It looks as if Infowars had been scrubbed from YouTube and other social media sites for "hate speech and inciting violence." I am not a fan of Infowars, but this whole "hate speech" notion seems to paint with an awfully wide brush. Who's next?
Can private businesses not choose who they want to/will do business with?Alex Jones is a certified nutcase. I just worry about business trying to legislate social justice.
Can private businesses not choose who they want to/will do business with?
I would say yes. And anybody that has a business and hasn't already at least started laying the ground work to get off Youtube, Facebook Twitter etc has their head in the sand. At best you are supporting the enemy and won't have a level playing field. Find alternatives and be flexible. And demanding that Congress get involved is the height of ignorance. When has that collection of asshats ever made anything better? And whose lobbyists have a bigger budget? Yours or the big tech companies?
Delete that crap from your life.
I like almost all of what you posted here
I'll ask what Ive asked many times - what is a good alternative to YT?
Ive looked at gab and bitchute and nothing close to what yt offers, really seemed to be narrow in it's content, at least from some quick looking around.
I am open to new things, but if it's simply not there then why would I spend much time there vs another place?I probably am not the one to answer that. I use youtube very rarely. Pretty much when it pops up on a search for some gun review or repair. My guess is there isn't one yet. Bit Chute is trying, but everyone complains it isn't as good as youtube. Well change is tough, and if nobody ever uses a new platform it won't ever get better. Whatever alternatives that are out there will evolve the same way youtube did. Maybe people will have to change the ways they get information or content.
Do you honestly believe YT and FB don't get special permissions, protections, and kickbacks from the swamp?Can private businesses not choose who they want to/will do business with?
Do you honestly believe YT and FB don't get special permissions, protections, and kickbacks from the swamp?
Link to this information?
What sites have they been banned from?
Eh, they are private companies, they can ban who they want.
I wont miss it, never been a fan of IW/Alex Jones
It depends. Remember the bakers that wouldn't make the cake for a gay wedding? they couldn't choose who they do business withCan private businesses not choose who they want to/will do business with?
I dont doubt it, but still doesnt change the fact that they're a private company and should be allowed to allow or ban anyone they'd like.
I am open to new things, but if it's simply not there then why would I spend much time there vs another place?
I just went to bitchute and as I scroll down the homepage almost everything is either Alex Jones, PizzaGate, or something political related etc
Not interested.
Ok, let's check out gab...similar.
Ok, I know there is liveleak too...but still lacks some things. Not bad, but what if I want to check out music? Let's do a search for 'music video' and nothing real pulls up.
I know, that's very narrow, but it's something that I'm interested in.
There are other things at play for alternatives to not be as popular - money being one.
Do the other's offer monetization of their videos? Ive looked around some and see gab DOES offer some IF you are a "pro" member
People like making money and it helps them to continue to make and edit videos (ie: channels like Louder with Crowder or Fleccas)
I did find this as I was searching around
https://techwiser.com/youtube-alternative/
It's a year old, but still relevant, I think.
Is Maxine Waters next?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It really comes down to what is imoortnat to YOU. If you want things to change and there to be a chance for good alternatives to one world Marxist ideas you're going to have to sacrifice. If it isn't that important to you, and you'd rather have your current conveniences then just keep doing what you are doing. We all get to make our own choices. Just don't be the guy that hates all the SWJ BS and Marxis crap, and complains that Congress needs to fix Facebook, Twitter and Google. Cause that guy is just ignorant.
Jones isn't the only one who got axed by social media sites - just to name a few:
> Tommy Robinson got banned from instagram today (he was banned from twitter back in March).
> Candace Owens had her twitter account suspended.
> A Democatic senator from MA called for more conservative websites to be taken down yesterday.
I wonder when we're gonna start seeing the book burnings? LOL
Private company is questionable when politicians control regs in your favor. I guess you will be cool when the few available ISPs in your area block access to this site.I dont doubt it, but still doesnt change the fact that they're a private company and should be allowed to allow or ban anyone they'd like.
Jones isn't the only one who got axed by social media sites - just to name a few:
> Tommy Robinson got banned from instagram today (he was banned from twitter back in March).
> Candace Owens had her twitter account suspended.
> A Democatic senator from MA called for more conservative websites to be taken down yesterday.
I wonder when we're gonna start seeing the book burnings? LOL
That's where it's heading. That's where net neutrality is so important.Private company is questionable when politicians control regs in your favor. I guess you will be cool when the few available ISPs in your area block access to this site.
That's where it's heading. That's where net neutrality is so important.
For many years I have spoken out about things like censorship being a problem and argued against those who thought it was fine if it was done by a corporate instead of a government entity. Unfortunately the line between the two isn't so clear cut AND we now corporations with a much wider and more direct plug into the typical consumer or citizen giving them a much greater influence over what information they can even access, or rather are subjected to. This is unprecedented in history.
It should tell you something about how important the principle of unfettered data access is when both the Dims and Repugs want to play dirty pool to prevent you from having it.The problem with 'net neutrality' is that that regulation/law didn't really do what its name purported. I can't remember every detail, but basically it was written by the Silicon Valley big tech companies. So it sounded good. Just like the Patriot Act. Who would say no to that? It must be good.
Yep. And this is where the libertarian argument falls short.That's where it's heading. That's where net neutrality is so important.
For many years I have spoken out about things like censorship being a problem and argued against those who thought it was fine if it was done by a corporate instead of a government entity. Unfortunately the line between the two isn't so clear cut AND we now corporations with a much wider and more direct plug into the typical consumer or citizen giving them a much greater influence over what information they can even access, or rather are subjected to. This is unprecedented in history.
In another time, in another country, that newspaper would have been called Pravda.Private company or net they almost have a monopoly on those kind of communication/info sharing methods. If they are going to choose a political ideology and silence the opposition with their monopoly, that is a problem.
I am not sure we would be equally comfortable if one newspaper bought up all of the paper supply and forestland and refused to sell to other newspapers just because they were a private company.
Yep. And this is where the libertarian argument falls short.
Don't like Twitter, then create an alternative. Well, Gab did just that. Gab is just a platform and users provide the content, just like Twitter, but they got banned nonetheless from Apple and Google app stores. So what should they do? According to the libertarian argument, they should make smartphones too. And when internet providers decide to start throttling or eliminating certain content, maybe they should build out a telecom infrastructure too.
I've argued before that libertarianism cannot provide an effective defense to Marxism, and this is just another example.
When your enemy is ideologically committed to seizing power in all its forms, which includes the media and control over the dissemination of information, standing on one's libertarian soapbox is a losing proposition.
Can private businesses not choose who they want to/will do business with?
And what ideology is capable of rallying the people to defeat marxism? It certainly isn't libertarianism.The problem is that most people and the political party currently in power that supposedly is our defense against the enemy don't really know or understand the enemy. As people said about Obama and Islam you could say about many people and the entire Republican Party. They won't openly name and identify the enemy. Democrats and Marxists are the enemy. They may hide behind words like progressive, Democratic Socialist, Anti Fascist, or even moderate, but make no mistake, they are Marxsts and Communists. And they must be defeated at some point. And at some cost.
And what ideology is capable of rallying the people to defeat marxism? It certainly isn't libertarianism.