PDA

View Full Version : Paul Joseph Watson won't be around much longer.




Lamp
08-25-2017, 09:16 AM
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=D8HJrr4-7B8

jllundqu
08-25-2017, 09:50 AM
Yeah the tech purge is in full swing. Full spectrum war on the webs against anyone who doesn't subscribe to Newspeak/Newthink.

God help us.

Brian4Liberty
08-25-2017, 02:32 PM
The ramifications here are huge. This should be a bigger concern for everyone. This is not just about Paul Joseph Watson.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8HJrr4-7B8

William Tell
08-25-2017, 02:38 PM
Paul Joseph Watson won't be around much longer. might stop being paid lots of money for posting short rants on Youtube FIFY

milgram
08-25-2017, 03:28 PM
Ron Paul was just on Contra Krugman. He said he's concerned about how this tech crackdown could affect his ability to reach an audience.

http://contrakrugman.com/ep-100-ron-pauls-guide-to-2017/

Schifference
08-25-2017, 03:48 PM
Is RPF hypocritical in regards to free speech? Can I type and call you my ****** or will it be censored?

Dickens
08-25-2017, 05:57 PM
Do you understand why he is so popular? I watched several of his videos and it remains a puzzle for me.

oyarde
08-25-2017, 06:30 PM
Never heard of him , so he is a british radio host that works for Jones . Probably why I never heard of him .

juleswin
08-25-2017, 06:36 PM
Never heard of him , so he is a british radio host that works for Jones . Probably why I never heard of him .

I envy you, you aren't missing much from not ever knowing him.

juleswin
08-25-2017, 06:40 PM
Do you understand why he is so popular? I watched several of his videos and it remains a puzzle for me.

Well, he has a cool british accent(i.e. sounds intelligent), he is articulate and he talks a lot about SJW (aka beats a dead horse really well). Those three qualities alone would get you a boat load of American viewers

r3volution 3.0
08-25-2017, 08:54 PM
...how ever will I sleep through the night?

juleswin
08-25-2017, 09:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37gh6e3_Dic

This belongs here. Watch dumb and dumber put on display their journalistic skills. If this doesn't convince you that PJW is the shyte, then there s no hope for u :rolleyes:

jmdrake
08-26-2017, 08:04 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37gh6e3_Dic

This belongs here. Watch dumb and dumber put on display their journalistic skills. If this doesn't convince you that PJW is the shyte, then there s no hope for u :rolleyes:

The Alex Jones show used to be interesting when he spent equal time bashing corrupt liberal and conservative politicians. But now that he's become a Trump cheerleader? Infowars really has just become another arm of the National Inquirer. Spending time speculating on whether or not Michelle Obama is a Tranny? Really?

As for the PJWs whining that "Google is a monopoly" (and by extension YouTube)...well...why are you still feeding the monopoly when you can put your videos on DailyMotion? Serious question. Yeah, ya got to be on YouTube to build an audience. But then you can use YouTube to tell your audience "Hey! All of my good stuff is on DailyMotion and there I can actually get paid!" You can even provide a link.

Seriously, whats the point of all of these rants about "YouTube censorship" if nobody is willing to put forward a non government solution to fixing the problem? Or does PJW actually want a government solution? :confused:

dannno
08-26-2017, 10:54 AM
Is RPF hypocritical in regards to free speech? Can I type and call you my ****** or will it be censored?

That is in the terms of service.

Brian4Liberty
08-26-2017, 12:00 PM
Ron Paul was just on Contra Krugman. He said he's concerned about how this tech crackdown could affect his ability to reach an audience.

http://contrakrugman.com/ep-100-ron-pauls-guide-to-2017/

Exactly. They will not stop with Watson.

The Rebel Poet
08-26-2017, 04:13 PM
Some Trumptard is whining that he isn't being given as much money as he used to be, and then says that YouTube shouldn't have private property rights. Can someone explain why I should care?

Lamp
08-26-2017, 06:22 PM
Theres also Vimeo and Metacafe.

milgram
08-26-2017, 06:57 PM
901555436930859008

devil21
08-28-2017, 11:10 AM
He does make a valid point about how Alphabet and FB and the like have been ignored when it comes to monopoly/anti-trust laws, therefore there's essentially no competition allowed and somewhat negates the notion of private corporations being able to censor. The reasons they have been allowed to become such monopolistic behemoths are obvious though (or they better be by now).

dannno
08-28-2017, 11:30 AM
Some Trumptard is whining that he isn't being given as much money as he used to be, and then says that YouTube shouldn't have private property rights. Can someone explain why I should care?

You think that 'private' companies funded and run by intelligence agencies should have private property rights?

Lol, some rebel you are.. maybe you should turn in your badge.

shakey1
08-28-2017, 11:47 AM
The clamps are tightening.

http://www.reactiongifs.us/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/clamps_futurama.gif

The Rebel Poet
08-28-2017, 06:20 PM
He does make a valid point about how Alphabet and FB and the like have been ignored when it comes to monopoly/anti-trust laws, therefore there's essentially no competition allowed and somewhat negates the notion of private corporations being able to censor. The reasons they have been allowed to become such monopolistic behemoths are obvious though (or they better be by now).
More laws, whether anti-trust or otherwise, are the opposite of allowed. I hadn't realized that DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. were not allowed. Are they illegal?

Champ
08-28-2017, 06:39 PM
Some Trumptard is whining that he isn't being given as much money as he used to be, and then says that YouTube shouldn't have private property rights. Can someone explain why I should care?

Fair enough, he is a Trump supporter, he is whining, and you don't like him.

Curious what your thoughts are on this similar issue, regarding a libertarian that this site is named after: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514445-YouTube-quot-Economically-Censors-quot-Ron-Paul-Labels-Videos-quot-Not-Suitable-quot-For-All-Advertisers

UWDude
08-28-2017, 08:05 PM
You think that 'private' companies funded and run by intelligence agencies should have private property rights?

