Youtube censorship time to allow embedded videos from other sites?

da_miser · 23-05-2020 12:01pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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

A free bottle of pink hair dye issued to every SJW recruit.

Timberrrrrrrr · 23-05-2020 12:04pm

da_miser wrote: »

A free bottle of pink hair dye issued to every SJW recruit.

I'm bald!!! Nazi it is so

da_miser · 23-05-2020 12:06pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

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.

You are what is know in Lefty SJW parlance as "problematic".
Cant be having a opinion of your own, you must adhere to a strictly defined narrow world view. Any other view is wrong, learn the error of your ways before its too late and you become a full blown Nazi

MadYaker · 23-05-2020 12:16pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

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?

This is nonsense. There’s hundreds of right wing channels on YouTube. Icke was banned for spreading misinformation about coronavirus.

2u2me · 23-05-2020 1:23pm

MadYaker wrote: »

This is nonsense. There’s hundreds of right wing channels on YouTube. Icke was banned for spreading misinformation about coronavirus.

"But the latest move was welcomed by the Center for Countering Digital Hate "

I wonder what makes the Centre for Countering Digital Hate so interested in Icke?

"We commend YouTube on bowing to pressure and taking action on David Icke's channel," said CCDH's chief executive Imran Ahmed.
CCDH is now urging Twitter and Facebook's Instagram to take similar action.

Yeah; pressure that they (CCDH) imposed on youtube themselves.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52517797

You see how this works? Some NGO concerned with racism or hate or something puts pressure on the social media company to either remove them or they will kick up a stink. The social media companies keep kowtowing.

jh79 · 23-05-2020 1:26pm

2u2me wrote: »

I wonder what makes the Centre for Countering Digital Hate so interested in Icke?

Yeah; pressure that they (CCDH) imposed on youtube themselves.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52517797

You see how this works? Some NGO concerned with racism or hate or something puts pressure on the social media company to either remove them or they will kick up a stink. The social media companies keep kowtowing.

Majority of CT's have origins in antisemitism.

2u2me · 23-05-2020 2:09pm

Mark Di Stefano was the 'journalist' who would put pressure on youtube and the likes to cancel Tommy Robinson and Mark Meechan(Countdankula).

CountDankula desribes here how the process works:
Write an article, inform the social media company you are about to release such article "Youtube hosts far-right tommy robinson etc.. etc..." Say that if they don't act you'll lambast them.

Just like CCDH did for Icke.
So it seems it's not private companies following their rules at all. It's private companies having to bend to whims of a certain ideological cabal.

"No bad tactics only bad targets"

Randy Archer · 23-05-2020 2:25pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Talking nonsense how? We agree for the most part?

Even suggesting for one millisecond that there wouldn’t be any platforms to us and even uttering the word China in this discussion

Randy Archer · 23-05-2020 2:33pm

da_miser wrote: »

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.

Why should these small timers be allowed to infringe copyright of other people’s intellectual property ? And not pay a single cent for it ?

Of course the big boys are going to get the videos taken down when their property has been infringed .

Nothing stopping the small guys from doing videos without the infringing material

Bebo n My space were copyright infringement central. People seem to think they have entitlement to things that they don’t own or pay for (even when they own a copy of a book or a game, the legal warnings are clear as to the use they have access to)

“Spurious copyright claims” such as ? Which ones have been unsuccessful ?

Joe Rogan thing is mad alright , but, it’s You tunes right to decide who they want on their platform. YouTube’s loss is Joe’s gain, he will do just fine wherever he goes next . Was Joe paying YouTube to allow him to publish his content on their site ?

Kidchameleon · 23-05-2020 5:12pm

Randy Archer wrote: »

Even suggesting for one millisecond that there wouldn’t be any platforms to us and even uttering the word China in this discussion

What? In China, some people have no platforms to use because of wrong think. This is happening right now.

Robert ninja · 23-05-2020 5:13pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49JlCfHM9bE

Kidchameleon · 23-05-2020 5:14pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Oh darling

I dont get offended for myself never mind other people

You are routinely offended on behalf of others. The most recent example is wanting Alex Jones locked up for the Sandy Hook family's. They are well able to take care of themselves.

pjohnson · 23-05-2020 6:09pm

2u2me wrote: »

Mark Di Stefano was the 'journalist' who would put pressure on youtube and the likes to cancel Tommy Robinson and Mark Meechan(Countdankula).

CountDankula desribes here how the process works:
Write an article, inform the social media company you are about to release such article "Youtube hosts far-right tommy robinson etc.. etc..." Say that if they don't act you'll lambast them.

