PDA

View Full Version : Youtube Drops Hammer on Infowars




AuH20
03-03-2018, 11:38 AM
Here we go. China here we come. They even rolled out Glenn Beck to call for the ban. I bet Trump does nothing too.

https://www.infowars.com/emergency-transmission-massive-purge-to-end-internet-freedom-right-now/

AuH20
03-03-2018, 11:59 AM
How about this for a scenario. Trump turns heel, while wiping out the one media organization that could take him down. INFOWARS.

donnay
03-03-2018, 12:03 PM
Whether you like him or not this should be an outrage. To silence people is how they take control.

AuH20
03-03-2018, 12:04 PM
Whether you like him or not this should be an outrage. To silence people is how they take control.

Alex Jones is the canary in the coal mine.

donnay
03-03-2018, 12:06 PM
Alex Jones is the canary in the coal mine.

I agree.

RJB
03-03-2018, 12:14 PM
Although, I don't see Alex Jones as a reliable source for news, CNN, MSNBC, FOX etc., are just as bad, maybe worse. I doubt any of those will be censored.

And then Glenn "Mayor of Crazy Town" "Medina is a truther" Beck is leading the charge, WTF?

donnay
03-03-2018, 12:17 PM
Although, I don't see Alex Jones as a reliable source for news, CNN, MSNBC, FOX etc., are just as bad, maybe worse. I doubt any of those will be censored.

And then Glenn "Mayor of Crazy Town" "Medina is a truther" Beck is leading the charge, WTF?

Glenn "the turncoat" Beck is back on CNN too.

AuH20
03-03-2018, 12:18 PM
the first result for Alex Jones with the youtube search function? Coincidence? Who watches this?


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

AuH20
03-03-2018, 12:30 PM
Although, I don't see Alex Jones as a reliable source for news, CNN, MSNBC, FOX etc., are just as bad, maybe worse. I doubt any of those will be censored.

And then Glenn "Mayor of Crazy Town" "Medina is a truther" Beck is leading the charge, WTF?

Alex Jones editorializes the news, but he seeds so many critical stories that would normally be buried. He is being specifically targeted for this reason. CNN and other corporate news outlets want to dominate with their narrative, without being held accountable for truthfulness.

RJB
03-03-2018, 12:36 PM
Glenn "the turncoat" Beck is back on CNN too. SMH.

I know some people think there is hope for him but anything he does that seems pro-liberty is a ruse. He is very pro-liberty when it doesn't matter. When it does matter, he always sells out and knifes the movement in the back. There is nothing that he can do that would surprise me. If he came out tomorrow and said he was a communist of the Stalinist variety, I'd shrug and say that I am not surprised.

RJB
03-03-2018, 12:43 PM
Alex Jones editorializes the news, but he seeds so many critical stories that would normally be buried. He is being specifically targeted for this reason. CNN and other corporate news outlets want to dominate with their narrative, without being held accountable for truthfulness.

I know what he does and I know what corporate news outlets do.

What annoys me about Alex is that he over plays some stories for personal attention at worse or puts out a story in a panic before getting all the facts at best. He's not the only person who self promotes in that manner, but it is irritating getting snagged on one of his sensationalized headlines and makes people doubt his stories that are genuine. Granted he has gotten out some really good stories too.


That all said, CNN should be censored long, long before infowars.

Anti Federalist
03-03-2018, 12:57 PM
So what's this latest hare'em scare'em from Jones?

Still waiting for whatever the "bombshell" memo was going to do.

Zippyjuan
03-03-2018, 01:07 PM
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/youtubes-crackdown-goes-beyond-alex-jones-w517346


YouTube's Crackdown Goes Beyond Alex Jones
The conspiracy monger's YouTube channel is on the brink of a blackout – and it's not all good news for the Internet

"False flag" allegations in the aftermath of mass shootings have become something of an Alex Jones franchise. His conspiracy theories about the massacres at Tucson, Arizona; Aurora, Colorado; and Newtown, Connecticut were broadcast on terrestrial radio, streamed on Jones' website, and, most importantly from an audience standpoint, chopped into bits for chumming views on YouTube. Last week, following the school shooting in Parkland, Florida, a YouTube clip on Jones' channel, which suggested the student protesters from Marjory Stoneman Douglas were carpet-bagging "crisis actors," became the top trending video on the site. But this time, YouTube did something different: It sanctioned Jones' channel with a "strike" for violating the site's community content standards. A few days later, a video titled, "David Hogg Can't Remember His Lines In TV Interview" – which similarly questioned the authenticity of the 17-year-old student activist – earned Jones' channel a second strike. According to the company's policy, one more strike within the next three months and Jones' channel would be permanently banned from the streaming service.