Lol, some rebel you are.. maybe you should turn in your badge.

He is too smart to know about InQtel.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-cias-venture-capital-firm-like-its-sponsor-operates-in-the-shadows-1472587352

In Q tel, who put in about 30% of the funds to start up facebook....

r3volution 3.0
08-28-2017, 08:32 PM
Some Trumptard is whining that he isn't being given as much money as he used to be, and then says that YouTube shouldn't have private property rights. Can someone explain why I should care?

Fair enough, he is a Trump supporter, he is whining, and you don't like him.

Curious what your thoughts are on this similar issue, regarding a libertarian that this site is named after...

Like this one?


My biggest beef is, from a libertarian viewpoint, there is absolutely no difference, meaningful difference, between Hillary and Trump. They both support the military industrial complex, the Federal Reserve, deficits, entitlements, invasion of our privacy. And it’s super nationalistic populism versus socialism. That is so removed from what we need to be doing. We need to remove ourselves from tyranny.

Brian4Liberty
08-28-2017, 09:30 PM
More laws, whether anti-trust or otherwise, are the opposite of allowed. I hadn't realized that DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. were not allowed. Are they illegal?

AFAIK, DuckDuckGo sits on top of Google, so any censorship or results filtering implemented by Google will also effect DuckDuckGo. DDG is a middle layer to prevent (or hinder) Google from identifying and tracking searches by individual users.

Champ
08-28-2017, 09:30 PM
Like this one?

That has nothing to do with the thread I linked or the issue I was curious about. Give the user I quoted a chance to respond if you could. Thanks for your input though, it's appreciated sir.

Swordsmyth
08-28-2017, 09:36 PM
AFAIK, DuckDuckGo sits on top of Google, so any censorship or results filtering implemented by Google will also effect DuckDuckGo. DDG is a middle layer to prevent (or hinder) Google from identifying and tracking searches by individual users.

I was told DDG uses multiple search engines to minimize Google's influence.

devil21
08-29-2017, 02:24 AM
More laws, whether anti-trust or otherwise, are the opposite of allowed. I hadn't realized that DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. were not allowed. Are they illegal?

Doesn't fly when media pushes single options and single options only. Can't remember when I saw duckduckgo mentioned on any msm broadcast. Feel free to post your experiences, however.

Feds had no problem nailing MS for anti-trust even when OS/2 and Linux/Unix was an option. Anti-trust isn't triggered solely when there are literally no other options.

TheTexan
08-29-2017, 03:33 AM
Paul Joseph Watson won't be around much longer.

It makes me sick, how youtube censors Trump supporters all the time.

The media is trying to black us out but you know what, #blackTHISout #Trump2020

DamianTV
08-29-2017, 08:52 AM
Is RPF hypocritical in regards to free speech? Can I type and call you my ****** or will it be censored?

Also available under your own settings. Its the forum software, developed by VBulletin, not the mods. There is an option to disable the profanity filter. It was put there because youth tend to lead most tech changes so when it came out, their intentions were to make it under 18 friendly, as well as under 12 friendly.

In regards to OP, this is quite serious as Google is one of the new big six that controls a very high percentage of streaming user uploaded video content. They are demonetizing videos that they dont agree with, dont fit their agenda, are too political, arent "left" enough, or what ever their criteria of the day happens to be. Now Im seeing REQUIRED SIGN IN to view "politically offensive" material that they cant just take down.

YOUTUBE REQUIRED SIGN IN BYPASS

A typical youtube URL looks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IQbF0IK-f4 (some random video)

To bypass the Required Sign In, remove the "watch?v=" and change it to "...tube.com/v/8IQbF0IK-f4" which is the same string at the end, just goes full screen. Get used to using your middle mouse button to open youtube in a new tab in case you have to bypass the Sign In.

DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK

SKIP YOUTUBE ADS IMMEDIATELY

Youtube is also trying something new, allowing you to only skip ads after 5 seconds. VERY simple to skip the ads entirely. Just press the F5 key to Refresh the page. Many times, you can reload the page faster than it takes to wait the 5 seconds and simply skip the ad entirely. Also, this does not always work, but it does most of the time. I may have to refresh a few times to skip video ads. If the ad keeps coming back up again and again, its up to you how many times to try the F5 Key to Refresh trick.

---

Truly the better solution here is to have videos hosted on a non politically motivated video server and vote with your feet.

The Rebel Poet
08-29-2017, 02:37 PM
Fair enough, he is a Trump supporter, he is whining, and you don't like him.

Curious what your thoughts are on this similar issue, regarding a libertarian that this site is named after: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514445-YouTube-quot-Economically-Censors-quot-Ron-Paul-Labels-Videos-quot-Not-Suitable-quot-For-All-Advertisers
I agree with acptulsa:
He's definitely not suitable for all advertisers. Like Boeing. Lockheed Martin. General Electric... I don't expect every private company to agree with my values. If you don't like YouTube try vimeo or start your own video hosting site. In spite of what some here seem to think, it is not yet illegal to start a competing website.

The Rebel Poet
08-29-2017, 02:38 PM
there are literally no other options.
That is literally not where we are now.

Dickens
08-29-2017, 02:55 PM
Well, he has a cool british accent(i.e. sounds intelligent), he is articulate and he talks a lot about SJW (aka beats a dead horse really well). Those three qualities alone would get you a boat load of American viewers
And why then is ramzpaul hundreds times less popular? Lack of Btitish accent?

devil21
08-29-2017, 03:57 PM
That is literally not where we are now.

That's what I meant but my sentence structure wasn't clear.

