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

[MindWars]

Maybe sites like VIMEO will gain more attention now. Hopefully they aren't as leftist as google owned youtube losers are.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Censorship is nothing new. The Nazis did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it.
Orwell was trying to warn us about today's Democrats.

Funny thing about Orwell and 1984, in it he writes of using children and tragedies to promote an agenda.

The man was a visionary LOL

 

[dblack]

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

It has exactly nothing to do with free speech. A private company can't violate free speech.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Well lets talk about those shall we?

a) What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed?
It was part of the Steele dossier that was presented to the government for review- should the news ignore that? Even Fox reported on that. Is there any evidence that the report is true? Not that we know of.
b) Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia?
Trump Misleads on Russian Meddling: Why 17 Intelligence Agencies Don’t Need to Agree
Actually the news reported that the intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia had tried to interfere in the election- and got the number of agencies wrong- Trump of course has repeatedly claimed Russia didn't try to interfere.
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Thursday that only “three or four” of the United States’ 17 intelligence agencies had concluded that Russia interfered in the presidential election — a statement that while technically accurate, is misleading and suggests widespread dissent among American intelligence agencies when none has emerged.

The “three or four” agencies referred to by Mr. Trump are the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the F.B.I. and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, all of which determined that Russia interfered in the election. Their work was compiled into a report, and a declassified version was released on Jan. 6 by the director of national intelligence. It said that all four agencies had “high confidence” that Russian spies had tried to interfere in the election on the orders of President Vladimir V. Putin.

The reason the views of only those four intelligence agencies, not all 17, were included in the assessment is simple: They were the ones tracking and analyzing the Russian campaign. The rest were doing other work.

c) Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it

Once again- you are playing fast and furious with the facts. Here are Trump's actual comments:

There is absolutely no evidence that President Obama- or anyone else 'tapped' Trump's phones- either during the election- or after the election.

since the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission..

I will be glad to compare the record of the NY Times accuracy to that of Donald Trump tweets. Trump has a record of lying- and lying by omission that is quite comprehensive.

 

[Syriusly]

aaaaaand enter the fake news-pologists. No doubt dizzy from all the 180s they have to spin depending on whose fake news it is. Fake news bad. No, fake news good. No, fake news bad. Etc etc ad nauseum and having it both ways: Priceless.

Your lack of self-awareness makes this post actually funny.

I never said Fake News was good or bad. I think anyone should be able to publish any story they like. It's up to the people to actually verify the claims... or in your case instantly believe every story that fits their narrative. Of course, YouTube is privately owned, and if they want to lose users, it's entirely up to them. It'll only damage their reputation further.

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

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.

You realize that Youtube has always censored its content.

Always.

You just object to Youtube now censoring loony content that you want them to post.

There is a different between content rules and CENSORSHIP.. Content rules are NOT politically biased. CENSORSHIP usually is.

Ask the IRS about discriminating against applicants because of "political speech"...

noun
noun: censorship
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Youtube has always censored its content.

 

[Syriusly]

aaaaaand enter the fake news-pologists. No doubt dizzy from all the 180s they have to spin depending on whose fake news it is. Fake news bad. No, fake news good. No, fake news bad. Etc etc ad nauseum and having it both ways: Priceless.

Your lack of self-awareness makes this post actually funny.

I never said Fake News was good or bad. I think anyone should be able to publish any story they like. It's up to the people to actually verify the claims... or in your case instantly believe every story that fits their narrative. Of course, YouTube is privately owned, and if they want to lose users, it's entirely up to them. It'll only damage their reputation further.

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

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.

You realize that Youtube has always censored its content.

Always.

You just object to Youtube now censoring loony content that you want them to post.

I don't object to it. I pointed out that they're losing more viewers and content creators this way.

The fact that they censored content already doesn't mean censoring it more won't lose them viewers and content creators. It also doesn't mean that this isn't news. In fact, your point here is completely meaningless.

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.

 

[Pogo]

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

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Are we unclear on what the word "link" means?

You made a quantitative comparison, to wit: "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission". Where are your data?

Just beat you into the ground with it.. You need LINKS to anything I mentioned -- then you're too slow and stupid..

So you have no such data. Exactly.

See, this is what I just pointed out with what's called a rhetorical question. One for which you have no answer.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Youtube's Terms of Service have been changed so that nobody can discuss anything that they have decided is a "Hoax". Youtube is getting more and more strict with people it doesn't agree with.

