Youtube Being Censored, We Can't Question the Government on Youtube

[Balancer]

It is an attack on free speech, leftard idiots think it's great but they won't when it comes for them too.

Google is a private company. And can enter any rules. In Russia, long accustomed to the fact that any Western company can without any announcement delete messages or entire accounts for any reason

Want real freedom of speech - this can only provide decentralized networks. For example, ZeroNet. Not surprisingly, in ZeroNet the first place among all users is occupied by the Chinese. Surprisingly, the second place is occupied by Americans Apparently, someone in the US is not satisfied with the current system.

 

[Syriusly]

And your second paragraph includes examples of rightwing misinformation, fake news, and lies - such as the lie that 'the left' is seeking to 'disarm' America.

It's perfectly appropriate for YouTube to refuse to propagate those lies.

S548

^You can read one example of the bill here, recently proposed by politicians in New Jersey. Not to mention the left has jumped on every mass shooting, blaming the gun used and stating that they shouldn't have been able to get one.

So is Youtube preventing any video's that mention S548?

She responded to Jones' outright lie. You struggle at keeping up as the convo switches gears.

Still looking for the lie.

- such as the lie that 'the left' is seeking to 'disarm' America.

It's completely justified. The videos being censored are discussing the Florida shooting, suggesting that the survivors are being led by the leftists on their crusade to disarm America, and some of those in the government may have staged the shooting. Most of the channels getting strikes and being banned are Anarcho-Capitalist channels, which question the government with nearly every video they make.

So what does S548 say? Does S548 seek to 'disarm America'?

No. The bill as it says- would 'strengthen' a ban currently in place in New Jersey. It doesn't call for the banning of all hand guns or all shotguns or all semi-automatic weapons.

This bill would strengthen the State’s current assault weapons ban by revising the definition of an assault weapon to include: rifles with detachable magazines and one military style feature; semi-automatic shotguns with one military style feature; and semi-automatic pistols with one military style feature. The current definition of an assault weapon sets forth a list of prohibited firearms and specifically includes any firearm that is “substantially identical” to any of the enumerated firearms. Under State regulations, a semi-automatic firearm is to be considered substantially identical to an enumerated firearm if it meets certain criteria. This bill codifies these regulations while expanding the number of firearms that would be considered assault weapons by adding criteria and reducing the number of criteria that must be met from two to one.

While I am certain you can find some person who claims to be on the 'left' who actually does want all guns banned- we can also find some person who claims to be on the right who actually thinks everyone should own machine guns.

I have no issue with anyone owning a machine gun as long as they can pass the Federal Requirements to obtain one...

As for strengthening gun laws to ban other firearms, well when that fails what new law will help strengthen this law?

Also youtube banning of video's and channel's from their site is their business but I do understand the OP opinion on this and if youtube had done this to silence the left anti-gun movement many on the left would be screaming about youtube oppression of free speech.

So yes Youtube has the right to censor their content just like Wal-Mart and Dick's Sporting Goods have the right to stop selling certain products, but what could happen is it will drive their customers to other companies and in then end ruin their business.

Finally, as Flacaltenn has been trying to tell you ( I believe ) the reality is companies like Google own too much of the internet and can regulate to the point that you can read only what they want you to read while blocking the opinions of others if you want their business and use their product and in a true and free society all opinions can be seen, read and questioned without the worry about being blocked.

So let stop pretending we live in a free society where you can read all the fake news you want, well you can as long as Google approves of it message...

I mean I can google shemale porn until my eyes fall out but youtube will block conspiracy theories about shootings?

Let me break down my responses:
1) I agree that the whacky 'left' would complain just as much as the whacky 'right' if they felt that a policy change affected them- but frankly this Youtube policy change has the likelihood of affecting left wing conspiracy theories too.
2) I agree- Youtube's business decision could possibly drive traffic away- but I doubt it will have any serious impact- but that is up to the market. If it does- I have no doubt that Youtube would change their policy in a heartbeat to earn a few more bucks.
3) I already posted that I agree Google is too powerful and does too much to stifle competition- that really has little to do with this thread. Personally I think that Google should be investigated for anti-trust violations.
4) 'lets stop pretending we live in a free society"- well that is rather subjective. We live in a society that is much more 'free' than China- our government is not actively blocking our access to large segments of the Internet.
I think that the opposite of what you said actually true- 'stop pretending like you have no forum for your point of view'- I have challenged Flacal to say what he cannot discuss on the Internet- and he won't say- he just claims he can't.