Anti-trust/monopoly isn't only triggered by the time there are literally no other options available. It is triggered prior to that point to prevent the scenario of a sole producer/provider. It is when one corp has cornered a market on a good/service to the point that no competition can realistically compete. That's why I said that MS was hit with anti-trust even when there were Macs, Linux/Unix and IBM OS/2 options. Why isn't Google hit with anti-trust when there is Bing and a few other non-Google based engines?

Champ
08-29-2017, 04:09 PM
I agree with acptulsa: I don't expect every private company to agree with my values. If you don't like YouTube try vimeo or start your own video hosting site. In spite of what some here seem to think, it is not yet illegal to start a competing website.

Thanks for your response. I guess I will be more specific. The market is already responding to what's been going on and motivating individuals to finding and building alternatives where they will not be censored. That's not really what I was asking your take on.
Other options are available out there and there is no doubt people will migrate away from YouTube.

With that being said I will try to restate; specifically, do you have any comments on the demonetization of Ron Paul videos, which is being discussed at the link I provided above, or are your feelings identical with both Paul Watson and RP videos?

The Rebel Poet
08-29-2017, 04:34 PM
Thanks for your response. I guess I will be more specific. The market is already responding to what's been going on and motivating individuals to finding and building alternatives where they will not be censored. That's not really what I was asking your take on.
Other options are available out there and there is no doubt people will migrate away from YouTube.

With that being said I will try to restate; specifically, do you have any comments on the demonetization of Ron Paul videos, which is being discussed at the link I provided above, or are your feelings identical with both Paul Watson and RP videos?
I do not wish Ron Paul to be demonetized. But I wouldn't tolerate him calling it censorship either.

Lamp
08-29-2017, 06:13 PM
Theres also these new youtube alternatives vid.me and Minds.com for posting videos

Lamp
08-29-2017, 06:16 PM
Newgrounds is also there but most of the stuff there is flash content.

DamianTV
09-02-2017, 10:36 AM
It will never be the popular thing to say, or person that needs to be afforded the protections of the First Amendment, rather the Unpopular thing to say.

If you guys dont agree with either Paul Joseph Watson, or even Ron Paul on any views, watch carefully to see if their contradictory viewpoints need the Freedom of Speech protections, for if you do not, it will only be a matter of time when not only will they come after you, but no one will be left to come to your aid.

The Rebel Poet
09-02-2017, 10:53 AM
It will never be the popular thing to say, or person that needs to be afforded the protections of the First Amendment, rather the Unpopular thing to say.

If you guys dont agree with either Paul Joseph Watson, or even Ron Paul on any views, watch carefully to see if their contradictory viewpoints need the Freedom of Speech protections, for if you do not, it will only be a matter of time when not only will they come after you, but no one will be left to come to your aid.
Constitution applies to U.S. government, not YouTube payment models. If I asked you not to teach my kids communism in my own house, I wouldn't be violating your rights. Why is this hard for so many here to grasp? Do you guys support net neutrality too? I can understand it from the Drumf Column, but conservatives and libertarians should know better.

juleswin
09-02-2017, 11:21 AM
Constitution applies to U.S. government, not YouTube payment models. If I asked you not to teach my kids communism in my own house, I wouldn't be violating your rights. Why is this hard for so many here to grasp? Do you guys support net neutrality too? I can understand it from the Drumf Column, but conservatives and libertarians should know better.

The irony is that people saying this are posting on a forum that can ban you for something you say. Ask Eduard0 how that protection of speech worked out for him :)

nikcers
09-02-2017, 11:36 AM
Constitution applies to U.S. government, not YouTube payment models. If I asked you not to teach my kids communism in my own house, I wouldn't be violating your rights. Why is this hard for so many here to grasp? Do you guys support net neutrality too? I can understand it from the Drumf Column, but conservatives and libertarians should know better.
I think it stems from a lack of basic understanding of private property rights. It's like all those progressives up in arms about the guy that got hurt because he wouldn't get off someones property. He threw a fit and it went viral on social media, and the dumbass Americans who don't understand that they don't have a right to someone else's property even if they pay them money for it if they don't consent to sale.

DamianTV
09-02-2017, 11:58 AM
Constitution applies to U.S. government, not YouTube payment models. If I asked you not to teach my kids communism in my own house, I wouldn't be violating your rights. Why is this hard for so many here to grasp? Do you guys support net neutrality too? I can understand it from the Drumf Column, but conservatives and libertarians should know better.

Walled gardens.

Your own home is fine. I can fully respect that. But youtube and google are way too big. This is like saying that once something has been privatized, the constitution no longer applies. Wouldnt the constitution still apply in your own home if you chose to enforce it?

Only other option I have is to add Youtube to MSM category due to all the censorship. It just doesnt leave a lot of options for a public speaking forum.

nikcers
09-02-2017, 12:12 PM
Walled gardens.

Your own home is fine. I can fully respect that. But youtube and google are way too big. This is like saying that once something has been privatized, the constitution no longer applies. Wouldnt the constitution still apply in your own home if you chose to enforce it?

Only other option I have is to add Youtube to MSM category due to all the censorship. It just doesnt leave a lot of options for a public speaking forum.
I think it's silly people think that Youtube or anything was free, that they aren't the product. When everyone started adblocking what do you think the companies started doing to monetize information? I don't think the answer to this is what the alt right says it is. I don't think Google or facebook should be a utility. I think we could decentralize the internet by not making them utilities, in the age of gigabit internet do I really need a third party to host and have control over my information? If there is no better alternatives to youtube or google or facebook then we should build it, we shouldn't make them utilities.

dannno
09-02-2017, 12:18 PM
Constitution applies to U.S. government, not YouTube payment models. If I asked you not to teach my kids communism in my own house, I wouldn't be violating your rights. Why is this hard for so many here to grasp? Do you guys support net neutrality too? I can understand it from the Drumf Column, but conservatives and libertarians should know better.


