InfoWars Videos Banned By YouTube

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: DBCowboy


Censorship is having a site dedicated to the free flow of ideas and banning those who have different ideas.

Problem is YouTube is a private company that can and will do what it thinks is best for its business model. No freedom of speech there...

Then it should market itself as a leftist site that only caters to those who adhere to it.

Failure on your part.

A business should be free of censorship and market itself any way it damn well pleases. Let market forces determine its success or failure after all the business takes the chances, pays the bills, all the over head....I know, I own and operate a business.

Nice try though...

and your nice consolation prize is a hot steaming bowl of covfefe....enjoy!!

At some point though that just becomes sophist rationalizing that only serves the powerful. It's the same with FB and Google. At the point you have near monopolies on platforms and connections to intelligence and government agencies, and are censoring certain voices, it bleeds into collusion with the military industrial complex or oligarchy. They are serving a virtual propaganda purpose on contract from the powerful. If you can't see that danger I can't help you.

I don't feel that defending freedom from censorship, Capitalism and a free market place on the www is sophist rationalizing.


Bold claims...got any links? Alex Jones styled speculation just doesn't cut it since the Gay Frogs fiasco.

That's not to say I don't see the danger in a Fascist Oligarchy that the Republican neocons want.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14



Hate speech isn't a crime, nor is "incitement to violence" unless they're making a credible, direct and imminent threat.

We won't start chiseling away at our Constitutional rights (any of them!) because some find them "inconvenient" or "unappealing"

originally posted by: donnydeevil
How could anyone ban this, I mean it is not like he is constantly spreading false propaganda...Oh wait.

To a free person, propaganda is freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

To a lefty fascist, freedom of speech and freedom of expression is propaganda which must be silenced.

To a free person, a simple solution is if you don't like a video, simply don't click on it and watch. I don't like gardening videos about tomatoes so I don't watch them.

To a lefty fascist, anything you disagree with is a threat and must be taken down.

a reply to: olaru12

Are you really going to attempt to obfuscate the massive collusion between silicon valley and US IC?

Look no further than the Snowden leaks and wikileaks. Or Cryptome.

Plenty of evidence. These platforms and their monopolies do not serve the national interest. They should be broken up. Anti-trust time.

These aren't "conspiracy theories." A vast majority of what this individual just said is established fact.

If needed, I will link the requisite documents. I'd suggest doing a Google search first though. Starting at ECHELON to STELLARWIND and PRISM/XKEYSCORE and much more

originally posted by: conspiracy nut
a reply to: purplemer

yes alex jones is an actor!

Not going to answer that for the risk of going off topic. Actor or not do you think he should have his opinion removed. Reminds me of the Nazis in the war with the burning of books on mass because they did not like the information within. Is that something you support. Or are you a supporter of free speech.

This is about information control. He who controls the gateways of knowledge controls the global consciousness. Who really controls Reddit, Facebook, Google, Youtube etc..

a reply to: soundguy

The program, codenamed PRISM, is considered highly classified and has never been made public before. The list of companies involved are the who's who of Silicon Valley: Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple. Dropbox, though not yet an official part of the program, is said to be joining it soon.

The PRISM program goes above and beyond the existing laws that state companies must comply with government requests for data, as it gives the NSA direct access to each company's servers — essentially letting the NSA do as it pleases. The program was initiated to overcome what the NSA saw as constraints within the existing FISA warrant program that did not allow the agency to make use of the "home-field advantage" provided by having most of the internet's biggest companies on US soil.

Once again, we can hit them in their pocketbooks. Where it really hurts.

And ensure our Administration pursues this monopoly and ends their stranglehold over the public Internet/technology sectors. No more mega-giants. Ask Microsoft how their monopoly turned out. Rumors abound that they'll soon start giving away Windows OS via FOSS licensing, focusing on hardware development instead.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: DBCowboy


Censorship is having a site dedicated to the free flow of ideas and banning those who have different ideas.

Problem is YouTube is a private company that can and will do what it thinks is best for its business model. No freedom of speech there...

Then it should market itself as a leftist site that only caters to those who adhere to it.

Failure on your part.

Let market forces determine its success or failure after all the business takes the chances...

When the business is a video streaming platform that has such a stranglehold on the market, it in itself disrupts market forces by censoring. Pure capitalism can never work, which is why there are controls on monopolies. On balance here, Youtube is abusing it's position.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: DBCowboy


Censorship is having a site dedicated to the free flow of ideas and banning those who have different ideas.

Problem is YouTube is a private company that can and will do what it thinks is best for its business model. No freedom of speech there...

Then it should market itself as a leftist site that only caters to those who adhere to it.

Failure on your part.

Let market forces determine its success or failure after all the business takes the chances...

When the business is a video streaming platform that has such a stranglehold on the market, it in itself disrupts market forces by censoring. Pure capitalism can never work, which is why there are controls on monopolies. On balance here, Youtube is abusing it's position.

