJWs and Lefties are.

As for labels they're made in factories..

Bye now enjoy your day Timberrrr taraaa

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You misinterpreted my post so I'll try to explain it better... the church can say whatever it wants without proof about sky fairy's, eternal life reincarnation etc etc they say these things as if they are fact... Yet Ike cannot put forward something that he states is a theory. Why the double standard?

Ike wasn't banned for his religious beliefs though, he wasn't banned for talking about gods or lizard people he was banned because he broke "its policies by posting misleading information about the coronavirus pandemic."

In fact they state "the firm will still allow videos posted by others that feature Mr Icke to remain live, so long as their content does not break its rules."

He was banned because he falsely linking coronavirus symptoms to 5G mobile phone networks.

Timberrrrrrrr

nthclare wrote: »

Actually I'll leave it there, these discussions are not really interesting.

I think you can Google lefty and SJW and make up your own mind, you don't need to know my opinion or what I think these SJWs and Lefties are.

As for labels they're made in factories..

Bye now enjoy your day Timberrrr taraaa

Ermmmmm....ok


Bye de bye

da_miser

If you follow anyone on Youtube you will no doubt have see them complain that Youtube is now promoting the main stream media companies more than the independent content creators, it was these little guys who made Youtube popular and now the big corporation are moving in and being welcomed by Youtube and given preferential treatment.
These big corporation are making spurious copyright claims left right and center to take down videos of reviews that are not favourable to these Games/TV Shows/Movies, see Last of Us 2/new Star Trek/Star wars, any and all who dont like these are labeled Nazis, its frankly preposterous, anyone we dont like is a Nazi.
When watching youtube videos many of the content creators and now saying they are looking into other platforms for releasing some Videos that would be struck down on Youtube for spurious reasons.
This week we have Joe Rogan leaving youtube because of the censorship, Youtube where dictating to him who he could interview, this could be a seminal moment in online censorship, Youtube,Twitter and Facebook have taken it upon themselves to decide what media you can consume, its a slippery slope.
If Rogan is successful on Spotify , what stops a exodus to rival platforms by other popular Youtubers, once a platform is no longer "cool",and it can happen overnight (myspace), it starts a death spiral.

Kidchameleon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ike wasn't banned for his religious beliefs though, he wasn't banned for talking about gods or lizard people he was banned because he broke "its policies by posting misleading information about the coronavirus pandemic."

In fact they state "the firm will still allow videos posted by others that feature Mr Icke to remain live, so long as their content does not break its rules."

He was banned because he falsely linking coronavirus symptoms to 5G mobile phone networks.

No he wasn't and you know it. If that were the case, he would have had his 5g videos deleted and that would be it. He was completely banned because he is not afraid to speak against the mainstream narrative. Again, you have been given plenty of examples of people banned for no reason or at best very nebulous reasons. There is no harm in questioning the narrative, its what we do as scientific civilization, we postulate, discuss and the best ideas stay at the top while the silly ones sink to the bottom. Only this week a video by Prof Dolores Cahill was banned for no apparent reason. The video gave some scientifically informed counters to the narrative regarding the effectiveness of social distancing and lockdown. Why should these ideas not be discussed and argued? Why ban them outright? Why not allow discussion and debunking? I'm sure it is pretty easy to debunk Ike's 5G theory. Are people so fragile that they need to be protected from even hearing what he has to say?

da_miser

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

WTF is a "lefty" WTF is an "SJW"?

Please explain in your own words what makes a person either of those labels.

For me its people who like to be told how to think and behave, they want be part of a group, not big on free thinking and individuality.
The world is not black and white, but they see it that way, no nuance allowed, you are either a total believer in the cause or a Nazi.
Naive would be the kindest way to describe them, useful idiots would be more apt

Kidchameleon

da_miser wrote: »

..

Just on that, the first response here will be that he went for the 100 million. Yes that probably had something to do with it. But he openly stated that censorship was "one of the reasons". He did not state that it was the only reason.