The irony is that people saying this are posting on a forum that can ban you for something you say. Ask Eduard0 how that protection of speech worked out for him :)


I think it stems from a lack of basic understanding of private property rights. It's like all those progressives up in arms about the guy that got hurt because he wouldn't get off someones property. He threw a fit and it went viral on social media, and the dumbass Americans who don't understand that they don't have a right to someone else's property even if they pay them money for it if they don't consent to sale.

Wow, the three disinfo obfuscation amigos all right in a row.

I think we have established that the internet is not a free market and they have created monopoly enterprises that are able to largely control the flow of information. I think we have established that once the low hanging fruit are out of the way, soon talking about lower taxes, small government, non-intervention will be under attack and sites like this will get shut down. Hell, Ron Paul's youtube channel already essentially got shut down, they may not be able to get the funding to continue. That means "soon" is NOW.

The big question is, will or do any of the three of you actually care? I say "do" because it already happened. Ron Paul got demonetized on youtube. Are you really going to sit back and drink lemonade and not complain, or are you going to call out youtube and make a fuss about it, using your own free speech?

I also agree it is important to look for new alternatives to these companies that aren't controlled by the deep state, but seeing as we don't know if that is even possible, it is possible to take a multi-pronged attack at this one.

nikcers
09-02-2017, 12:26 PM
Wow, the three disinfo obfuscation amigos all right in a row.

I think we have established that the internet is not a free market and they have created monopoly enterprises that are able to largely control the flow of information. I think we have established that once the low hanging fruit are out of the way, soon talking about lower taxes, small government, non-intervention will be under attack and sites like this will get shut down. Hell, Ron Paul's youtube channel already essentially got shut down, they may not be able to get the funding to continue. That means "soon" is NOW.

The big question is, will or do any of the three of you actually care? I say "do" because it already happened. Ron Paul got demonetized on youtube. Are you really going to sit back and drink lemonade and not complain, or are you going to call out youtube and make a fuss about it, using your own free speech?

I also agree it is important to look for new alternatives to these companies that aren't controlled by the deep state, but seeing as we don't know if that is even possible, it is possible to take a multi-pronged attack at this one.
I am going to blame youtube for doing something I would do myself it if it was my website. Would you let a bunch of Trump suckers on your website if your were a liberty supporter? I know I would ban them.

nikcers
09-02-2017, 12:34 PM
I also agree it is important to look for new alternatives to these companies that aren't controlled by the deep state, but seeing as we don't know if that is even possible, it is possible to take a multi-pronged attack at this one.
The free market makes everything possible if there is enough demand. You need to believe in capitalism, and free market principles and technology before you even make arguments about this. The government controls the net that is because people like you are begging them to.

The Rebel Poet
09-02-2017, 03:06 PM
Your own home is fine. I can fully respect that. But youtube and google are way too big.
So, how big does my house have to be before my property rights cease?

The Rebel Poet
09-02-2017, 03:11 PM
The free market makes everything possible if there is enough demand. You need to believe in capitalism, and free market principles and technology before you even make arguments about this. The government controls the net that is because people like you are begging them to.
In the Drumpf Column, free market principles are considered "disinfo." :rolleyes:

pcgame
09-02-2017, 05:11 PM
didn't read everything anyways YouTube is a government funded monopoly. Why not stop funding them with government money and let the free market handle everything else. More regulations isn't the answer. Its a private company.

juleswin
09-02-2017, 05:37 PM
didn't read everything anyways YouTube is a government funded monopoly. Why not stop funding them with government money and let the free market handle everything else. More regulations isn't the answer. Its a private company.

What? where did u read that youtube is a govt funded company? link please

specsaregood
09-02-2017, 05:49 PM
What? where did u read that youtube is a govt funded company? link please

It doesn't look like they get any federal subsidies (not that they don't get federal funding that I don't know about); but a quick search shows that they have gotten $736,408,607 in state/local subsidies. And $63,964,000 in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailout assistance.

http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=alphabet-inc

Swordsmyth
09-02-2017, 08:29 PM
What? where did u read that youtube is a govt funded company? link please


It doesn't look like they get any federal subsidies (not that they don't get federal funding that I don't know about); but a quick search shows that they have gotten $736,408,607 in state/local subsidies. And $63,964,000 in federal loans, loan guarantees and bailout assistance.

http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=alphabet-inc

CIA Funding of Tech Companieshttp://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/cia-funding-of-tech-companies.html

Government funding of companies provides a steady stream of support for tech developing innovations. One vehicle for facilitating this relationship can be found in an entity called, In-Q-Tel (https://www.iqt.org/about-iqt/). IQT describes their function as:

In-Q-Tel is the independent, not-for-profit organization created to bridge the gap between the technology needs of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) and emerging commercial innovation. We invest in venture-backed startups developing technologies that provide ready-soon innovation (within 36 months) vital to the IC mission. These technology startups are traditionally outside the reach of the IC; in fact, more than 70 percent of our portfolio companies have never before done business with the government.



A Fox Business article, “In-Q-Tel: A Glimpse Inside the CIA’s Venture-Capital Arm (http://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/2013/06/14/in-q-tel-glimpse-inside-cias-venture-capital-arm/),” lists some of the companies and agencies that are involved.

Founded in 1999 as a way for the U.S. to keep up with the rapid innovation in science and technology, In-Q-Tel has been an early backer of start-ups later acquired by Google (GOOG), Oracle (ORCL), IBM (IBM) and Lockheed Martin (LMT).
While IQT originally catered largely to the needs of the CIA, today the firm supports many of the 17 agencies within the U.S. intelligence community, including the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Department of Homeland Security Science and Technology Directorate.
Their focus on Startups Backed By The CIA (http://www.forbes.com/2010/11/19/in-q-tel-cia-venture-fund-business-washington-cia.html) is still a prime objective.