For a decade, Jones' YouTube channel has been the engine behind Infowars, his Austin-based peddler of rightwing news, batshit-populism, conspiracy analysis and dubious nutritional supplements. The channel's value has less to do with its long subscriber list – currently at 2.2 million – than as a vortex for sucking in a steady stream of newbies. Thanks to YouTube's carefully designed algorithms, Jones was a regular in "recommended" and "up next" lists, transfixing online souls with red-faced rants about the New World Order, feminizing juice boxes and DMT elves. When I interviewed Jones two years ago at the Republican National Convention, he twice mentioned the YouTube milestone coming into view. "We're going to hit a billion views soon," he said. "We're reaching more people every day."

Jones has responded to YouTube’s threats with a mix of bravado, victimhood and panic. The strikes, he said, are part of a "CNN lobbying campaign." He's launched a fundraising marathon, issued familiar denunciations of his would-be globalist censors and announced a series of legal actions "to defend the First Amendment." But Jones knows as well as anyone that YouTube’s actions have nothing to do with his "revolution." Just like Infowars, Google-owned YouTube is a company dedicated to making money; and for a long time the two worked in peaceful symbiosis to help each other make an awful lot of it.

For years, YouTube profited off all kinds of extremist content; its three-strike policy was directed at copyright infringement. Its current and newly aggressive posture towards content stems from the advertiser revolt that erupted following Trump’s surprise victory. Within weeks of the 2016 election, brands like Johnson & Johnson, and ad-tech companies like AppNexus, began taking steps to distance themselves from Breitbart and other purveyors of "fake news" and extremist content. In early 2017, companies like Starbucks and Walmart started pulling their ads from YouTube, worried that their marketing was sandwiched between clips featuring foaming-at-the-mouth racists and child abusers. In a watershed moment, the global buying agency Havas pulled its ads from Google/YouTube U.K., after the Times of London detailed how ads for well-known charities were supporting Neo-Nazi articles and videos. When the influential research group Pivotal downgraded Google stock from a buy to a hold, Google suddenly grew concerned about the kind of content its proprietary algorithms had been promoting for years – intentionally and by design.

This is not a conspiracy theory worthy of a "strike," but the testimony of a former YouTube engineer named Guillaume Chaslot, who was profiled by the Guardian in early February. Chaslot, a Ph.D. in artificial intelligence, explained how his team at YouTube was tasked with designing algorithms that prioritized “watch time” alone. “Watch time was the priority,” he told the paper. “Everything else was considered a distraction… There are many ways YouTube can change its algorithms to suppress fake news and improve the quality and diversity of videos people see… I tried to change YouTube from the inside, but it didn’t work.”

When Chaslot conducted an independent study of how his algorithms worked in the real world, he found that during recent elections in France, Germany and the U.K., YouTube "systematically amplifie[d] videos that are divisive, sensational and conspiratorial." (His findings can be seen at Algotransparency.org.) At the height of the advertising revolt, in March of last year, YouTube announced that it was "taking a hard look at our existing community guidelines to determine what content is allowed on the platform – not just what content can be monetized." CEO Susan Wojcicki announced the company would hire thousands of human moderators to watch and judge all content on the site.

YouTube's new policies were part of an industry-wide course correction. Over the past year, under the banner of combatting hate speech and fake news, Google and Facebook began to cut off search traffic and monetized content-creator accounts, not only to dangerous scam-artists like Jones, but to any site that garnered complaints or didn't meet newly enforced enforced and vaguely defined criteria of "credible" and "quality."

A number of left-leaning sites of substance, including AlterNet.org and Truthout.org, along with mainstream human rights groups like Amnesty International, were affected. Although "conspiracies," like allegations of CIA drug trafficking, tend to be better sourced than "Pizzagate," the algorithm didn't seem to make a distinction. As a result, these sites saw their traffic fall off a cliff. "Many of the largest progressive news organizations watched their online audiences from Google and Facebook decline as much as 60 percent in 2017," says Jan Frel, associate publisher of AlterNet.org. “And they’re still falling.”

Jones" many critics might keep this in mind as they indulge in some easy schadenfreude. Beneath all the noise, an Internet designed to calm and please advertisers is quietly kneecapping small and independent news sites. It is being sold under the guise of fighting "fake news" and Russian disinformation, and any focus on Alex Jones conveniently deflects attention from the larger implications of this shift. As loathsome and dangerous as Jones' schtick has become, it would be a mistake to think of his newly "public-minded" enemies in Big Tech as benevolent protectors.