If you don't like Google, use Yahoo or Bing, If you don't like youtube, use twitter or instagram or Vimeo... there are still alternatives and YOU still have a choice in the marketplace.

Monopolies are a product of deregulation and that lies in the ballpark of the GOP neocons. Start there... Look at the Energy companies if you want monopolies; think they are going away?

Obama + Hillary = fake news masters

But for President Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to give a speech pointing the finger at China, they needed indisputable evidence that attributed the attacks to sources in China. And looking at what Google had provided it, government analysts were not sure they had it. American officials decided the relationship between the two economic superpowers was too fragile and the risk of conflict too high to go public with what Google knew.

Compare and contrast their actions with China/Google, and their actions RE: Russia (both when they thought Trump would lose, and then once he won)

Thanks for the priceless quote, Salon.
www.salon.com...

a reply to: olaru12

Nice try.

Do not use those.

www.startpage.com... or preferably TOR/I2P with whatever search engine you like

Startpage is acceptable if TOR is inconvenient. I personally use TOR+VPN even for accessing ATS which is as close to social media as ill ever get

And I'd never use social media, personally. They don't offer free accounts for your benefit. They profit massively and exploit your private data/their position of trust whenever possible.

a reply to: olaru12

If you don't like Google, use Yahoo or Bing, If you don't like youtube, use twitter or instagram or Vimeo...

PRISM "partners" (ie: enablers)
-These companies are not required to allow this access. The fact they did it in secret, without your knowledge or permission demonstrates the level of trust they deserve. You really think they give a damn about protecting private data? Of course not.

Microsoft (Bing), Yahoo, Google, Facebook, PalTalk, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple. Dropbox, though not yet an official part of the program, is said to be joining it soon.

The above companies (and most likely more now to include Twitter) are directly hostile and invasive to privacy.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: olaru12

They have every right to run their business any way they see fit.

Only if ran fairly. Being a private company does not allow for policies that discriminate.

Yeah, well I own a retail business and if I don't like the way you comb your hair, you can GTFO and don't come back.
So sue me!! Discrimination....

You mean like a bakery that chooses to deny to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? So much for the GTFO approach.

"You must do as you are told until the rights to you are sold" (Frank Zappa).

a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

They don't mind violating civil rights, provided it isn't one of the "pet" rights they've rallied behind.

I can't imagine cherry picking parts of the Constitution, myself. And it isn't the entire left, we should be clear on that. But there are a segment of people who would love to see us trample on the Constitution

Imagine if we told them "you have free speech. You can only exercise that speech every Monday at 4:30 AM, and crowds larger than 2 people constitute a safety hazard. And you can't say anything negative about the government or the Trump administration. you have free speech."

As if repeating that useless platitude was enough. True freedom comes with rights and responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is not attempting to infringe on the freedoms of others simply because you personally dislike or disagree with it

a reply to: soundguy

Your cell phone provider is private too. Does it mean it's out of reach of any law? That it can't be sued if it spits on your rights?
Yougle is too big so it became strategic public service. Since it's not apolitical it will be dealt with politically.
Obsolete Twitter would be falling much faster than it is without Trump boost. If Trump moves to GAB tomorrow, it'll replace it tomorrow.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti
True freedom comes with rights and responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is not attempting to infringe on the freedoms of others simply because you personally dislike or disagree with it

That's the part a lot of people forget... the responsibility that comes with free speech. It used to be when you exercised your free speech at the wrong time and place, you got your ass kicked. This taught you that sometimes it's better to wait for the right moment to speak out. Now, if some clown goes on a free speech rant and you talk back, you might to jail for hurting their feelings.

I don't care what anyone says, sensoring is gov controlling the narrative

The Censoring is being done by a company, not the government.

It's a fine line, I love conspiracy theories, but this is dangerous because there are a lot of really ignorant and unstable right wingers who might attack or harrass these children because of what has to be totally bogus speech, when it's a threat to young people I don't think it is free speech.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14



Hate speech isn't a crime, nor is "incitement to violence" unless they're making a credible, direct and imminent threat.

We won't start chiseling away at our Constitutional rights (any of them!) because some find them "inconvenient" or "unappealing"

Actually there are provisions in many locations against hate speech, and there are laws on the book against incitement to violence or rioting. You are just picking an argument for no reason here. It's obvious from my post that I'm prO free speech generally.

a reply to: Deplorable

Google is insane! Why would they drop all the ad revenue traffic to YouTube that Alex Jones brings!!?? Surely there are conservative advertisers out there. Google, by catering to their own biases are shooting themselves in the foot. I say good riddance, D-Tube and other alternative video sites will drive them out of business if they don't slack off on the censorship.

And if the lefties think this is a right thing, you are wrong. It's a control thing. And the lefties will feel their censorship soon too.

a reply to: thepixelpusher

When you guys are done lighting your hair on fire, go to youtube and search infowars or Alex Jones..report back how many vids are there..here's a clue..it's a lot.