In-Q-Tel issues a press release every time it funds a new company, but it discloses neither the amount of the investment nor the product it’s focused on. It’s believed that the relationship can lead to the development of off-market products tailored specifically for the CIA. A spokesman for one company funded by In-Q-Tel told Forbes that their investment was focused on a specific project with a yearlong deadline, declining to provide further details.
In keeping with the corporatocracy economy, government direct funding or indirect assistance has become the model for startups to chase. Whatever happened to the capitalist formula of raising money from private sector investors for an equity interest in a venture?

The rules of the playfield seem to be very different when the end-user and customer for the technology is some government agency. Examine the case experiences described in “25 Cutting Edge Firms Funded By The CIA (http://www.businessinsider.com/25-cutting-edge-companies-funded-by-the-central-intelligence-agency-2012-8?op=1).”

It’s no secret the Central Intelligence Agency has an investment firm that funds startups that could have a big impact for the Agency.
If there is a company out there doing intelligence research, it’s likely that, the CIA’s personal investor, either looked them up or made a check out to them.
It’s all to ensure that the Agency remains on the forefront of tech. Not long ago, In-Q-Tel invested heavily in a company called Keyhole. Never heard of them? Maybe you know their work, a little project eventually known as Google Earth.
So, want to know what’s next for technology? Keep an eye on these 25 companies.
Note the acknowledgement that the AGENCY maintains an investment stake in companies. Guess the keyhole into the world of high-tech dominance has a code to unlock the fruits of the applications residing in Langley, VA.
An important analysis of “How the CIA made Google” (https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e#.108hs79d1) is a prime source of documentation.

In 1994 — the same year the Highlands Forum was founded under the stewardship of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the ONA, and DARPA — two young PhD students at Stanford University, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, made their breakthrough on the first automated web crawling and page ranking application. That application remains the core component of what eventually became Google’s search service. Brin and Page had performed their work with funding from the Digital Library Initiative (DLI), a multi-agency programme of the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA and DARPA.
With the revelation of the role that the Highlands Forum (https://www.highlandsforum.org/) has in the process of development, it would be important to research their activities. However, that proves difficult, since a login account is required, and no way of registering to access is available. So look at the info on the Highlands Group (http://www.highlandsgroup.net/about.php?ID=1), for publicly disclosed information on the organization.

More at: http://www.activistpost.com/2015/12/cia-funding-of-tech-companies.html

DamianTV
09-03-2017, 01:34 AM
So, how big does my house have to be before my property rights cease?

I would roughly say once you start using your home / business as a public communication forum with no restrictions on who comes in the front door. Basically, when you invite the public fully in. Theres a difference between inviting your friends and family in, and letting literally anyone in.

Swordsmyth
09-03-2017, 01:52 AM
I would roughly say once you start using your home / business as a public communication forum with no restrictions on who comes in the front door. Basically, when you invite the public fully in. Theres a difference between inviting your friends and family in, and letting literally anyone in.

Because of government subsidization and regulations this is a nuanced subject.

But to deal with your simple example: You are saying that once I throw a block party I can't order anyone off my property, that is ridiculous.

The Rebel Poet
09-03-2017, 07:03 AM
I would roughly say once you start using your home / business as a public communication forum with no restrictions on who comes in the front door. Basically, when you invite the public fully in. Theres a difference between inviting your friends and family in, and letting literally anyone in.

Because of government subsidization and regulations this is a nuanced subject.

But to deal with your simple example: You are saying that once I throw a block party I can't order anyone off my property, that is ridiculous.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Swordsmyth again."
#imssrabgitya

DamianTV
09-03-2017, 02:22 PM
Because of government subsidization and regulations this is a nuanced subject.

But to deal with your simple example: You are saying that once I throw a block party I can't order anyone off my property, that is ridiculous.

Lets try to get to the root of the problem here. What we are ending up with appears to be a Conflict of Rights. And not trying to pick a side, but either way, it appears to me to be a lose / lose situation.

Situation #1 - Free Speech wins. Problem here as is pointed out, is end of Property Rights. A person can say what ever they want, but when things are said that are in disagreement of the property owner, the property owners Rights are violated, but Free Speech is not. If Free Speech wins, then Private Property Rights lose.

Situation #2 - Property Rights wins. Problem here is the opposite, but there still exists a problem. A person has legitimate jurisdiction over who they allow to come on to their property as well as authority over behavior of people while they are on their property. Trouble here is that even if what is being said is factual and legitimate, those people do not have a Right to Free Speech while on that persons property. This also makes sense as people have equal rights, which means one persons rights end where another persons rights begins. If Private Property Rights win, then Free Speech loses.

I think this is the source of the conflict. Personally, what I would like to do is to find a reasonable balance between the two. And lets be real here. We arent talking about one persons home. What we are talking about is trying to have a discussion where the topics being discussed are controversial and are being censored by a new form of MSM, where only supporting arguments for elimination of ALL Rights of others are being systematically eliminated. They dont fight us, they get us to fight amongst ourselves. When that happens, they clamour for new regulations to be enforced and will benefit by being the enforcers. We absolutely need both Private Property Rights as well as Free Speech Rights, and as we continue to debate which one should win, they BOTH lose. Eventually, as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and others continue to completely take over the entire internet, we will have NO place to speak freely and our own Private Property Rights will be subject to their approval, and when in conflict, taken away from us both.

nikcers
09-03-2017, 02:29 PM
Lets try to get to the root of the problem here. What we are ending up with appears to be a Conflict of Rights. And not trying to pick a side, but either way, it appears to me to be a lose / lose situation.