Which isn't to say anyone should weep for Alex Jones, either, or come to his defense. He's guilty as charged, and he'll absorb the loss of his YouTube channel by selling right-wing rage and virility pills on terrestrial radio and the Infowars website. Given Jones' record of being ahead of the technology curve, he might even find a new outlet for influence that the rest of us have yet to figure out.

pcosmar
03-03-2018, 01:12 PM
CNN doesn't like it.

http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1519780037484.gif

pcosmar
03-03-2018, 01:17 PM
https://www.rollingpolitics/news/youtubes-crackdown-goes-beyond-alex-jones-w517346

Well they are part right,, it is beyond Alex Jones.

It is shutting anything except the official narrative,, especially any evidence of alternative investigation.

The truth is being actively censored. Pizzagate hit a nerve.

acptulsa
03-03-2018, 01:21 PM
I've long suspected Jones and InfoWars is controlled opposition, doing more to distract people disgusted with the government than to help us. And now I know it for a fact.

Why, you ask? Because YouTube gave them a 'strike'? No, of course not. Lots and lots of people have gotten one, two and three strikes from YouTube in this Age of Censorship. No, the way I know Jones is controlled opposition is, if the Establishment threatens to censor their controlled opposition channels it's just to give them cover and credibility. And of all the bans YouTube has slapped on people the last few years, none of them--none of them--has been advertised on HuffPo, The Hill, Salon, Newsweek, CNET, LGBTQ Nation, and CNN, among others.

Influenza
03-03-2018, 01:28 PM
definitely sets a dangerous precedent, regardless of your views on infowars

Zippyjuan
03-03-2018, 01:31 PM
https://gizmodo.com/youtubes-new-moderation-team-stumbles-out-the-gate-1823414266


YouTube's New Moderation Team Stumbles Out the Gate

Following the mass school shooting which killed 17 people and wounded over a dozen others in Parkland, Florida this month, YouTube launched a campaign to use some of its 10,000 new moderators to somewhat thin out the ranks of the conspiracy peddlers and far-right nuts which have become rampant across the site. Though other tech companies have been pressured into such action over the past year, the matter was particularly pressing for YouTube—which yet again promoted virulent conspiracy theories speculating that the shootings were a hoax or that the survivors were “crisis actors.”

As the Outline noted on Wednesday, YouTube issued complete and total bans to a number of conspiracy theorists who had amassed large followings, as well as “issued strikes, partial bans, or temporary suspensions” to a number of others including notorious site InfoWars and its DC bureau chief, Jerome Corsi. (InfoWars and its founder Alex Jones are allegedly not far from a permanent ban.) But Bloomberg reported the site has now admitted it “mistakenly removed several videos and some channels from right-wing, pro-gun video producers and outlets,” raising the prospect it’s caving to the backlash:


Some YouTube channels recently complained about their accounts being pulled entirely. On Wednesday, the Outline highlighted accounts, including Titus Frost, that were banned from the video site. Frost tweeted on Wednesday that a survivor of the shooting, David Hogg, is an actor. Jerome Corsi of right-wing conspiracy website Infowars said on Tuesday that YouTube had taken down one of his videos and disabled his live stream.

Shutting entire channels would have marked a sweeping policy change for YouTube, which typically only removes channels in extreme circumstances and focuses most disciplinary action on specific videos. But YouTube said some content was taken down by mistake. The site didn’t address specific cases and it’s unclear if it meant to take action on the accounts of Frost and Corsi.

According to Bloomberg, a YouTube representative said the mistake could be attributed to “newer members” of its team being brought on as part of its push to hire 10,000 new content moderators, but it repeatedly declined to say what content in particular was taken down in error.

As the Outline noted, the only content that’s reappeared thus yet are two firearms videos with no obvious rule violations from Military Arms Channel—though the usual whackos like far-right personality Mark Dice are going wild on Twitter, claiming the admission of any mistake at all constitutes victory. Hopefully they’re wrong and YouTube isn’t walking back punishments on people like Corsi, whose prior best hits include a steadfast belief Barack Obama is secretly gay and also some kind of Muslim, though InfoWars claimed yesterday that it got YouTube to revoke one of the two strikes against it.