The reality is that before the internet there was no open forum at all. Newspapers self censored what they printed- including letters to the newspapers. Up until the '50's the government actively censored much of what was published.

Other than advocating for things that are illegal, I cannot think of anything that I could not find a forum for my point of view on the Internet.

Can you?

 

[Syriusly]

It is an attack on free speech, leftard idiots think it's great but they won't when it comes for them too.

Google is a private company. And can enter any rules. In Russia, long accustomed to the fact that any Western company can without any announcement delete messages or entire accounts for any reason

Want real freedom of speech - this can only provide decentralized networks. For example, ZeroNet. Not surprisingly, in ZeroNet the first place among all users is occupied by the Chinese. Surprisingly, the second place is occupied by Americans Apparently, someone in the US is not satisfied with the current system.

thanks for mentioning Zeronet.

 

[koshergrl]

Everything is censored.

My information and image searches anymore are laughable in the nonsense they pull up. The left's masters are wielding their mighty oppressive thumbs and the left is happy to reside under them.

Not me. I've said for years..go retro. The way to beat them is low tech pony express/minute man shit.

But nobody wants to fund or go there.

Our primary issue on the right is that we all work, and as workers, our time and our funds are limited.

Unlike the big government leeches on the left.

 

[Syriusly]

The Steele dossier is a story-about-a-story. It's telling us that a dossier exists with tales of Russian hookers lending a new meaning to the term "White House plumbers" in Moscow. Nobody ever claimed the bed-peeing actually happened, they told us that a dossier exists claiming it happened. Do you not understand the difference?

It's YOU that doesn't understand the FUNDAMENTAL THREAT to this country, when your CIA director, your DNI and the FBI MARKETS and USES that POS fiction out of the heads of Russian Intel experts to LABEL it and sell it to a complicit left-wing media as an "Intel Doc".. OF COURSE if "16 Intel Agencies" SIGN OFF on such a travesty --- IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED.. RIGHT? except that never happened. Wasn't THAT the fake news that CNN/WashPo/HuffPost/NYTimes pushed for weeks and months when it happened? You're in denial and bordering on criminal intentional deflection -- if you even attempt to deny this happened anymore..

And Hillary/DNC PAID for all slime circus.. Doing Putin's work for him and COLLUDING with Russians. All of them...

aaaaand STILL no answer.

It's YOU that doesn't understand the FUNDAMENTAL THREAT to this country, when your CIA director, your DNI and the FBI MARKETS and USES that POS fiction out of the heads of Russian Intel experts to LABEL it and sell it to a complicit left-wing media as an "Intel Doc".. OF COURSE if "16 Intel Agencies" SIGN OFF on such a travesty --- IT MUST HAVE HAPPENED.. RIGHT? except that never happened. Wasn't THAT the fake news that CNN/WashPo/HuffPost/NYTimes pushed for weeks and months when it happened? You're in denial and bordering on criminal intentional deflection -- if you even attempt to deny this happened anymore..

And Hillary/DNC PAID for all of that slime circus.. Doing Putin's work for him and COLLUDING with Russians. All of those agencies I mentioned AND the Fake News consortium. Be VERY CAREFUL about who YOU call "fake news"... Trump would LOVE to do the same to your team.. If he was as weak, inept and in trouble as the DNC was last election..

Criminal intentional deflection bunky. What it is that I said that wrong? SPECIFICALLY !!! It was ALL FAKE NEWS and potentially treasonous for the Govt colluders... And everyone I mentioned was in on the collusion.

in on the collusion

Of course there is no evidence that Clinton colluded with Putin- just as there is no evidence that Trump colluded with Putin.

Now you are creating your own Fake News- AKA pulling a Trump

 

[Syriusly]

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR. You did not believe that his Socialist policies created and extended the Great Depression, in fact you seemed to support the vast majority of the policies he put in place. The only thing I recall you disagreeing with was his imprisonment of Japanese people based on their race. Supporting FDR's policies not only makes you a Socialist, but makes you economically illiterate

FDR gave us the endless Great Depression every bit as much as Obama turned a 6 month recession into the 8 year Great Recession.

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

Here's the most crucial pearl from all of this and all of these tangents:

History is not 'negotiable'. Learn that.

But according to the Trump administration- there are 'alternative facts'.....

Conway stated that Spicer was giving "alternative facts".

 

[Syriusly]

Once AGAIN --- where's the comparator? *STILL* MIA, that's where.