2u2me

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Just on that, the first response here will be that he went for the 100 million. Yes that probably had something to do with it. But he openly stated that censorship was "one of the reasons". He did not state that it was the only reason.

He literally allows other people to clip segments of his podcast. If he was so interested in money he wouldn't do this.

da_miser

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Just on that, the first response here will be that he went for the 100 million. Yes that probably had something to do with it. But he openly stated that censorship was "one of the reasons". He did not state that it was the only reason.

Rogan wanted on experts to debate the pros and cons of the Covid-19 response, not mickey mouse people, but proper experts on both side, Youtube shot it down.
He regularly put up videos that get huge number of views, and Youtube demonetize them, of course Youtube still make money of these videos but Rogan doe not, that would anger anyone.
We have already seen Youtube, Twitch and Mixer pay Millions to get streamers on their platform, its going to be interesting to see what happens in the next few years.
Will the public prefer censored content on Youtube or unfiltered views on other platforms?

Kidchameleon

Who wants to live in a world where we cannot question authority?

da_miser

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Who wants to live in a world where we cannot question authority?

The Left SJW types that declare there way is the only way and any other view must be held by a NAZI.

Timberrrrrrrr

da_miser wrote: »

For me its people who like to be told how to think and behave, they want be part of a group, not big on free thinking and individuality.
The world is not black and white, but they see it that way, no nuance allowed, you are either a total believer in the cause or a Nazi.
Naive would be the kindest way to describe them, useful idiots would be more apt

Well then I can safely say I am neither of those and the person who asked me the question is wrong.

2u2me

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Who wants to live in a world where we cannot question authority?

If people want censorship there's a place for them to move: DPRK, or China. A great firewall of protection there available for anyone that wants it!

Please just move there and live and enjoy your life and don't **** with the freedoms for the rest of us; thanks!

da_miser

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well then I can safely say I am neither of those and the person who asked me the question is wrong.

Impossible!
You are either a Lefty SJW or a Nazi, there is no third option, you are all in on the left SJW way or a NAZI
Choose your path.
(Rule 1 of the Lefty SJW handbook)

FVP3

I don't know much about the censorhsip on youtube ( which I use very occasionally) or twitter which I am never on, however I can well imagine they are a bit more censored these days given the increase of pro Trump type right wingers on here.

FVP3

da_miser wrote: »

Impossible!
You are either a Lefty SJW or a Nazi, there is no third option, you are all in on the left SJW way or a NAZI
Choose your path.
(Rule 1 of the Lefty SJW handbook)

Relax. You are not living in the US.

Kidchameleon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Well then I can safely say I am neither of those and the person who asked me the question is wrong.

You spend a considerable amout of time being offended on behalf of others. That is a very telling trait of a SJW. Now im not saying you are one but you should be aware of that

Timberrrrrrrr

da_miser wrote: »

Impossible!
You are either a Lefty SJW or a Nazi, there is no third option, you are all in on the left SJW way or a NAZI
Choose your path.
(Rule 1 of the Lefty SJW handbook)

Damn, do I get a free gift if I join either side? Are there loyalty points?

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You spend a considerable amout of time being offended on behalf of others. That is a very telling trait of a SJW. Now im not saying you are one but you should be aware of that

Oh darling


I dont get offended for myself never mind other people, I enjoy a nice robust debate and if you read my post history you will see that sometimes I am on the side of the "left" and sometimes the "right". I have no set political compass i take each situation on it's own merit, i research it myself using different platforms/media sources and make my decisions based on that.

On these boards I have been called a leftie, a right wing bastàrd, a Nazi, a fascist, an SJW, a homophobe, a poofter, a queer, a Trump loving scumbag, an obama loving liberal, a Tory shill, a labour shill, an FF/FG shill and I have even been accused of getting paid to post for/against all of those parties (George Soros owes me a fortune) and those are probably just in the last year or 2.

Zero fùcks are given by me what label people choose to throw at me so no, I don't get offended on behalf of anyone.