It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

InfoWars Videos Banned By YouTube

page: 10
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:11 AM
link   
My goodness listen to all the "shadow conspiracy they're taking my rights" crap.

Amazing to see so many defend the drunk at the end of the bar getting kicked out because he's too loud & obnoxious & the other patrons have begun to complain.

Regardless all you're "waaa, censorship" nonsense this is merely a case of being bounced out the bar because you can't keep from acting like a total idiot.

K~




posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

What was the verdict in the reddit case?
I ask because you said


It's going to create an interesting legal dynamic for them.

What laws are you referring to and what legal actions were taken against reddit?



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Here, this article touches on it better than I could.
LINK



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

All that stuff is about the reddit ceo CHANGING a post done by a user.

Not relevant in this case at all. Has nothing to do with a site being allowed to delete content.
Section 230:



I’m going to take a detour for a moment because understanding 47 U.S.C. § 230 (Section 230) is what this all hinges on. Here is the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s straightforward explanation: ‘ Section 230 says that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of “interactive computer service providers,” including basically any online service that publishes third-party content. Though there are important exceptions for certain criminal and intellectual property-based claims, CDA 230 creates a broad protection that has allowed innovation and free speech online to flourish. ‘ Think of it like a billboard at a local college. The college puts a billboard up for students to make community announcements. The college never uses it. Then Adam writes something defamatory and false about Betsy. Betsy is upset and sues Adam and the college. A court would allow the lawsuit to proceed against Adam, but not the college because they just provided the platform and had nothing to do with the comments.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

And much of the case law reference's are about businesses commenting on their own website's.

Furthermore, how does changing a post differentiate from deleting one, simply because you disagree with it? You mean to tell me every video on inforwars youtube channel violated the ToS? I find that pretty hard to believe. They had a number of comedy segments.
edit on 25-2-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
My goodness listen to all the "shadow conspiracy they're taking my rights" crap.

Amazing to see so many defend the drunk at the end of the bar getting kicked out because he's too loud & obnoxious & the other patrons have begun to complain.

Regardless all you're "waaa, censorship" nonsense this is merely a case of being bounced out the bar because you can't keep from acting like a total idiot.

K~


Well no, not really.
If you want to use the bar analogy, this is like getting kicked out of the bar because you don't think the same way as the bar owner.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite




Furthermore, how does changing a post differentiate from deleting one

one is a deletion and one is a misrepresentation of a real person. Seems obviously different to me.




You mean to tell me every video on inforwars youtube channel violated the ToS?

No one said that they did? It was said that IF alex continuous to violate the youtube t&c then his channel would get pulled.
And whether you agree with youtube T&C IS IRRELEVANT.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The bar near my house has a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service for ANY reason."
And that's the way it should be.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: scraedtosleep
a reply to: UKTruth

The bar near my house has a sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service for ANY reason."
And that's the way it should be.


I'd like to see the reactions if the bar down your street ejected black people. Or maybe anyone pro-choice? Or maybe anyone they suspected of being gay? Any reason, right?
edit on 25/2/2018 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 07:02 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

A deletion is a misrepresentation as well. They posted the content.

I'm also curious which T&C infowars is said to have violated.

ETA
My point is if they get into the business of deleting videos they disagree with (not videos that violate the T&C) they get in the business of being responsible for everything that is posted and not removed. There are a great many lawsuits that would spawn from that.
edit on 25-2-2018 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 07:20 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

I wouldn't be upset ,even if I was one of the people kicked out.
But I would guess that it would go out of business soon after.
And that's the way it should be.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

That's simple, visit us at Bitchute. The smart people left google, fakebook and ytube last year or so. You folks are late to the party and praise the wrong gods.



Kudos for your other reply btw! Always a pleasure to disagree with people, who at least try to understand where I'm coming from.




posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Don't forget Gab (replaces Twitter), SteemIt with D-Tube too.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: scraedtosleep

Just like Twitter banning conservatives will go out of business soon, or be left with libtards echoing the same talking points to themselves.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 08:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: UKTruth

That's simple, visit us at Bitchute. The smart people left google, fakebook and ytube last year or so. You folks are late to the party and praise the wrong gods.



Kudos for your other reply btw! Always a pleasure to disagree with people, who at least try to understand where I'm coming from.



Bitchute looks interesting.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 01:10 PM
link   
a reply to: thepixelpusher


Hey don't talk about DU like that


In reality, anyone who engages in censorship for *any* reason deserves to be boycotted entirely

It is down right anti-American.

I say Twitter/Facebook/Google (and maybe even more...we'll see) need broken up due to their monopoly and clear abuse of said monopoly. Serves them right too.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Censorship is a weapon of cowards and tyrants.


Unless it's a network Trump doesn't like.. then it's ok to talk about "pulling licenses" and trying them for treason.. right?

The double-standards on this site are a never ending source of amusement.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deplorable
InfoWars Link

Yeah, it looks like the fake news conglomerates are now circling the wagons. Hold on - it gets better.


The internet giant pulled down the following videos on the Parkland, Florida school shooting, and according to CNN YouTube will ban The Alex Jones Channel outright if two more videos receive strikes.


CNN Promotes Censorship of Conspiracy Theory Site

CNN is dying to watch Alex Jones' channel get yanked from YouTube.

My take: If InfoWars wasn't doing some real hurt to CNN's credibility, why would they seem to be so interested in promoting their unfair takedown. Looks like everything people have been saying about the Hogg kid has been validated. Who is CNN gonna come for next??


(CNN)InfoWars, a far-right media organization run by Alex Jones and known for peddling unfounded conspiracy theories, is on thin ice with YouTube after it posted a video that portrayed the survivors of the Parkland school shooting as actors.

The Alex Jones Channel, Infowar's biggest YouTube account, received one strike for that video, a source with knowledge of the account told CNN. YouTube's community guidelines say if an account receives three strikes in three months, the account is terminated.


Not just CNN. Tons of people. Dude is a tabloid channel that quotes and uses his own website and articles as the source. It's actually really sad.



posted on Feb, 25 2018 @ 04:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: aethertek
My goodness listen to all the "shadow conspiracy they're taking my rights" crap.

Amazing to see so many defend the drunk at the end of the bar getting kicked out because he's too loud & obnoxious & the other patrons have begun to complain.

Regardless all you're "waaa, censorship" nonsense this is merely a case of being bounced out the bar because you can't keep from acting like a total idiot.

K~


Check out /r/the_donald subreddit if you want to see censorship. Try engaging in a polite and well thought out discussion with literally any trump supporter on there. Deleted and banned in minutes, guaranteed.







 
41
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join