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

aaaaaand enter the fake news-pologists. No doubt dizzy from all the 180s they have to spin depending on whose fake news it is. Fake news bad. No, fake news good. No, fake news bad. Etc etc ad nauseum and having it both ways: Priceless.

Your lack of self-awareness makes this post actually funny.

I never said Fake News was good or bad. I think anyone should be able to publish any story they like. It's up to the people to actually verify the claims... or in your case instantly believe every story that fits their narrative. Of course, YouTube is privately owned, and if they want to lose users, it's entirely up to them. It'll only damage their reputation further.

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

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.

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.

 

[flacaltenn]

Censorship is nothing new. The Nazis did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it.
Orwell was trying to warn us about today's Democrats.

Funny thing about Orwell and 1984, in it he writes of using children and tragedies to promote an agenda.

The man was a visionary LOL

And he foresaw the NSA Big Brother Domestic spying system as well didn't he? We're hosed. The 2 parties are tanking my country and Dem/Rep partisans in the media/content biz are screwing with my ability to speak..

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Youtube's Terms of Service have been changed so that nobody can discuss anything that they have decided is a "Hoax". Youtube is getting more and more strict with people it doesn't agree with.

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

aaaaaand enter the fake news-pologists. No doubt dizzy from all the 180s they have to spin depending on whose fake news it is. Fake news bad. No, fake news good. No, fake news bad. Etc etc ad nauseum and having it both ways: Priceless.

Your lack of self-awareness makes this post actually funny.

I never said Fake News was good or bad. I think anyone should be able to publish any story they like. It's up to the people to actually verify the claims... or in your case instantly believe every story that fits their narrative. Of course, YouTube is privately owned, and if they want to lose users, it's entirely up to them. It'll only damage their reputation further.

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

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.

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.

I've already posted this to you once and as usual you ran away. Your fellow demoquacks created a bill banning over 200 rifles this week

Stop your lying and stop spreading your leftist propaganda

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Your lack of self-awareness makes this post actually funny.

I never said Fake News was good or bad. I think anyone should be able to publish any story they like. It's up to the people to actually verify the claims... or in your case instantly believe every story that fits their narrative. Of course, YouTube is privately owned, and if they want to lose users, it's entirely up to them. It'll only damage their reputation further.

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

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.

You realize that Youtube has always censored its content.

Always.

You just object to Youtube now censoring loony content that you want them to post.

I don't object to it. I pointed out that they're losing more viewers and content creators this way.

The fact that they censored content already doesn't mean censoring it more won't lose them viewers and content creators. It also doesn't mean that this isn't news. In fact, your point here is completely meaningless.

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.

Again, having more content doesn't chase off viewers. People can choose not to watch the content they disagree with. On the other hand, people can not bring back censored content.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Censorship is nothing new. The Nazis did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it.
Orwell was trying to warn us about today's Democrats.

Funny thing about Orwell and 1984, in it he writes of using children and tragedies to promote an agenda.

The man was a visionary LOL

And he foresaw the NSA Big Brother Domestic spying system as well didn't he? We're hosed. The 2 parties are tanking my country and Dem/Rep partisans in the media/content biz are screwing with my ability to speak..

One of our twins just finished 1984....she was stunned

 

[flacaltenn]

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

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Are we unclear on what the word "link" means?

You made a quantitative comparison, to wit: "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission". Where are your data?

Just beat you into the ground with it.. You need LINKS to anything I mentioned -- then you're too slow and stupid..

So you have no such data. Exactly.

See, this is what I just pointed out with what's called a rhetorical question. One for which you have no answer.

I gave you an EXTENSIVE LIST of examples of fake news and useless conspiracies. They are all MORE then adequately documented. Even here on USMB. Stop trolling me...

 

[Pogo]

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Are we unclear on what the word "link" means?

You made a quantitative comparison, to wit: "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission". Where are your data?

Just beat you into the ground with it.. You need LINKS to anything I mentioned -- then you're too slow and stupid..

So you have no such data. Exactly.

See, this is what I just pointed out with what's called a rhetorical question. One for which you have no answer.

I gave you an EXTENSIVE LIST of examples of fake news and useless conspiracies. They are all MORE then adequately documented. Even here on USMB. Stop trolling me...

Actually no, you didn't. You mentioned several stories-about-stories (well, not several but three). And you gave no comparator data for the Alex Joneses, the Hateway Plunderers, the Russkie troll sites et al at all. And that's what you'll need to make the assertion real.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Youtube's Terms of Service have been changed so that nobody can discuss anything that they have decided is a "Hoax". Youtube is getting more and more strict with people it doesn't agree with.