Situation #1 - Free Speech wins. Problem here as is pointed out, is end of Property Rights. A person can say what ever they want, but when things are said that are in disagreement of the property owner, the property owners Rights are violated, but Free Speech is not. If Free Speech wins, then Private Property Rights lose.

Situation #2 - Property Rights wins. Problem here is the opposite, but there still exists a problem. A person has legitimate jurisdiction over who they allow to come on to their property as well as authority over behavior of people while they are on their property. Trouble here is that even if what is being said is factual and legitimate, those people do not have a Right to Free Speech while on that persons property. This also makes sense as people have equal rights, which means one persons rights end where another persons rights begins. If Private Property Rights win, then Free Speech loses.

I think this is the source of the conflict. Personally, what I would like to do is to find a reasonable balance between the two. And lets be real here. We arent talking about one persons home. What we are talking about is trying to have a discussion where the topics being discussed are controversial and are being censored by a new form of MSM, where only supporting arguments for elimination of ALL Rights of others are being systematically eliminated. They dont fight us, they get us to fight amongst ourselves. When that happens, they clamour for new regulations to be enforced and will benefit by being the enforcers. We absolutely need both Private Property Rights as well as Free Speech Rights, and as we continue to debate which one should win, they BOTH lose. Eventually, as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and others continue to completely take over the entire internet, we will have NO place to speak freely and our own Private Property Rights will be subject to their approval, and when in conflict, taken away from us both.

It's not about property rights versus free speech. You don't have a right to someone else's money in a business transaction that they don't consent to. I can't buy your property if you don't want to sell it to me. Youtube is trying to be a video provider now, they are trying to use all of their credibility and fame to become a premium video service. This is like netflix sueing comcast for not letting them put a netflix channel on their channel lineup.

DamianTV
09-03-2017, 02:40 PM
It's not about property rights versus free speech. You don't have a right to someone else's money in a business transaction that they don't consent to. I can't buy your property if you don't want to sell it to me. Youtube is trying to be a video provider now, they are trying to use all of their credibility and fame to become a premium video service. This is like netflix sueing comcast for not letting them put a netflix channel on their channel lineup.

You guys are looking at the stuff being censored, right? Ron Paul himself is on the chopping block. Im not saying that Ron Paul deserves to make money from the videos that conflict with advertiser interests. But when you look at what is being said, I dont think most of us here disagree with what Ron Paul has to say. I dont think what he says is controversial at all, rather Common Sense. And THAT is what is being put on the chopping block. So, lets say Google and Ron Paul do not agree. Where else is Ron Paul gonna go that will communicate his message? And perhaps youre right, perhaps it is more so Rights of a Person vs Rights of a Corporation.

nikcers
09-03-2017, 02:46 PM
You guys are looking at the stuff being censored, right? Ron Paul himself is on the chopping block. Im not saying that Ron Paul deserves to make money from the videos that conflict with advertiser interests. But when you look at what is being said, I dont think most of us here disagree with what Ron Paul has to say. I dont think what he says is controversial at all, rather Common Sense. And THAT is what is being put on the chopping block. So, lets say Google and Ron Paul do not agree. Where else is Ron Paul gonna go that will communicate his message? And perhaps youre right, perhaps it is more so Rights of a Person vs Rights of a Corporation.
we have the freedom to consume other products though besides youtube, they don't have a monopoly, they just up and until now did not seem to do this, and if another company came along that couldn't censor because that's how they designed their service then they should get the demand. That's the only way youtube is going to listen, is if their wallets get hurt. They are a business and making them a utility would do the opposite of what we want. We want youtube to have an incentive to not censor, because it hurts their bottom line, because if we don't it will always help their bottom line.

nikcers
09-03-2017, 02:49 PM
So, lets say Google and Ron Paul do not agree. Where else is Ron Paul gonna go that will communicate his message?
we make a meme called duckduckgo ron paul and put it on our bumpers, I know i figured out who Ron Paul was through the google ron paul meme but that doesn't mean that they are the only king on the block. If they start to censor the internet, then we need to talk about it and we need to come up with and use alternatives.

The Rebel Poet
09-03-2017, 02:58 PM
Lets try to get to the root of the problem here. What we are ending up with appears to be a Conflict of Rights. And not trying to pick a side, but either way, it appears to me to be a lose / lose situation.

Situation #1 - Free Speech wins. Problem here as is pointed out, is end of Property Rights. A person can say what ever they want, but when things are said that are in disagreement of the property owner, the property owners Rights are violated, but Free Speech is not. If Free Speech wins, then Private Property Rights lose.

Situation #2 - Property Rights wins. Problem here is the opposite, but there still exists a problem. A person has legitimate jurisdiction over who they allow to come on to their property as well as authority over behavior of people while they are on their property. Trouble here is that even if what is being said is factual and legitimate, those people do not have a Right to Free Speech while on that persons property. This also makes sense as people have equal rights, which means one persons rights end where another persons rights begins. If Private Property Rights win, then Free Speech loses.

I think this is the source of the conflict. Personally, what I would like to do is to find a reasonable balance between the two. And lets be real here. We arent talking about one persons home. What we are talking about is trying to have a discussion where the topics being discussed are controversial and are being censored by a new form of MSM, where only supporting arguments for elimination of ALL Rights of others are being systematically eliminated. They dont fight us, they get us to fight amongst ourselves. When that happens, they clamour for new regulations to be enforced and will benefit by being the enforcers. We absolutely need both Private Property Rights as well as Free Speech Rights, and as we continue to debate which one should win, they BOTH lose. Eventually, as Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and others continue to completely take over the entire internet, we will have NO place to speak freely and our own Private Property Rights will be subject to their approval, and when in conflict, taken away from us both.
This is a misunderstanding; rights can never be in conflict. In situation #2, no rights are being lost.

