Alex Jones..

GGizmo · 12 Jun 2019 at 14:42

h4rm0ny said:
Yes. These are new rules (to be applied selectively) from YouTube.

Doubting the accepted version of events is now Hate Speech.

It makes me wonder what can be talked about on youtube. I heard that when they implemented these rules it took down more sjw channels/videos than conservatives, which was the real target. The system found more sjw channels in violation of the new rules.

There is a video of youtube head, Susan Wojcicki, apologising at a VOX sponsored event :rolleyes:

for deleting many of the sjw's channels.

I don't know what the end game is for youtube. All I know is they are destorying their own platform.

StriderX said:
Well when parents of murdered children are harassed for months on end because some inbred hick thinks otherwise, then yes it is.

The fact is youtube don't believe in free speech and so will eventually die off, just like myspace. Big companies don't like the little people having views and opinions that conflict with there own. That is the bottom line. They will use any tragedy to enforce their goal.

The thing youtube should have done in sandyhook was suspend the account and temporarily removed the videos while the case was heard in court. Only through a court order should they have removed the videos, or banned Alex Jones account. If the court decided he did nothing wrong then youtube should have left well alone. But like a lot of ego maniacs in todays era, they most control everything. But the problem for them is as soon as they take on the liability of video content then they take on everyones liability.

It's the alex jones haters keeping him alive and famous.

StriderX · 12 Jun 2019 at 14:50

Eh no, because it was the Advertisers that were pushing this, Youtube had no choice but to fold before the revenue made it a pointless platform.

**** sakes its a business, go to Voat to moan or something.

jsmoke · 12 Jun 2019 at 14:51

They're talking about possibly breaking these big companies like fb/yt up in the future if they keep censoring conservative analysts. It's the only way to prevent tryanny.

cheesyboy · 12 Jun 2019 at 14:51

BowdonUK said:
It makes me wonder what can be talked about on youtube. I heard that when they implemented these rules it took down more sjw channels/videos than conservatives, which was the real target. The system found more sjw channels in violation of the new rules.

One of the problems these platforms have is that right wing hate speech shares a close perspective with actual right wing politicians. The social networks can't (and are a bit gun-shy of) implement policies to cut down on right wing hate without risking catching the president of the free world (+ others) in the dragnet.

chroniclard · 12 Jun 2019 at 14:53

Nobody but raging frothers think they are "destroying their own platform". Normal moral people dont want to see hate speech, its simple.

jsmoke · 12 Jun 2019 at 14:54

BowdonUK said:
It makes me wonder what can be talked about on youtube. I heard that when they implemented these rules it took down more sjw channels/videos than conservatives, which was the real target. The system found more sjw channels in violation of the new rules.

There is a video of youtube head, Susan Wojcicki, apologising at a VOX sponsored event for deleting many of the sjw's channels.

I don't know what the end game is for youtube. All I know is they are destorying their own platform.

The fact is youtube don't believe in free speech and so will eventually die off, just like myspace. Big companies don't like the little people having views and opinions that conflict with there own. That is the bottom line. They will use any tragedy to enforce their goal.

The thing youtube should have done in sandyhook was suspend the account and temporarily removed the videos while the case was heard in court. Only through a court order should they have removed the videos, or banned Alex Jones account. If the court decided he did nothing wrong then youtube should have left well alone. But like a lot of ego maniacs in todays era, they most control everything. But the problem for them is as soon as they take on the liability of video content then they take on everyones liability.

It's the alex jones haters keeping him alive and famous.

You need to get your face onto YT and actually challenge people like Jones maybe he'll even have you on his show. I'd love to see that but I'd bet you'd run a mile if you were given the chance.

h4rm0ny · 12 Jun 2019 at 14:59

StriderX said:
Neither are they are government company, you agree to the rules when you sign up and every time you log in or look at the site, if you don't like it, don't use it.

I didn't say a thing about what rights they have, did I? I said that it's harmful for them to be arbiters of truth. And we're their massive reach and your argument being applicable to all social media companies, that's what we're approximating to. Legal and harmless are not synonyms. Nor is it possible to compete on a level playing field when companies like Google, Facebook and Apple wont allow you access to their marketplace if you don't share these views.

chroniclard · 12 Jun 2019 at 15:09

They are not being arbiters of truth, they are not allowing hate speech on their platform, its not difficult to understand. Some of Jones views are abhorrent to normal moral people, he is either spouting nonsense for money or hes a massive douche.