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

aaaaaand enter the fake news-pologists. No doubt dizzy from all the 180s they have to spin depending on whose fake news it is. Fake news bad. No, fake news good. No, fake news bad. Etc etc ad nauseum and having it both ways: Priceless.

Your lack of self-awareness makes this post actually funny.

I never said Fake News was good or bad. I think anyone should be able to publish any story they like. It's up to the people to actually verify the claims... or in your case instantly believe every story that fits their narrative. Of course, YouTube is privately owned, and if they want to lose users, it's entirely up to them. It'll only damage their reputation further.

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

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.

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

aaaaaand enter the fake news-pologists. No doubt dizzy from all the 180s they have to spin depending on whose fake news it is. Fake news bad. No, fake news good. No, fake news bad. Etc etc ad nauseum and having it both ways: Priceless.

Your lack of self-awareness makes this post actually funny.

I never said Fake News was good or bad. I think anyone should be able to publish any story they like. It's up to the people to actually verify the claims... or in your case instantly believe every story that fits their narrative. Of course, YouTube is privately owned, and if they want to lose users, it's entirely up to them. It'll only damage their reputation further.

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

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.

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.

Pow ...right in the kisser.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

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

It has exactly nothing to do with free speech. A private company can't violate free speech.

What the....of course they can. WHat in the world made you think a private company can't violate free speech?

 

[Syriusly]

Obviously, since you've taken great leaps to connect said fake news with "if they want to lose users" and "damage their reputation" you DO think it's bad. You just articulated your own value judgment --- did you really think that wasn't obvious? And not to even mention your title that imagines a world where "we can't criticize the government". With no justification whatsoever.

It's not a giant leap. Naturally, if they are censoring people, those they censor and those that want to see the censored content will have a lower opinion of the platform and those censoring the platform, and would likely go elsewhere. In other words, their reputation would be damaged among those people, and they'd be losing those viewers.

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.

You realize that Youtube has always censored its content.

Always.

You just object to Youtube now censoring loony content that you want them to post.

I don't object to it. I pointed out that they're losing more viewers and content creators this way.

The fact that they censored content already doesn't mean censoring it more won't lose them viewers and content creators. It also doesn't mean that this isn't news. In fact, your point here is completely meaningless.

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.

Again, having more content doesn't chase off viewers. People can choose not to watch the content they disagree with. On the other hand, people can not bring back censored content.

Again- we have yet to see whether Youtube's decision to censor additional content based upon its accuracy will chase away viewers- or bring in more viewers.

But in the meanwhile- there are plenty of sites on the internet that you can post any kind of fake news you want to.

 

[Syriusly]

Censorship is nothing new. The Nazis did it. Stalin did it. Mao did it.
Orwell was trying to warn us about today's Democrats.

Funny thing about Orwell and 1984, in it he writes of using children and tragedies to promote an agenda.

The man was a visionary LOL

And he foresaw the NSA Big Brother Domestic spying system as well didn't he? We're hosed. The 2 parties are tanking my country and Dem/Rep partisans in the media/content biz are screwing with my ability to speak..

What can't you speak about on the internet?

Specifically.

 

[Syriusly]

Link?


Yeah --- guess not.

All those media giants I mentioned have been doing Putin's work for him. He only needs to enjoy the carnage. What ever happened to the Moscow hookers peeing on the bed? Or that "Intelligence Report" from 16 agencies about Trump's collusion with Russia? Or reporting Trump''s comments about having his campaign being spied on being a lie and "fact checking" it??

Did you SLEEP thru that fucking nightmare???

Are we unclear on what the word "link" means?

You made a quantitative comparison, to wit: "the NYTimes, the WashPo, CNN and the networks are doing MOST of the lying and the lying by omission". Where are your data?

Just beat you into the ground with it.. You need LINKS to anything I mentioned -- then you're too slow and stupid..

So you have no such data. Exactly.

See, this is what I just pointed out with what's called a rhetorical question. One for which you have no answer.

I gave you an EXTENSIVE LIST of examples of fake news and useless conspiracies. They are all MORE then adequately documented. Even here on USMB. Stop trolling me...

I just checked- you have posted 16 times in this thread- I saw no post with an 'extensive list of fake news and useless conspiracies'

Like I said before- I would be glad to compare the accuracy of the NY Times to Trump's tweets.

The greatest purveyor of fake news within the United States is our President.