Our modern language abuses the word "right." A right (as used by Blackstone, Lock, the DoI, Constitution etc.) is not "that which is allowed," but is instead simply right (i.e. righteous or just); it is the opposite of a wrong. By definition, any supposed right to do a wrong is a non-thing just as the happiness of sad is a non-thing. The right to freedom of speech exists because deciding what to say is not wrong, and it cannot be abridged because it is wrong to dictate someone's speech. If it is wrong to be on someone else's property against their will, then no right to be there in the first place can exist. You still retain the right to decide what you say, but you might have to say it elsewhere.

The Rebel Poet
09-03-2017, 02:59 PM
You guys are looking at the stuff being censored, right?
That's not possible. Either we can look at it, or it was censored.

DamianTV
09-04-2017, 12:49 AM
It's not about property rights versus free speech. You don't have a right to someone else's money in a business transaction that they don't consent to. I can't buy your property if you don't want to sell it to me. Youtube is trying to be a video provider now, they are trying to use all of their credibility and fame to become a premium video service. This is like netflix sueing comcast for not letting them put a netflix channel on their channel lineup.

Yeah, it kind of is about Property Rights vs Free Speech. What I am gathering is that I dont have the right to say anything I want in your house, as well as I shouldnt if it is your house.

---

In general, why not take this all the way? Since I have to use internet from Cox / Charter / Frontier / Verizon, wouldnt they also have authority to censor me also? Why not throw in the power company? How dare I use their electricity to transmit an electronic message to any website or text or blog or vid post or whatever that is in contradiction to their restricted speech policy? How about the water company too since Im drinking their water while saying things that tries to challenge the idea that corporations do not have HUMAN rights? When does this stop? Since everything we do any more is pretty much based on big corporations having control to everything, why not just say fuck it and give away all of everyones rights to the corporations, and make sure that people do not have rights any more since they apparently do not deserve them?

We've exchanged our Rights for Permissions, and now most people here are okay with those Permissions being revoked by a Corporation. You dont get an Appeal with a Corporation. You dont get Rights with a Corporation. You dont get Representation in a Corporation. Corporations buy out the govt so the law is useless against the Corporations. Only the RICH who own those Corporations will have TRUE Freedom of Speech. Freedom itself is dying, replaced and subverted by contract law, and there are so many around that are giving thunderous applause. This is how Fascism comes to power. Position us against ourselves.

nikcers
09-04-2017, 08:54 AM
Yeah, it kind of is about Property Rights vs Free Speech. What I am gathering is that I dont have the right to say anything I want in your house, as well as I shouldnt if it is your house.
In general, why not take this all the way? Since I have to use internet from Cox / Charter / Frontier / Verizon, wouldnt they also have authority to censor me also? Why not throw in the power company? How dare I use their electricity to transmit an electronic message to any website or text or blog or vid post or whatever that is in contradiction to their restricted speech policy? How about the water company too since Im drinking their water while saying things that tries to challenge the idea that corporations do not have HUMAN rights? When does this stop?

When we stop making them utilities you just proved my point when I said we shouldn't make youtube a utility. The government has made all of those utilities and we don't have any options.

ChristianAnarchist
09-04-2017, 08:57 AM
The interwebs are ripe for a YouTube substitute. Maybe something that DOESN'T censor...

DamianTV
09-04-2017, 12:44 PM
When we stop making them utilities you just proved my point when I said we shouldn't make youtube a utility. The government has made all of those utilities and we don't have any options.

That is really the scariest bit. When we communicate in ANY way that isnt directly speaking with each other in person, we sadly are dependent on either big corporations who own almost everything between us, or on govt to be involved (which I do not want) by turning companies into "public utilities". Really, the last thing I want is anyone in govt coming along and saying that since a corporation / public utility is involved, an individual either must / can not use something like water to grow free range chickens or hormone free cattle or unpasteurized dairy.

And if you havent noticed, I am again partly trying to play devils advocate here...

DamianTV
09-09-2017, 04:11 PM
*bump*

For the record, Google is making itself the Ministry of Truth (1984) and too many are just fine with it because "its legal".

Weston White
09-10-2017, 07:37 AM
When we stop making them utilities you just proved my point when I said we shouldn't make youtube a utility. The government has made all of those utilities and we don't have any options.

Well, currently they are not public utilities, yet act as if they are, but without the legal ramifications.

YouTube and Google and Amazon are digital relatives to their physical big-box public counterparts; thus, are wholly accountable to the protected rights of the public.

I am not up to speed on all this YouTube monetary policy hogwash, but as I understand it, YouTube is no longer monetizing videos that are politically based, because those sponsoring their ads don't want to be associated with that subject matter, and that this applied to all political ideologies not just conservative or libertarian. Which if this is the case, should all be perfectly legal. However, if they are in fact discriminating against certain users because of their political views, while purposefully excluding others, such tact is actionable.

One's private residence and Starbucks or YouTube or Amazon is an apples and oranges comparison, e.g., You can refuse my entry into your home while I am wearing a Ron Paul shirt and that is fine because you have not duty to act on the matter; however, Starbucks refusing to serve me and others every time we enter the store wearing Ron Paul shirts and they expose themselves to a very winnable (class action) lawsuit.

Who exactly do you think is funding Websites such as Google and YouTube (the daily bandwidth and drive space required by these sides alone, Google could power a small city all on its own, the global coordination and costs associated with Google Maps, Earth and Street View; Google Encryption; Google Captcha; Google Translator; Google Web Developer Tools; Google Books; Google Search and facial imagery scanning; etc.)? How do social (datamining) Websites such as Facebook and Intragram, et al, gain such rapid global popularity?

