Youtube's Terms of Service Get Even More Strict

[Coyote]

Private companies. They can do what they want within the law.

That's what rightwingers always used to claim.

Until they are declared a monopoly. Stay tuned.

I already said that.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Youtube is a private company....

Does Brietbart host anti-gun rights viewpoints?

I feel like you either didn't bother to read my OP, or you just assumed this was a complaint. I posted it in current events because it's currently happening, not because I think they shouldn't be allowed to.

In the end, everyone they carpet bomb in their crusade to silence everyone they disagree with will go straight to their competitors. This is the nature of the market, and I don't mind it one bit.

In the future, if you can't find anything in my post that's stating they can't or shouldn't be able to do or say something, then don't waste your time attempting to build up your strawman.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Private companies. They can do what they want within the law.

That's what rightwingers always used to claim.

You say "used to claim", however I always have, and always will repeat it. No part of my OP says anything about them not being allowed to, or anything about how they shouldn't be allowed to. The video ALSO says nothing of the sort.

TL;DR(Since you apparently didn't read the OP or watch the video): You're building up an argument that I'm not making, will make, or have ever made. Save your straw, you'll need it for a different argument that you can't win.

 

[JoeB131]

In the end, everyone they carpet bomb in their crusade to silence everyone they disagree with will go straight to their competitors. This is the nature of the market, and I don't mind it one bit.

But here's the problem you gun nuts face.

Big corporations are suddenly realizing that your fetish is costing them more than any economic value that you bring.

The fact that most of us have to walk past three security checkpoints and do "active shooter drills" to get to our jobs is a huge hit to the bottom line.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

In the end, everyone they carpet bomb in their crusade to silence everyone they disagree with will go straight to their competitors. This is the nature of the market, and I don't mind it one bit.

But here's the problem you gun nuts face.

Big corporations are suddenly realizing that your fetish is costing them more than any economic value that you bring.

The fact that most of us have to walk past three security checkpoints and do "active shooter drills" to get to our jobs is a huge hit to the bottom line.

Citations are needed for your "most of us" claim, "active shooter drills" wouldn't cost anything besides labor, and security checkpoints only have to be paid for once, and are also part of the standard labor costs of private security.

The fact that you have to call people who want to have weapons at all "nuts" even though they are simply defending their families and hunting, only goes to show you have no real argument to make, otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to adhoms.

Take your pathetic excuse for an argument back to the Flame Zone, that's where your mud-slinging belongs.

 

[Marion Morrison]

In the end, everyone they carpet bomb in their crusade to silence everyone they disagree with will go straight to their competitors. This is the nature of the market, and I don't mind it one bit.

But here's the problem you gun nuts face.

Big corporations are suddenly realizing that your fetish is costing them more than any economic value that you bring.

The fact that most of us have to walk past three security checkpoints and do "active shooter drills" to get to our jobs is a huge hit to the bottom line.

They're going to realize it's better not to fuck with us, watch.

I know you're not the most the most perceptive person in the world, but watch what happens.

 

[Marion Morrison]

In the end, everyone they carpet bomb in their crusade to silence everyone they disagree with will go straight to their competitors. This is the nature of the market, and I don't mind it one bit.

But here's the problem you gun nuts face.

Big corporations are suddenly realizing that your fetish is costing them more than any economic value that you bring.

The fact that most of us have to walk past three security checkpoints and do "active shooter drills" to get to our jobs is a huge hit to the bottom line.

Citations are needed for your "most of us" claim, "active shooter drills" wouldn't cost anything besides labor, and security checkpoints only have to be paid for once, and are also part of the standard labor costs of private security.

The fact that you have to call people who want to have weapons at all "nuts" even though they are simply defending their families and hunting, only goes to show you have no real argument to make, otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to adhoms.

Take your pathetic excuse for an argument back to the Flame Zone, that's where your mud-slinging belongs.

JOEB131 can't hang in the Flame Zone. He's BBQ'd within 2 minutes.

 

[Coyote]

Youtube is a private company....

Does Brietbart host anti-gun rights viewpoints?

I feel like you either didn't bother to read my OP, or you just assumed this was a complaint. I posted it in current events because it's currently happening, not because I think they shouldn't be allowed to.

In the end, everyone they carpet bomb in their crusade to silence everyone they disagree with will go straight to their competitors. This is the nature of the market, and I don't mind it one bit.

In the future, if you can't find anything in my post that's stating they can't or shouldn't be able to do or say something, then don't waste your time attempting to build up your strawman.

Who said I was responding to you? In the future, I suggest you note whether or not your post is being replied to before spouting off.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Youtube is a private company....

Does Brietbart host anti-gun rights viewpoints?

I feel like you either didn't bother to read my OP, or you just assumed this was a complaint. I posted it in current events because it's currently happening, not because I think they shouldn't be allowed to.

In the end, everyone they carpet bomb in their crusade to silence everyone they disagree with will go straight to their competitors. This is the nature of the market, and I don't mind it one bit.