Just like CCDH did for Icke.
So it seems it's not private companies following their rules at all. It's private companies having to bend to whims of a certain ideological cabal.

"No bad tactics only bad targets"

Count Dankula and Tommy Robinson. Jaysus is there any of these guys that dont have criminal records? Or is one needed to become a right wing "champion" and feed their victim complex?

They can dish out whatever abuse they like only to immediately play victim and cry if challenged until they get enough people to "donate" to their cause.

KiKi III · 23-05-2020 6:16pm

What a happy coincidence for Joe Rogan that his frustrations with YouTube surfaced just as Spotify offered him the $100m.

Overheal · 23-05-2020 6:26pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

And yet the mainstream media, free to broadcast whatever they want on YouTube because they are "trusted" sources, cause nothing but havoc. Look at how the Ahmaud Arbery case is being handled for example, white people being shot because of the narrative on CNN even though the guy is clearly a scumbag who got himself killed. What about the riots after Trumps election, Brexit etc.

The same laws apply to traditional news outlets. Defamation and libel cases are brought forward against news outlets so regularly that it’s hardly worth mentioning, especially given that in most of those cases the suit is dead on arrival because you have to demonstrate malfeasance. Malfeasance was easily demonstrated in the 3 Jones cases. While it might be easier to just casually assume it’s because “big media” is protected like some sort of cabal, if you actually want to dig into the details you’ll see why it makes a lot more sense that the Washington Post, Or Fox, or MSNBC or even Breitbart, for example, keeps its nose a lot cleaner than a guy who claims, with no factual basis, that a massacre was faked and that the families are being paid to pretend it all.

I’m not sure what you mean by irresponsible reporting in the Ahmaud Arbery case, nor am I aware of any hate crime linked to irresponsible journalism of the event.

Kidchameleon · 23-05-2020 6:33pm

Overheal wrote: »

I’m not sure what you mean by irresponsible reporting in the Ahmaud Arbery case, nor am I aware of any hate crime linked to irresponsible journalism of the event.

Its being spun as a hate crime even though all evidence proves the contrary. There has already been at least one murder suicide as a result

Kidchameleon · 23-05-2020 6:34pm

KiKi III wrote: »

What a happy coincidence for Joe Rogan that his frustrations with YouTube surfaced just as Spotify offered him the $100m.

Has he denied going for the money? He has said that the censorship is only "one of the reasons" he left

pjohnson · 23-05-2020 6:37pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its being spun as a hate crime even though all evidence proves the contrary. There has already been at least one murder suicide as a result

Really?

Kidchameleon · 23-05-2020 6:37pm

Overheal wrote: »

The same laws apply to traditional news outlets. Defamation and libel cases are brought forward against news outlets so regularly that it’s hardly worth mentioning, especially given that in most of those cases the suit is dead on arrival because you have to demonstrate malfeasance. Malfeasance was easily demonstrated in the 3 Jones cases. While it might be easier to just casually assume it’s because “big media” is protected like some sort of cabal, if you actually want to dig into the details you’ll see why it makes a lot more sense that the Washington Post, Or Fox, or MSNBC or even Breitbart, for example, keeps its nose a lot cleaner than a guy who claims, with no factual basis, that a massacre was faked and that the families are being paid to pretend it all.

That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. We are discussing why some people are free to spew nonsense whilst others are not despite living in a society of free speech

Kidchameleon · 23-05-2020 6:38pm

pjohnson wrote: »

Really?

Really what?

KiKi III · 23-05-2020 6:39pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Has he denied going for the money? He has said that the censorship is only "one of the reasons" he left

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

Joe has 100 million reasons to go to Spotify. He could have left YouTube any time before that if he had issues there. He could have gone to bitchute himself. He obviously wasn’t that concerned until the Spotify offer came along.

Get real.

pjohnson · 23-05-2020 6:40pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Really what?

I get why you think the retired Batman wannabe's arent racist for chasing down an unarmed man.

But where'd the murder suicide story whered you get that from.

Overheal · 23-05-2020 6:40pm

2u2me wrote: »

Even the most staunch free-speech supporters admit that there are limitations; practical reasons for not shouting your mouth off at any moment. (Inciting violence for example is not allowed; yet you can talk about, priase and support Antifa freely on twitter despite them being classified as a terrorist group.)

No, they are not? I’ve just double checked.

Antifa is a movement and is not recognized as a terrorist organization or an extremist group.

Would you be happy if electricity companies also didn't supply electricity to people who's opinions you think are dangerous or conspiratorial; genuine question? If they have electricity they can use it to print letters containing their dangerous words and thoughts which they can post to other people.

