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.

 

YouTube’s Newest Far-Right, Foul-Mouthed, Red-Pilling Star Is A 14-Year-Old Girl

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2019 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Isn't free speech wonderful? You don't have to agree with everything she says to take some of the nuggets of wisdom she drops and apply them to your life. She's brilliant. What I can't figure out is why you think she's a white supremacist.




posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena

Such a strawman. You weren't trying to use a publisher to print your book. You were trying to use them for their network and their contacts to make your book successful. They didn't so you manually did it.

Youtube is the equivalent of the xerox machine. It is up to the person using the machine to distribute and share it. Youtube has algorithm's that can help if you get the ball rolling, but that's about it. If youtube doesn't want to trend her video's that's their prerogative. But to not allow her to use the machine for her video is bordering on civil rights violations, imo.

Imagine if someone had to read your manuscript and approve it before you could xerox it to share. That's what you're thinking youtube has a right/responsibility to do.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Dfairlite

Wait a sec! Strawman?



You were trying to use them for their network and their contacts to make your book successful.



Youtube is the equivalent of the xerox machine.

No. YouTube is the equivalent of the publishers, not Xerox. Xerox had no distribution arm. I self distributed in bars and taverns at open mic.

The publishers didn't accept my manuscript. That's their right. YouTube can take down her videos or even end her account. Isn't that their right?



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: Dfairlite

Wait a sec! Strawman?



You were trying to use them for their network and their contacts to make your book successful.



Youtube is the equivalent of the xerox machine.

No. YouTube is the equivalent of the publishers, not Xerox. Xerox had no distribution arm. I self distributed in bars and taverns at open mic.

The publishers didn't accept my manuscript. That's their right. YouTube can take down her videos or even end her account. Isn't that their right?


Of course YouTube has the right to run their business as they please. People once had the right to own slaves. That does not mean what they did is moral, right or ethical.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: pthena

My contention with Hogg and this girl is the same;

I think they are being used by others, but they should be allowed to have their say.


Of course, they are. That much should be obvious, even to the most ideological among us.


And we should all be allowed to criticize them, and their age shouldn't shield them from that criticism.


Again, of course. If you want to play in the real world, you'd best be ready to deal with the backlash. Personally, which ever adult in her life, or any of these other kids, allowed this should have their heads examined. That opinion will not prevent me from criticizing as I see fit. Or agreeing, comes to that.


Sadly those with the cultural power in the establishment left uses children for their agenda and says they are beyond reproach, but has no problem calling for kids with opinions they don't like to be censored and ridiculed.

Its the hypocrisy and double standard that I hate


Those on the right are doing precisely the same thing. This thread, and others, can safely be used as an example of that. Frankly, I've grown very tired of both. I'm fully as conservative as many 'round here, yet it's sometimes hard to tell the difference between the two "sides" anymore. Both can be just as judgmental and hypocritical as the other.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

Yes there are hypocrites on the right as well.

But almost all of our cultural institutions of power are dominated by the establishment left; academia, the msm, the entertainment industry, and silicon valley.

So when those with power are hypocritical, it is far more impactful than some ats member doing so.

So using this girl and hogg as an example.

Here we have a journalist go afther this girl, and it led to some of her videos being removed.

Hogg on the other hand was criticized by people like laura Ingraham, and not only did no negative impacts happen to hogg, most of the people in power went after ingragham and said kids were beyond reproach, she was boycotted, she was forced to apologize, etc.

So I wioll call out anyone from any side calling for censorship. But lets not kid ourselves as to which side is more dangerous doing it.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You are welcome to start your own YouTube and have any rules you want.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Isn't free speech wonderful? You don't have to agree with everything she says to take some of the nuggets of wisdom she drops and apply them to your life. She's brilliant. What I can't figure out is why you think she's a white supremacist.


I did not think she was that brilliant. I thought she was just as guilty of everything she was criticizing about the left. You can't take the high road if you are unwilling to look into the mirror and be critical of your own behaviors. Why is HER version of political correctness better than the one the left is promoting????? Oh, that's the version you like. Figures.


edit on 15-5-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

You are welcome to start your own YouTube and have any rules you want.


Sure I know many people are fine with censorship as long as it is directed at their oppoenents.

Don't worry, I will fight against the censorship of people you like when it inevitably comes for them as well



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

You are welcome to start your own YouTube and have any rules you want.


It's the worst argument. A massive corporation should not be above criticism because the activity is still within the law.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

You are welcome to start your own YouTube and have any rules you want.


I would agree with that ... except what are YouTube's rules? When it comes to things like this, they have an ideological bent and it's pretty flagrantly obvious and yet their terms and conditions don't state that at all. If they want to have that ideological bias, fine. As you say, they are a private business and well within their rights to make that a part of their rules, but it's a bit shady to call yourself a publishing platform that is open to all kinds of content and then have an unstated ideological bias shading your censorship of views within your terms.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheSteppenwolf

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Grambler

You are welcome to start your own YouTube and have any rules you want.


It's the worst argument. A massive corporation should not be above criticism because the activity is still within the law.


Ah the democrats.

Russians spend a pittance trolling on these platforms and its an act of war, we need investigations, it unfairly stole an election!

Now if the platforms themselves want to censor a political side, that's perfectly reasonable!



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

By removing things they deem hateful, and clearly doing so in a partisan manner, platforms like youtube open themselves up to at least two potential areas of legal jeopardy I can see.

1. Campaign donation rules.

This is clearly designed to help democrats win elections, and seeing as how they aren't media companies, they are in fact possibly giving in kind donations to the democrats, and thus should be held accountable to those laws.

2. BY only selectively removing hate messages, what happens if someone they leave on preaches hate that is then enacted upon someone?

So if they remove the proudboys but allow Antifa, when that Antifa group physically hurts someone, that person will sue youtube (or the other firms) and say they chose to allow this hate while removing others, thus they are culpable for the violence

YouTube and the others are no longer just a community platform once the selectively publish content, they arguably are now responsible for the content and the ramifications that come with it. They cant have it both ways.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Can he also only bake cakes for anyone he wants? Or does he have to serve events that violate his beliefs?



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

What was her version of political correctness? Calling things out for what they are?



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   
The tech giants have suppressed the conservatives and they are going to deal with consequences by making conservatives voices stronger....Like they live in an alternate reality....They are utterly clueless what they have become..



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: pthena



That's their right. YouTube can take down her videos or even end her account. Isn't that their right?


Not unless she's broken their terms of service.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 03:24 PM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

Actually what I mostly criticize is what I am not. I am punctual, and it annoys the heck out of me when others are not.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Oh, it's not equal by any stretch of the imagination. You'll not hear me say otherwise.

I watched that whole debacle with Ingraham with something just past dismay. The attitude of "how dare she criticize our little hero!?" was disturbing, to put it mildly. Attach that episode to this one, and it's quite obvious that there is a problem.

YouTube is well within their rights to do anything they like with their company. I'm also allowed to think, and to say, that they're being awfully short sighted, not to mention very hypocritical, about this...but, hey, their company.



posted on May, 15 2019 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Exactly!

They're either a publisher of a bunch of freelance authors and can control the content produced as tightly as any publisher does, or they're simply a platform.

RIght now, they're having their cake and eating it too, trying to conveniently present themselves as both when it suits.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join