In any case, this underscores the same dilemma that’s been dogging YouTube and other tech giants for a while. They fine tuned algorithms to replace human supervision, and now whenever one of problems those design decisions caused spiral out of control, the result is institutional paralysis even when users do bother to report the content and human moderators step in (who as NYMag noted, are usually foreign contractors with workloads too high to allow “the kind of thoughtfulness and cultural nuance necessary for good moderation”). There doesn’t appear to be any coherent philosophy underscoring the company’s approach to the rules beyond the belief platforms aren’t truly accountable for user-generated content, which means they’re constantly playing catch-up and any progress tends to be frustratingly tenuous.

YouTube could probably break this pattern, but social media megaplatforms built to satisfy demands for scale and push the loudest content to the biggest audience possible tend to have a bad track record at consistently following through. One other group to fall afoul of YouTube’s moderators lately was neo-Nazi organization Atomwaffen, though it took tons of bad press before the company could be bothered to take action.

timosman
03-03-2018, 01:38 PM
In an unrelated news - ‘Google Fired Me For Not Rejecting White & Asian Job Applicants,’ Youtube Ex-Employee Alleges - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519906-%91Google-Fired-Me-For-Not-Rejecting-White-amp-Asian-Job-Applicants-%92-Ex-Employee-Alleges

acptulsa
03-03-2018, 01:42 PM
definitely sets a dangerous precedent, regardless of your views on infowars

The precedent achieved the level of 'dangerous' long before they got around to using it to lend credibility to InfoWars. A good many providers of serious content are far beyond 'Strike One'. They're long gone.

r3volution 3.0
03-03-2018, 03:11 PM
Assuming this is even true, and not just the usual clickbaiting by Jones, I couldn't care less.

Similarly, Youtube, feel free to ban Bretibart, FOX, MSNBC, Mother Jones, or any other leftist channels; I'll sleep fine.

acptulsa
03-03-2018, 03:20 PM
Assuming this is even true, and not just the usual clickbaiting by Jones, I couldn't care less.

Similarly, Youtube, feel free to ban Bretibart, FOX, MSNBC, Mother Jones, or any other leftist channels; I'll sleep fine.

Jones isn't banned. He only has one 'strike'.

Swordsmyth
03-03-2018, 03:29 PM
Jones isn't banned. He only has one 'strike'.


YouTube has just delivered its third strike against Infowars, freezing our ability to upload new content.

I'm no Jones fanatic but you should read the article in the link before running off at the mouth.

enhanced_deficit
03-03-2018, 03:34 PM
AJ has been quieted too? It seems as if Trump is being isolated... almost all his supportes have been quieted/exited/separated from him , Flynn, Bannon, Haley, McMaster, Hicks, Jarvanka and now AJ.

Is Mueller about to make a big move?

acptulsa
03-03-2018, 03:34 PM
I'm no Jones fanatic but you should read the article in the link before running off at the mouth.

I'm not much for clicking on infowars ever. I've been too busy marveling that yournewswire, mashable, inquisitr and the New York Times haven't covered anyone getting banned by YouTube before, but they all jumped on this story from the first strike on. Free publicity. Advertising. Even the Independent and Fortune. Hollywood Reporter? Japan Times? Fox, CBS and reddit? Really? Have any of these sites/organizations ever covered a YouTube banning before?

Which logically leads me to believe Jones is about as genuinely anti-establishment as Trump. It certainly isn't That Which Must Not Be Named. Controlled opposition.

Origanalist
03-03-2018, 03:50 PM
Isn't that "emergency transmission " on a you tube video?

acptulsa
03-03-2018, 03:57 PM
Isn't that "emergency transmission " on a you tube video?

That would be funny, wouldn't it? No, nothing got uploaded to their Tube channel today. But here's an example of how completely they're being silenced:


https://youtube.com/watch?v=U85G7Lhvq54

Considering how many good vids have gotten yanked, I consider all this tempest in a teapot to be pretty damned funny. Yeah, buddy, they shut Jones right up! Yee haw!

Swordsmyth
03-03-2018, 04:00 PM
Isn't that "emergency transmission " on a you tube video?

It appears he set up a new "channel" to post that video because his primary "channel" with all his other videos was blocked from adding new content.

lilymc
03-03-2018, 04:01 PM
In my opinion, YouTube is definitely silencing people who are saying things that the powers-that-be do not want the public to know. Recently, for no valid reason, YouTube removed my 18 minute video on false flags. To me it seems obvious why it was removed… Especially since more and more people are starting to seek the truth, beyond what the talking heads on the idiot box are saying.

AuH20
03-03-2018, 04:05 PM
The empire is up to no good. They are preparing something. Chilling free speech is the precursor to some immense false flag.

acptulsa
03-03-2018, 04:06 PM
It appears he set up a new "channel" to post that video because his primary "channel" with all his other videos was blocked from adding new content.