Roar87 · 12 Jun 2019 at 15:17

chroniclard said:
They are not being arbiters of truth, they are not allowing hate speech on their platform, its not difficult to understand. Some of Jones views are abhorrent to normal moral people, he is either spouting nonsense for money or hes a massive douche.

And who defines what hate speech is? Youtube - hence they're arbiters of truth. This isn't exactly difficult stuff to understand. What violent events am I allowed to celebrate for instance? None? What about the killing of Bin Laden? Killing ISIS members? What about if I live in Russia and celebrate an American plane being shot over Syria? Where's the line?

StriderX · 12 Jun 2019 at 15:23

They can define whatever they want because it's THEIR platform and THEIR rules that YOU agree to. How is this so ******* difficult?

If you're a **** in a bar, and you get barred, you better accept you're not getting back in, THEIR bar, THEIR rules, just because youtube is part of a trillion dollar company and has billions of people on it (potentially) is irrelevant. Go find somewhere else, it's that easy.

chroniclard · 12 Jun 2019 at 15:26

Roar87 said:
And who defines what hate speech is? Youtube - hence they're arbiters of truth. This isn't exactly difficult stuff to understand. What violent events am I allowed to celebrate for instance? None? What about the killing of Bin Laden? Killing ISIS members? What about if I live in Russia and celebrate an American plane being shot over Syria? Where's the line?

Its defined above.

d_brennen · 12 Jun 2019 at 15:26

Roar87 said:
Where's the line?

https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=GB&template=terms

h4rm0ny · 12 Jun 2019 at 16:20

Roar87 said:
And who defines what hate speech is? Youtube - hence they're arbiters of truth. This isn't exactly difficult stuff to understand. What violent events am I allowed to celebrate for instance? None? What about the killing of Bin Laden? Killing ISIS members? What about if I live in Russia and celebrate an American plane being shot over Syria? Where's the line?

And what if I believe that the "Sarin gas" attacks in Syria are a false flag? That, according to YouTube would be hate speech. What if I believe Putin knew about in advance the Russian apartment bombings of 1999? Still hate speech?

StriderX said:
They can define whatever they want because it's THEIR platform and THEIR rules that YOU agree to. How is this so ******* difficult?

It's not. I said it was harmful for them to get to decide what is accepted truth and what is not. You seem to wish we had said something easier for you to argue with.

VincentHanna · 12 Jun 2019 at 16:23

And what if I believed children weren't horrifically murdered by a gun nut in America, and went after the parents because I believed they were government stooges?

Oh wait.

Roar87 · 12 Jun 2019 at 16:33

VincentHanna said:
And what if I believed children weren't horrifically murdered by a gun nut in America, and went after the parents because I believed they were government stooges?

Oh wait.

Then I'd ask you to provide evidence, if you couldn't satisfy your claim then you'd be ridiculed, and rightly so. I wouldn't ask you to be banned from speaking again, because you might one day be telling the truth. Or I might abuse the power to ban people from speaking by asking for any dissenting opinions to my own be banned.

GGizmo · 12 Jun 2019 at 16:35

jsmoke said:
You need to get your face onto YT and actually challenge people like Jones maybe he'll even have you on his show. I'd love to see that but I'd bet you'd run a mile if you were given the chance.

I'm not against Alex Jones and him being on the platform. I would debate anyone. I'm not understanding your point?

h4rm0ny · 12 Jun 2019 at 16:35

EDIT: Roar said it better.

jsmoke · 12 Jun 2019 at 16:56

BowdonUK said:
I'm not against Alex Jones and him being on the platform. I would debate anyone. I'm not understanding your point?

I think I skim read. Sorry bruv.

V F · 12 Jun 2019 at 17:14

StriderX said:
They can define whatever they want because it's THEIR platform and THEIR rules that YOU agree to. How is this so ******* difficult?

If you're a **** in a bar, and you get barred, you better accept you're not getting back in, THEIR bar, THEIR rules, just because youtube is part of a trillion dollar company and has billions of people on it (potentially) is irrelevant. Go find somewhere else, it's that easy.

I don't think there is a day on this forum you're never angry.

StriderX · 12 Jun 2019 at 17:20

V F said:
I don't think there is a day on this forum you're never angry.

lmao, there you happy?