In the future, if you can't find anything in my post that's stating they can't or shouldn't be able to do or say something, then don't waste your time attempting to build up your strawman.

Who said I was responding to you? In the future, I suggest you note whether or not your post is being replied to before spouting off.

The fact that you didn't bother to quote anyone, generally a sign that someone is replying to the OP, and the fact that nobody was making the argument you were building up.

In that case, apply my statement to anyone ELSE you would have been building up your strawman for, it works just as well.

 

[Coyote]

Youtube is a private company....

Does Brietbart host anti-gun rights viewpoints?

I feel like you either didn't bother to read my OP, or you just assumed this was a complaint. I posted it in current events because it's currently happening, not because I think they shouldn't be allowed to.

In the end, everyone they carpet bomb in their crusade to silence everyone they disagree with will go straight to their competitors. This is the nature of the market, and I don't mind it one bit.

In the future, if you can't find anything in my post that's stating they can't or shouldn't be able to do or say something, then don't waste your time attempting to build up your strawman.

Who said I was responding to you? In the future, I suggest you note whether or not your post is being replied to before spouting off.

The fact that you didn't bother to quote anyone, generally a sign that someone is replying to the OP, and the fact that nobody was making the argument you were building up.

In that case, apply my statement to anyone ELSE you would have been building up your strawman for, it works just as well.

That's an assumption you're making.

On the other hand, I could be (and am) simply commenting on the incredible amount of whining by the right on what youtube, and FB, and Google are doing that they claim is discrimminatory. This is just the latest.

 

[JoeB131]

Citations are needed for your "most of us" claim, "active shooter drills" wouldn't cost anything besides labor, and security checkpoints only have to be paid for once, and are also part of the standard labor costs of private security.

Um, no. Actually, people having to go through checkpoints, really is expensive, and reduces productivity.

The fact that you have to call people who want to have weapons at all "nuts" even though they are simply defending their families and hunting, only goes to show you have no real argument to make, otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to adhoms.

No, guy, the people who think they need something that is 43 times more likely to kill a family member in their home than a bad guy, to defend their families, is just plain nuts. People who need to stockpile weapons (the 3% of the population that owns 50% of the guns) to feel "safe" are nuts.

And the rest of us are getting a little tired of when one of you pops and shoots up a workplace or a school.

They're going to realize it's better not to fuck with us, watch.

Um, no, when the ATF comes for you, most of your neighbors will be cheering because you were scaring the children.

I know you're not the most the most perceptive person in the world, but watch what happens.

Yeah... Good Times.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Youtube is a private company....

Does Brietbart host anti-gun rights viewpoints?

I feel like you either didn't bother to read my OP, or you just assumed this was a complaint. I posted it in current events because it's currently happening, not because I think they shouldn't be allowed to.

In the end, everyone they carpet bomb in their crusade to silence everyone they disagree with will go straight to their competitors. This is the nature of the market, and I don't mind it one bit.

In the future, if you can't find anything in my post that's stating they can't or shouldn't be able to do or say something, then don't waste your time attempting to build up your strawman.

Who said I was responding to you? In the future, I suggest you note whether or not your post is being replied to before spouting off.

The fact that you didn't bother to quote anyone, generally a sign that someone is replying to the OP, and the fact that nobody was making the argument you were building up.

In that case, apply my statement to anyone ELSE you would have been building up your strawman for, it works just as well.

That's an assumption you're making.

On the other hand, I could be (and am) simply commenting on the incredible amount of whining by the right on what youtube, and FB, and Google are doing that they claim is discrimminatory. This is just the latest.

Not so much a claim, as an observation that it's discriminatory. Of course, as I stated, it's fine. It's about time their competitors took over, anyway.

 

[Coyote]

Youtube is a private company....

Does Brietbart host anti-gun rights viewpoints?

I feel like you either didn't bother to read my OP, or you just assumed this was a complaint. I posted it in current events because it's currently happening, not because I think they shouldn't be allowed to.

In the end, everyone they carpet bomb in their crusade to silence everyone they disagree with will go straight to their competitors. This is the nature of the market, and I don't mind it one bit.

In the future, if you can't find anything in my post that's stating they can't or shouldn't be able to do or say something, then don't waste your time attempting to build up your strawman.

Who said I was responding to you? In the future, I suggest you note whether or not your post is being replied to before spouting off.

The fact that you didn't bother to quote anyone, generally a sign that someone is replying to the OP, and the fact that nobody was making the argument you were building up.

In that case, apply my statement to anyone ELSE you would have been building up your strawman for, it works just as well.

That's an assumption you're making.

On the other hand, I could be (and am) simply commenting on the incredible amount of whining by the right on what youtube, and FB, and Google are doing that they claim is discrimminatory. This is just the latest.

Not so much a claim, as an observation that it's discriminatory. Of course, as I stated, it's fine. It's about time their competitors took over, anyway.