Weston White
09-10-2017, 10:23 AM
The Alex Jones show used to be interesting when he spent equal time bashing corrupt liberal and conservative politicians. But now that he's become a Trump cheerleader? Infowars really has just become another arm of the National Inquirer. Spending time speculating on whether or not Michelle Obama is a Tranny? Really?

Yea, this Trump worship is far past being stale now. Also, I am not too into supporting Infowars knowing that 50% of that support is going into the pockets of his crazy ex-wife, and combined with the rumors that he had an affair with one of his staff. Add to that all the people that keep leaving or getting fired or are never on anymore (e.g., Health Ranger, Bermas, (Dr. Group?), and many, many others), the Nightly News has been pulled as of last week, David Knight is just doing a solo radio show now that is not even accessible on Infowars.

Also, getting pretty sick of all the health product advertising, like every five minutes (even from his guests), all the talk about the weight he has lost--seriously, he looks exactly the same as he always has. And in that one commercial he did recently, he dumped a bowl of cherries (with the pits still inside) into a blender even!

nikcers
09-10-2017, 11:32 AM
Who exactly do you think is funding Websites such as Google and YouTube ?
I fundamentally disagree with you that they are a utility or treated as a utility currently. Ads fund Google and YouTube, we are not the customers we are the product, all of those google services aren't free they are monetized through ad revenue. Youtube therefore makes more money by selling more ads. I see no reason why youtube can't pick and choose who they pay to make content for their website that brings in ad revenue. If you don't like it don't give them your content.

jonhowe
09-10-2017, 12:55 PM
Do you understand why he is so popular? I watched several of his videos and it remains a puzzle for me.

I do enjoy his rants on modern architecture.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GapUEKYLE1o

dannno
09-10-2017, 01:23 PM
Yea, this Trump worship is far past being stale now. Also, I am not too into supporting Infowars knowing that 50% of that support is going into the pockets of his crazy ex-wife, and combined with the rumors that he had an affair with one of his staff. Add to that all the people that keep leaving or getting fired or are never on anymore (e.g., Health Ranger, Bermas, (Dr. Group?), and many, many others), the Nightly News has been pulled as of last week, David Knight is just doing a solo radio show now that is not even accessible on Infowars.

Also, getting pretty sick of all the health product advertising, like every five minutes (even from his guests), all the talk about the weight he has lost--seriously, he looks exactly the same as he always has. And in that one commercial he did recently, he dumped a bowl of cherries (with the pits still inside) into a blender even!

Wow...

"Deep state propaganda I read on CNN....blah blah blah.... I don't like good products that make me healthy, blah blah blah..."

William Tell
09-10-2017, 02:00 PM
The Alex Jones show used to be interesting when he spent equal time bashing corrupt liberal and conservative politicians. But now that he's become a Trump cheerleader? Infowars really has just become another arm of the National Inquirer. Spending time speculating on whether or not Michelle Obama is a Tranny? Really? Yeah he's just a butt kisser now.


As for the PJWs whining that "Google is a monopoly" (and by extension YouTube)...well...why are you still feeding the monopoly when you can put your videos on DailyMotion? Serious question. Yeah, ya got to be on YouTube to build an audience. But then you can use YouTube to tell your audience "Hey! All of my good stuff is on DailyMotion and there I can actually get paid!" You can even provide a link.

Seriously, whats the point of all of these rants about "YouTube censorship" if nobody is willing to put forward a non government solution to fixing the problem? Or does PJW actually want a government solution? :confused:

Nah, he doesn't want any kind of solution. He just wants more youtube subscribers.:p

Weston White
09-10-2017, 09:08 PM
I fundamentally disagree with you that they are a utility or treated as a utility currently. Ads fund Google and YouTube, we are not the customers we are the product, all of those google services aren't free they are monetized through ad revenue. Youtube therefore makes more money by selling more ads. I see no reason why youtube can't pick and choose who they pay to make content for their website that brings in ad revenue. If you don't like it don't give them your content.

1. Because they are discriminating among their users who are agreeable on the same contract, while potentially profiting from the activities of those users.

2. There is no way in the world that they are paying for all of their associated costs from mere ad revenue.

Weston White
09-10-2017, 09:26 PM
Wow...

"Deep state propaganda I read on CNN....blah blah blah.... I don't like good products that make me healthy, blah blah blah..."

Eh, he is just relabeling products that I can get at www.vitacost.com on the cheap or from a monthly Sprouts sale. But really he is advertising those things to death, I feel like I am being brainwashed while listening to the show.

And for the record I tried many of them for between 60 and 90-days and did not really notice much of anything--so far as increased energy or mental alertness is concerned--I was only slightly less tired than I normally am at work, and had a few less headaches during that time, but it was not worth the continued high costs involved to continue taking them. I had tried Brain Force Plus, DNA Force, Secret 12, Super Male Vitality, and a few others (my wife tried Super Female for two-months and did not notice anything notable.)

Weston White
09-12-2017, 04:41 AM
Oh wow, Steve Pieczenik totally went off on AJ during Monday's show.

ChristianAnarchist
09-12-2017, 06:28 PM
Eh, he is just relabeling products that I can get at www.vitacost.com on the cheap or from a monthly Sprouts sale. But really he is advertising those things to death, I feel like I am being brainwashed while listening to the show.

And for the record I tried many of them for between 60 and 90-days and did not really notice much of anything--so far as increased energy or mental alertness is concerned--I was only slightly less tired than I normally am at work, and had a few less headaches during that time, but it was not worth the continued high costs involved to continue taking them. I had tried Brain Force Plus, DNA Force, Secret 12, Super Male Vitality, and a few others (my wife tried Super Female for two-months and did not notice anything notable.)

That's maybe because you only have the claims of the manufacturer to go by. These things are usually just standard vitamins mixed in some combination they claim helps some condition. If you really want to use them take a combination of vitamins that mimick their formulation. It's likely all BS anyway.