Utility laws apply to utilities. These include, imaginatively, restrictions on utilities doing precisely that sort of thing. This was the big deal about net neutrality and reclassifying ISPs as utilities, preventing ISPs from throttling protected speech on content platforms they didn’t have a stake in, such as youtube, in order to give priority access to things they do control, like Hulu.

Look what happened to the reddit /thedonald and /politics subreddits. They created rules; yet enforced them unfairly. Trump's detractors were allowed to abuse the rules while they unfairly treated his supporters. There was a clear bias to how they implemented their rules. They even had the owner of reddit changing the comments of some of their users 'to embarass' them.

Good video from Tim Pool explaining it here.

and? 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.

Again I'll draw my example from earlier which nobody has addressed; Denying black people entry to a restaurant is illegal. Illegal even in a private restaurant(Civil laws) But if a restaurant was doing it 'covertly' telling every black person 'sorry we're full' at which point would you be able to realize the restaurant is being racist?

One white liberal and phone camera would solve that mystery in 20 minutes.

You know the word 'forum' is now a virtual place; but once it existed as an actual place in ancient Rome. There they believed in the value of freedom of speech; anyone was allowed to gather freely and speak in these fora. They valued 'public spaces'. It was not just freedom of speech but freedom from religion, freedom from ideology. An ideology that has seemed to have infected social media over the last number of years.

You’ve also heard the phrase open forum and closed forum, though.

Do the people in favour of the 'it's a private company' argument want a conservative world and a liberal world?
That's what it seems like to me.

Post-modernists that have given up on the idea of reason and logic in favour of winning for their ideology at any cost.

People are allowed to associate and disassociate. What a strange way to put it. But yes, if Stormfront community wants to live in a nazi bubble they can do that, in keeping within the previously mentioned limitations on absolute free speech.

Kidchameleon · 23-05-2020 6:41pm

KiKi III wrote: »

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

Joe has 100 million reasons to go to Spotify. He could have left YouTube any time before that if he had issues there. He could have gone to bitchute himself. He obviously wasn’t that concerned until the Spotify offer came along.

Get real.

What are you on about? I agree with you that he went for the money. I also beleive him when he says he is not happy with the censorship on youtube. As far as I am aware he has not denied going for the money

da_miser · 23-05-2020 6:47pm

Randy Archer wrote: »

Why should these small timers be allowed to infringe copyright of other people’s intellectual property ? And not pay a single cent for it ?

Of course the big boys are going to get the videos taken down when their property has been infringed .

Nothing stopping the small guys from doing videos without the infringing material

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.

Overheal · 23-05-2020 6:49pm

2u2me wrote: »

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!

Such a lazy argument.

If you want absolute free speech go buy a boat and live under maritime law. Leave the rest of your countrymen out of it, who have recognized the freedom of speech is not fundamentally absolute.

da_miser · 23-05-2020 6:51pm

KiKi III wrote: »

What a happy coincidence for Joe Rogan that his frustrations with YouTube surfaced just as Spotify offered him the $100m.

His channel is supposedly making $30 million per year on Youtube, so its not a outrageous offer when taken in context, i have also read he does not pay a wage to his staff but gives them a generous percentage of the money the channel makes, Jamie making some serious money as his producer

Overheal · 23-05-2020 6:51pm

2u2me wrote: »

I wonder what makes the Centre for Countering Digital Hate so interested in Icke?

Yeah; pressure that they (CCDH) imposed on youtube themselves.

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52517797

You see how this works? Some NGO concerned with racism or hate or something puts pressure on the social media company to either remove them or they will kick up a stink. The social media companies keep kowtowing.

Actually that sounds exactly like free speech in action. Surely you should celebrate that.

Kidchameleon · 23-05-2020 6:52pm

pjohnson wrote: »

But where'd the murder suicide story whered you get that from.

A perfect illustration of my point. The Arbery shooting is everywhere but you wont find this being reported near as much...

https://stylemonument.com/white-couple-killed-by-black-gunman-possible-retaliation-for-ahmaud-arbery/

https://www.boston25news.com/news/trending/delaware-man-fatally-shoots-elderly-maryland-couple-cemetery-police-say/Q5VE7SI75NFF7HY7MOSVPPOHUE/?outputType=amp

This guy was obsessed with the Arbery case as evidenced from his Twitter & Facebook (now taken down). That couple died because of the false mainstream narritive. Im not aware of anyone dying because of David Ike or Alex Jones.

Overheal · 23-05-2020 6:53pm

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You are routinely offended on behalf of others. The most recent example is wanting Alex Jones locked up for the Sandy Hook family's. They are well able to take care of themselves.

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

Youtube censorship time to allow embedded videos from other sites?

Comments