The more competition the better. Monopolies are unhealthy.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Citations are needed for your "most of us" claim, "active shooter drills" wouldn't cost anything besides labor, and security checkpoints only have to be paid for once, and are also part of the standard labor costs of private security.

Um, no. Actually, people having to go through checkpoints, really is expensive, and reduces productivity.

The fact that you have to call people who want to have weapons at all "nuts" even though they are simply defending their families and hunting, only goes to show you have no real argument to make, otherwise you wouldn't be resorting to adhoms.

No, guy, the people who think they need something that is 43 times more likely to kill a family member in their home than a bad guy, to defend their families, is just plain nuts. People who need to stockpile weapons (the 3% of the population that owns 50% of the guns) to feel "safe" are nuts.

And the rest of us are getting a little tired of when one of you pops and shoots up a workplace or a school.

They're going to realize it's better not to fuck with us, watch.

Um, no, when the ATF comes for you, most of your neighbors will be cheering because you were scaring the children.

I know you're not the most the most perceptive person in the world, but watch what happens.

Yeah... Good Times.

Citations are still needed for your "most of us" claim, and it's still part of security costs.

Citations are also needed for your claims on percentages, more shootings are stopped with guns than committed, and just because you're more likely to shoot your family than protect them, that doesn't mean others are. I'd also like to point out that schools are targets because they're gun free zones. Not that they should exist in the first place, public education is garbage.

Your minority of pansies don't speak for most of the nation. The sooner you realize that most of us like having rights, the sooner you'll stop being such a joke across the forum.

 

[IsaacNewton]

How now will all the gunwhacks that boycotted the NFL and burned their NFL crap be able to upload videos of themselves burning their crap and go to watch videos of their fellow double-chin-NFL-hat-jersey-mug-blanket-fob burners? I think there may be a time warp involved here that we could have used Stephen Hawking's expertise on.

 

[JoeB131]

Citations are still needed for your "most of us" claim, and it's still part of security costs.

No, they aren't... I don't do citations for morons who aren't capable of learning.

I could sit here and cite polls all day that show most of us want stricter gun control, but frankly, why bother.

Big corporations are turning on you now, buddy. Ask the Homophobes how well that works out when they do.

Citations are also needed for your claims on percentages, more shootings are stopped with guns than committed, and just because you're more likely to shoot your family than protect them, that doesn't mean others are.

Kellerman Study. We've been over this a million times.

I'd also like to point out that schools are targets because they're gun free zones. Not that they should exist in the first place, public education is garbage.

No, dummy, schools are targets because that's how you create maximum horror. But you have a point, Public education was a waste in your case.

Your minority of pansies don't speak for most of the nation. The sooner you realize that most of us like having rights, the sooner you'll stop being such a joke across the forum.

Thanks Received JoeB131 - 8055
Thanks received Pumpkinhead- 2451

WHOOOPS.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Youtube is cracking down further on anything second amendment-related. Liberty Network's Mister Dapperton reads off the changes for us.

From the YouTube website:

“Policies on content featuring firearms

YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don’t allow content that:

Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g., private sales by individuals) or links to sites that sell these items. These accessories include but may not be limited to accessories that enable a firearm to simulate automatic fire or convert a firearm to automatic fire (e.g., bump stocks, gatling triggers, drop-in auto sears, conversion kits), and high capacity magazines (i.e., magazines or belts carrying more than 30 rounds).

Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above. This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities.

Shows users how to install the above-mentioned accessories or modifications.”

Policies on content featuring firearms - YouTube Help

This policy is perfectly appropriate and reasonable – videos featuring gun reviews, gun maintenance, and range demonstrations will still be allowed.

Consequently, the OP is a lie, there is no ‘crackdown’ on ‘anything’ Second Amendment-related because the policy doesn’t pertain to the majority of gun videos on the site.

The OP is also ignorant, as the Second Amendment concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and entities, such as web hosting sites.

Because this is a private company and not government, nothing YouTube does is ‘Second Amendment-related.’

This thread is yet another example of dishonesty, demagoguery, and lies from the right.

 

[Esmeralda]

Private companies. They can do what they want within the law.

That's what rightwingers always used to claim.

They can, but I'll be keeping my dealings with them to a minimum.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Private companies. They can do what they want within the law.

That's what rightwingers always used to claim.

They can, but I'll be keeping my dealings with them to a minimum.

Google is way too pervasive in everyone's lives. I don't use a Google account on the phone, either. Once you sign in on a phone, you can never sign out.

 

[Esmeralda]

Private companies. They can do what they want within the law.

That's what rightwingers always used to claim.

They can, but I'll be keeping my dealings with them to a minimum.

Google is way too pervasive in everyone's lives. I don't use a Google account on the phone, either. Once you sign in on a phone, you can never sign out.

It is not pervasive in my life, and I doubt it is pervasive in 'everyone's lives.' LOL