Besides all of which, your citation is not "fake news" anyway. If somebody analyzed a 98% shot for Clinton, then that's what they analyzed. Dumb shit.

The comparators are imbedded into the entire page, I ran down a few and everything is credible.

The only thing that can explain you not seeing them is that you're colorblind.

If you're not colorblind, you're an idiot.

Since Maid Marian flummoxed himself by diving into a question about a claim that wasn't even his in the first place, maybe it's time to review and reiterate exactly what it is that flacaltenn continues to run away from, shall we?

Here's where we have to reverse-engineer intellectuality for those who insist on using the internets to play Stupid.

Roll tape.

No, it’s getting more difficult for conspiracy theory liars to post their lies and distortions on YouTube.

High time that those engaging in political discussion got called for their lies.

That's a dangerously low bar since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the fake news, lying and the lying by omission....

Definition of "MOST":

determiner & pronoun
determiner: most; pronoun: most

1. 1.
   superlative of many, much.
2. 2.
   greatest in amount or degree.
   "they've had the most success"
   • the majority of; nearly all of.
     "most oranges are sweeter than these"
     synonyms: nearly all, almost all, the greatest part/number, the majority, the bulk, the preponderance
     "most of the guests brought gifts"
     antonyms: little, few

adverb
adverb: most

1. 1.
   superlative of much.
2. 2.
   to the greatest extent.
   "the things he most enjoyed"

Still with us class? Today we learned that the word "most" means a superlative degree. It means "more than any other in the classifiction". Another way of saying this is that no other entity in that same group is represented as much as the "MOST" is represented.

This is what we call a comparator. It compares the degree of one entity (in this case the entity is the group of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks") with all other entities in that classification, i.e. purveyors of news.

For instance take a random number like, say, 1929. Is that number greater or lesser than, say, 1933?

Take all the time you need to figure that one out.
____________

Now unless your name is Death Angel you should have concluded that "1933" is greater than "1929" Mathematically we can say "1933 > 1929". And if they were actual calendar years we would have to conclude 1933 is also "later" than 1929.

Still with us? I know, it's deep stuff.

Now then back to the question. flacaltenn claims, and cannot prove, that the aggregate output of "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks" contains a greater (remember that word?) amount of fake news than the aggregate of all other sources combined -- the fake abc.co site claiming three million Amish mobilized to vote for Rump, the wacko story posted here on USMB about Hillary Clinton not showing up at a rally and being a hologram, all the various Nosebook and Tweeter fake newses about Parkinsons and crossed eyes and Vince Fosters and Bill Clinton's secret black son and of course, as originally cited here, everything on YouTube that is also bullshit.

All of THAT, combined, he says, does not measure up to the amount of fake news on ""the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks". That's his claim. He needs numbers to prove that, and he doesn't have any. Therefore and until he can come up with them, his claim is dismissed as yet more fake news.

The bottom line, again, and no pun intended on "bottom", is that you can't just pull claims out of your ass and expect them to be real without any evidence thereof.

Oh gee.. Now you're lecturing us about the word "most"??| Is THAT your problem bunky?? Pay attention class....


MOST = (CNN/WashPo/NYTimes (et al) X IMPACT) + 4(Fed Agencies in collusion) > 4(Russian trolls) + $30,000 (to the power of "facebook ads")



IOWs --- THIS FAKE NEWS impact is orders of MAGNITUDE ABOVE the fake news from crappy advertising of indicted Russian trolls by MORE than 100000%... Putin has checked my math and gives this equation a 9,9 on the truth-o-meter..



That's engineering dude..

And now he wants to morph "MOST" (< that's his all-caps) into "most IMPACT".

All just to shirk the responsibility for the original claim. Pathetic.

But go ahead, we'll allow the goalpost to be moved and you go ahead and prove your new claim of "impact". With numbers. Real numbers that link somewhere.

When I'm pointing out a treasonous insurrection supported by a complicit media that will gladly AMPLIFY Fake News --- and you're just quibbling about "most" and ignoring the IMPACT of my comparative equation -- I think I'll just celebrate over lunch..

The media that most often amplifies Fake News is Fox amplifying Trump's fake news claims.

There has been no 'treasonous insurrection'- that is "Fake News"

 

[Syriusly]

Quite the technology geek, that FDR. Whereas O'bama only time-traveled back four months before he took office to dump the economy thereby ensuring a win, FDR went back four years with his time machine to trash the whole Hoover presidency.

