News: handicap who works for Vox leading charge to delete everything on youtube

Author Topic: News: handicap who works for Vox leading charge to delete everything on youtube  (Read 4541 times)


And you're either a brainlet who has no idea what brainwashing is or you're genuinely malicious.
Very mature and rational response, thank you, Matthew, very cool


And you're either a brainlet who has no idea what brainwashing is or you're genuinely malicious.

"heritage foundation talking points". ?!?!?? What does that mean?

I also refuse to believe you are this stupid to misunderstand not only the entire point of this thread, but my entire point of being against the leftist censorship. Everyone to the right of leftists is not a conservative. Because not everyone left of center is a leftist. But the many on the left has driven themselves in to the upper left corner. And now they're too afraid to hear anything they don't like, that they're willing to make those opinions vanish at the cost of everyone else. This isn't "conservative victimhood" or opression of conservatives. Their goal was always far bigger than conservatism, it's to squash any form of dissent, from anyone. It started with conservatives, and to many it may have seemed to have been a slippery slope, but it was more of a staircase in the dark, all you had to do was flip the lights on and see where it lead. Instead you believed the person blindly leading you into the dark telling you every next step was just to "stop the tribals". Yet here we are, at the point of digital book burning, historians are being removed from YouTube.

Conservatives were just one Target on a bigger dart board.
this posts proves my point that your a useful idiot, you have no idea what you are advocating for, and its ironic that you think i think conservatives are all the same when you don't even know the difference between leftists and just argue to a strawman all day against me

btw if anyone can get george soros on the line, i need him to pay me extra for this because it's actually brain damaging to argue against this guy

btw if anyone can get george soros on the line, i need him to pay me extra for this because it's actually brain damaging to argue against this guy
https://www.georgesoros.com/

actually i want to prod this,

MM who is the people who try to silence people? is it youtube? you said it was part of a bigger move to silence everyone? is it the deep state? what is going on here exactly?

what is the bigger plan? whos behind this? you keep saying "they" or "their plan" but I legitimately don't know who you are talking about


actually i want to prod this,

MM who is the people who try to silence people? is it youtube? you said it was part of a bigger move to silence everyone? is it the deep state? what is going on here exactly?

what is the bigger plan? whos behind this? you keep saying "they" or "their plan" but I legitimately don't know who you are talking about
Deep state? Maybe, but that's completely out of my understanding.
Youtube? Definitely, but not completely under their own volition. But it's clear they won't think twice about enacting pro-censorship policies.

in my case "They" is usually referring to general leftists, people like Carlos Maza, who started this next Advoxalypse. It's usually leftist journalists who go off the deep end about asinine bullstuff who end up doing this. Many journalists have mistaken their interests and opinions with the interests and opinions of the general population, because companies will respond to articles like thousands upon thousands of people knocked at their door and shouted at them about it.

Whether they know it or not, and I do believe they know it, their voices and their power enable them to make decisions that effect everyone. This is not a power to take lightly, and it's certainly something to be acknowledged. Not everyone has a voice or really wants to speak up. However, misusing and abusing this voice to attack people you don't like at the cost of everyone else, is unethical in journalism, and it's immoral to everyone who is sane.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2019, 11:21:50 AM by Master Matthew² »

i dont think writing words is their voice

Deep state? Maybe, but that's completely out of my understanding.
Youtube? Definitely, but not completely under their own volition. But it's clear they won't think twice about enacting pro-censorship policies.

in my case "They" is usually referring to general leftists, people like Carlos Maza, who started this next Advoxalypse. It's usually leftist journalists who go off the deep end about asinine bullstuff who end up doing this. Many journalists have mistaken their interests and opinions with the interests and opinions of the general population, because companies will respond to articles like thousands upon thousands of people knocked at their door and shouted at them about it.

Whether they know it or not, and I do believe they know it, their voices and their power enable them to make decisions that effect everyone. This is not a power to take lightly, and it's certainly something to be acknowledged. Not everyone has a voice or really wants to speak up. However, misusing and abusing this voice to attack people you don't like at the cost of everyone else, is unethical in journalism, and it's immoral to everyone who is sane.
so you think youtube is absolutely not at fault for being hypocritical in the way they enforce their TOS? they ruin the platform for everyone and solved this issue in the worst way possible.

the way they act can be entirely summed up to "they want to make as much money as possible" regardless of the people on their platform, the journalist clearly pointed out in his tweets saying that youtube was being hypocritical by "celebrating pride" and hosting people like crowder. all youtube wants is to turn a profit.

in the end, they barely punished crowder and ruined the platform by making widely inconsistent statements and mass flagging videos that have nothing to do with this. Youtube is at fault here. Even the journalist is tweeting that this is not the way to go about this.