Linear time is now "fake news".

I swear ta god, this board is a competition for top Moron.

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

I already addressed the dates in the post you responded with the dates TO. You just didn't read it. Clearly you just have no response to my specifics on policies, effects, and timing, and just want the last word. Otherwise, you'd have addressed my post instead of being a condescending prick.

Speaking of you being a condescending prick- still waiting for you to admit to your lies about me being a socialist.

 

[Syriusly]

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

Perhaps a visual aid will help. Note the years listed on the bottom axis:

​

Oh look --- there's one of the dates I mentioned right there on the chart. That's a clue for ya.

So are these numbers "fake"?

See that spike at the right edge of the pink area? The one marked "March 15, 1933 Dow gained 15.34%, largest one-day gain")?

That point would be eleven days after FDR was inaugurated.

Now look at the plunge marked "Great Depression" (the pink area) and essplain to the class how Roosevelt came into office and "brought" that retroactively.

This oughta be a hoot.

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate

The Stock Crash is a symptom, not a cause of the Great Depression, so the chart doesn't help your case at all.

How FDR Made the Depression Worse | Robert Higgs

FDR's policies, practically all of them, increased the cost of living and made it harder to do business. He made the Recession we were already experiencing worse in every way.

As I said earlier, combine inability to afford hiring employees with the government forcing your business to hire more employees, and your economy is destroyed. In this particular case, your economy is plunged into a Depression and then dragged through it for many years.

While most economists do not agree with Higgs- not even Higgs claims that FDR started the Great Depression.

That is entirely your own lie.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

It's how business works. There are other options for the content creators they're censoring. In fact, the Liberty Network is already encouraging its members and viewers to move. Meanwhile, having less content doesn't bring in new viewers, they already could have ignored the content they don't like.

Of course, if you understood business and economics, you wouldn't be a Socialist. Surprisingly, when you upset your customers, they'll go elsewhere.

LOL- I can't figure out which part is more ignorant about your post.

That I am a 'socialist'?
That I don't understand business and an economics?
Or that you do.

Everything I have posted is in support of Youtube's capitalist decision to add additional censorship to its private property.

Quoting myself

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out

I admit that either could happen- you are so blinded by your partisanship to Konspiracy Kookiness that you presume you know what the net effect of Youtube's policy will be.

All three statements are accurate. You're Socialist, you don't understand business or economics, and I do..

Okay- prove all of those things.

Go for it.

This should be interesting.

Because so far all you are doing is pulling crap out of your ass and calling it gold.

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR.

Still waiting for you to have the balls to try to stand up to your claims:
a) That I am a socialist
b) That I don't understand economics or business or
c) That you do.

Because as I pointed out before- so far all you are doing is pulling crap out of your ass and calling it gold.

Or you can just admit you were lying.

I already did. You cut off, like, most of my post. If you're going to be that intellectually dishonest, and THAT obvious about it, replies to you are a waste of time.

 

[koshergrl]

Before FDR took office, what we had was a minor recession, FDR took over and turned it into a Great Depression, then prevented the US from recovering from it for seven years. Had he done literally nothing, actually sat on his hands and signed no bills, implemented no policies, etc, the Great Depression would have ended during his first term.

Policy Report: How to Turn a Recession into a Depression
This link explains it decently.(You probably won't read it, but I love you anyway<3)

FDR also basically totaled the economy through his government takeover of businesses, forcing them to lock prices high and forcing them to continue hiring employees despite the lower sales, while also dictating how much they paid said employees. These policies not only crippled businesses, but also promoted monopolies due to lack of competition.

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

I already addressed the dates in the post you responded with the dates TO. You just didn't read it. Clearly you just have no response to my specifics on policies, effects, and timing, and just want the last word. Otherwise, you'd have addressed my post instead of being a condescending prick.

Speaking of you being a condescending prick- still waiting for you to admit to your lies about me being a socialist.

You're a commie.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Face it, America: YouTube and Facebook have got ya by the short and curlies. The question is: Will you choose freedom or convenience? I wish they had a competitor, but they don't. I'm certain there's a market for one. I'd prefer one that is neutral, like USMB, because I don't care to be in a right-wing echo chamber, either.

 

[koshergrl]

Face it, America: YouTube and Facebook have got ya by the short and curlies. The question is: Will you choose freedom or convenience?

Soon enough, they won't have a choice.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Face it, America: YouTube and Facebook have got ya by the short and curlies. The question is: Will you choose freedom or convenience?

Soon enough, they won't have a choice.

How so?

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- I can't figure out which part is more ignorant about your post.

That I am a 'socialist'?
That I don't understand business and an economics?
Or that you do.

Everything I have posted is in support of Youtube's capitalist decision to add additional censorship to its private property.

Quoting myself

And if Youtube loses more viewers than it gains- then the market will react. Or Youtube may gain more viewers once more of the trash is taken out

I admit that either could happen- you are so blinded by your partisanship to Konspiracy Kookiness that you presume you know what the net effect of Youtube's policy will be.

All three statements are accurate. You're Socialist, you don't understand business or economics, and I do..

Okay- prove all of those things.

Go for it.

This should be interesting.

Because so far all you are doing is pulling crap out of your ass and calling it gold.

The last time I bothered replying to your economically illiterate ass was in a thread regarding FDR.

Still waiting for you to have the balls to try to stand up to your claims:
a) That I am a socialist
b) That I don't understand economics or business or
c) That you do.

Because as I pointed out before- so far all you are doing is pulling crap out of your ass and calling it gold.

Or you can just admit you were lying.

I already did. You cut off, like, most of my post. If you're going to be that intellectually dishonest, and THAT obvious about it, replies to you are a waste of time.

You mean I cut off the part where you were pulling crap out of your ass and calling it gold?

You called me a socialist- because I disagreed with you- like the majority of economists- regarding FDR.

And that- that is not only intellectually dishonest- it is just down right idiotic.

 

[Syriusly]

Which of these dates occurred first:

• October 29, 1929
• March 4, 1933

Take all the time you need. Feel free to use Google. I wouldn't trust Bing on this one.

Actually you could probably just open the calendar tray on your computer and scroll back to see which one is more recent. Then it would be the other one.

Not rocket surgery.

Oh while you're in there look up "Hoovervilles". And come back and essplain why they were not called "Rooseveltvilles".

At this point, I'm not even sure you bothered reading my post, let alone the link. I went into detail on exactly why you're confused(On this subject specifically, we don't have all week for me to explain everything else.). Before FDR took office, it was a recession. After he took office, he made it a Great Depression. I even specified which policies it was.

Probably because the people calling them that were just as confused as you are.

There's no hurry on figuring out those dates. I understand it may take some research. Especially with blinders on.

I already addressed the dates in the post you responded with the dates TO. You just didn't read it. Clearly you just have no response to my specifics on policies, effects, and timing, and just want the last word. Otherwise, you'd have addressed my post instead of being a condescending prick.

Speaking of you being a condescending prick- still waiting for you to admit to your lies about me being a socialist.

You're a commie.

You're a nazi.

 

[Syriusly]

Face it, America: YouTube and Facebook have got ya by the short and curlies. The question is: Will you choose freedom or convenience? I wish they had a competitor, but they don't. I'm certain there's a market for one. I'd prefer one that is neutral, like USMB, because I don't care to be in a right-wing echo chamber, either.

Not sure how they have me by the 'short hairs'.

I rarely use Youtube but when I do it is great for finding video's on how to repair my car.

As far as FB- FB doesn't prevent me from posting anything I am interested in posting- great way to keep me in touch with my far flung family and friends though.

 

[dblack]

It is an attack on free speech, leftard idiots think it's great but they won't when it comes for them too.

The irony here is your view of private business, their rights and responsibilities, seems to be pure 'leftard'. Do you really think YouTube has some kind of obligation to be "fair and balanced"? Do you think of YouTube, and similar media outlets, as "public accommodations", and therefore beholden to the public interest? Why not just socialize those businesses, if that's how you see it?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again, no one has a freedom of speech on YouTube.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Face it, America: YouTube and Facebook have got ya by the short and curlies. The question is: Will you choose freedom or convenience? I wish they had a competitor, but they don't. I'm certain there's a market for one. I'd prefer one that is neutral, like USMB, because I don't care to be in a right-wing echo chamber, either.

Not sure how they have me by the 'short hairs'.

I rarely use Youtube but when I do it is great for finding video's on how to repair my car.

As far as FB- FB doesn't prevent me from posting anything I am interested in posting- great way to keep me in touch with my far flung family and friends though.

I bet they would if it was right-wing political stuff(unlikely to happen). After a couple times of that, they'd reduce the number of your "friends" that see what you post to like 7 or something. You could have 600 people on your friends list, but only 7 would see it.

They're definitely manipulating the narrative, as is Google.