I've seen stuff tons of conservatives online who have actively tried to deplatform people, but when it's one of theirs being attacked, turn around and whine about free speech. (See: Keemstar, count dankula, etc.). There are tons of people being so actively hypocritical about these things it's insane, and then there's people like you, who I believe act in good faith, but are supporting people that in long run will do nothing when anyone on the left gets deplatformed.

youtube doesn't have a left leaning bias, they pretend to be "woke" for money, they have a capitalistic bias. they have no inherent motivation to enforce a leftist hegemony because they constantly double dip on both sides for the money. This, in turn, causes situations like this because they have no idea how to act. They are trying to please everyone in this situation and its failing horribly.

google doesnt even care about all this stuff they just want money

so you think youtube is absolutely not at fault for being hypocritical in the way they enforce their TOS? they ruin the platform for everyone and solved this issue in the worst way possible.

the way they act can be entirely summed up to "they want to make as much money as possible" regardless of the people on their platform, the journalist clearly pointed out in his tweets saying that youtube was being hypocritical by "celebrating pride" and hosting people like crowder. all youtube wants is to turn a profit.

in the end, they barely punished crowder and ruined the platform by making widely inconsistent statements and mass flagging videos that have nothing to do with this. Youtube is at fault here. Even the journalist is tweeting that this is not the way to go about this.

I've seen stuff tons of conservatives online who have actively tried to deplatform people, but when it's one of theirs being attacked, turn around and whine about free speech. (See: Keemstar, count dankula, etc.). There are tons of people being so actively hypocritical about these things it's insane, and then there's people like you, who I believe act in good faith, but are supporting people that in long run will do nothing when anyone on the left gets deplatformed.

youtube doesn't have a left leaning bias, they pretend to be "woke" for money, they have a capitalistic bias. they have no inherent motivation to enforce a leftist hegemony because they constantly double dip on both sides for the money. This in turn causes situations like this because they have no idea how to act. They are trying to please everyone in this situation and its failing horribly.
No one has brought forth any reason to punish crowder outside of "he said some mean words, and sells shirts that say 'Socialism is for Figs' ;c"
Provide some evidence of him "Mass Flagging" videos. Other than that, Inconsistent statements, is not grounds enough to delete a channel.
Keemstar is a known stuffstain, conservatism has nothing to do with it. And I really don't know much about Count Dankula, so I have nothing to say there.

This seems like the situation you see "Deplatform those who I fear will someday deplatform me." and all your really doing, is handing the power to remove people, arbitrarily and without question to a company that already has too much power as it is.

I doubt any of these companies are actually "woke". They're all doing it for money, they're a company, that's what they do. And me saying they didn't make these decisions of their own willpower is not the same as exonerating them of any wrongdoing.

google doesnt even care about all this stuff they just want money

No one has brought forth any reason to punish crowder outside of "he said some mean words, and sells shirts that say 'Socialism is for Figs' ;c"
Provide some evidence of him "Mass Flagging" videos. Other than that, Inconsistent statements, is not grounds enough to delete a channel.
I agree with you, simply calling someone something shouldn't be punishable, but under the youtube TOS it is.

From their TOS:
Quote
Hate speech is not allowed on YouTube. We remove content promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on any of the following attributes:

Age
Caste
Disability
Ethnicity
Gender Identity
Nationality
Race
Immigration Status
Religion
love/Gender
loveual Orientation
Victims of a major violent event and their kin
Veteran Status
So under the youtube TOS, he is promoting hatred towards people because of only referring to him as a friend because of his loveual identity. This could be considered a violation of TOS

Here's another:
Quote
If you're posting content
Don’t post content on YouTube if it fits any of the descriptions noted below.

Revealing someone’s personal information, such as their address, private email addresses, private phone numbers, passport number, or bank account information
Note: This does not include posting widely available public information, such as a public official’s office phone number
Content that is deliberately posted in order to humiliate someone
Content that makes hurtful and negative personal comments/videos about another person
Content that incites others to harass or threaten individuals on or off YouTube
Content featuring non-consensual love acts or unwanted loveualization
Content threatening specific individuals with physical harm or destruction of property
Content featuring abusive or threatening behavior directed at a minor
loveualizing or degrading an individual who is engaged or present in an otherwise non-loveual context
Content claiming that specific victims of public violent incidents or their next of kin are actors, or that their experiences are false
This policy applies to videos, video descriptions, comments, live streams, and any other YouTube product or feature. Please note this is not a complete list.

Here is a supercut of what crowder has been saying:
https://twitter.com/gaywonk/status/1136057689585410050

Please tell me how calling him a lispy queer not once, but like 20 times, is not content intended to humiliate him? This clearly falls under a violation of their TOS, regardless of if you agree with the TOS or not. The journalist is pointing out how allowing crowder to post is hypocritical, considering they do the fake "woke" thing all the time to get money.

This seems like the situation you see "Deplatform those who I fear will someday deplatform me." and all your really doing, is handing the power to remove people, arbitrarily and without question to a company that already has too much power as it is.
Again, you are strawmaning me, I never made the argument that people should be arbitrarily deplatformed for no reason. I think people should be deplatformed from spreading lies and misinformation, the only people that do that are bad faith actors and it does a demonstrable harm to society to let them spread lies unchalleged, like crowder does on the regular.
I doubt any of these companies are actually "woke". They're all doing it for money, they're a company, that's what they do. And me saying they didn't make these decisions of their own willpower is not the same as exonerating them of any wrongdoing.
This is caused by the system we live under, capitalism gives corporations the insatiable hunger to gain as much money as possible, regardless of whats actually good for the public.