LOL

If this was what YouTube's censorship actually looked like--lots of media coverage, existing vids still viewable, the poster setting up new accounts under his own name and getting away with it--it would be easy to dismiss this as a non-problem.

We, however, have been seeing the real face of it--vids and accounts disappearing without a peep or a trace. We know enough that we should be able to see through this theater--this farce.


The empire is up to no good.

You're starting to get the hang of understatement. Keep practicing.

AuH20
03-03-2018, 04:09 PM
Jones receives a barrage of bad publicity on the eve of his ban. Jones is no saint obviously, but it does seem coordinated?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/1/alex-jones-former-employees-allege-racism-sexual-h/

acptulsa
03-03-2018, 04:16 PM
Jones receives a barrage of bad publicity on the eve of his ban. Jones is no saint obviously, but it does seem coordinated?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/1/alex-jones-former-employees-allege-racism-sexual-h/

It is theater.

Swordsmyth
03-03-2018, 04:17 PM
LOL

If this was what YouTube's censorship actually looked like--lots of media coverage, existing vids still viewable, the poster setting up new accounts under his own name and getting away with it--it would be easy to dismiss this as a non-problem.

We, however, have been seeing the real face of it--vids and accounts disappearing without a peep or a trace. We know enough that we should be able to see through this theater--this farce.



You're starting to get the hang of understatement. Keep practicing.

The attack on Jones is proof that they have been emboldened by their attack on the better posters and are ready to move on to anyone even partly out of step with the party line, if they get away with it they will delete him entirely and move on to the next target on their list.

AuH20
03-03-2018, 04:22 PM
This is getting ridiculous now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/376581-major-brands-suspend-youtube-ads-on-infowars-channel

acptulsa
03-03-2018, 04:25 PM
The attack on Jones is proof that they have been emboldened by their attack on the better posters and are ready to move on to anyone even partly out of step with the party line, if they get away with it they will delete him entirely and move on to the next target on their list.

Uh huh. Which is why his gazillion tubes ate still up. Even after we have seen a gazillion tubes come down without a peep from the MSM.

They are advertising their controlled opposition and trying to convince people this "ban" is all there is to their censorship. We all know better.

This is theater.


This is getting ridiculous now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/376581-major-brands-suspend-youtube-ads-on-infowars-channel

The ridiculous part is they're admitting the corporations have been supporting Jones all along, when the real opposition lost their sponsorship years ago.

AuH20
03-03-2018, 04:47 PM
968588192130707456

specsaregood
03-03-2018, 04:59 PM
Good, then he should stop using youtube and promote his content on their competitors sites. Its time people stopped relying on their enemies outlets.

dannno
03-03-2018, 05:15 PM
Youtube Gives Mike Cernovich 'Strike' Towards Ban for Reporting on Death Threats Against Him


The far left group Antifa was chanting "The revolution has come. It's time to pick up our guns." and "You want a red pill, we got a lead pill." outside of Mike Cernovich's "Night For Freedom" in D.C. during CPAC. They filmed it, posted it to youtube as journalists and received a strike against their account which can eventually lead to being banned from the platform.

https://www.pscp.tv/Cernovich/1MYGNpeDOBzxw


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519928-Youtube-Gives-Cerno-Strike-Towards-Ban-for-Reporting-on-Death-Threats-Against-Him

dannno
03-03-2018, 05:18 PM
Good, then he should stop using youtube and promote his content on their competitors sites. Its time people stopped relying on their enemies outlets.

Stefan Molyneux is starting a project that will be on freedomain.com (dropping 'radio')

Zippyjuan
03-03-2018, 05:45 PM
968588192130707456

OOh- an anonymous source from 4chan!

pcosmar
03-03-2018, 07:08 PM
OOh- an anonymous source from 4chan!

Just can't give you enough -rep

Is it difficult living without a soul?

Marenco
03-03-2018, 07:25 PM
First they came for Infowars and I did not speak out—
Because I did not like Alex jones...

Slave Mentality
03-03-2018, 07:29 PM
OOh- an anonymous source from 4chan!

You are the only one that’s frequented this site pretty much daily and still haven’t figured this shit out?

Do you REALLY not see what’s happening with our privacy?

Stupid as fuck, or trolling?

r3volution 3.0
03-03-2018, 08:03 PM
First they came for Infowars and I did not speak out—
Because I did not like Alex jones...

Then I realized "they" were a private company exercising their property rights, not the Gestapo, and dropped the bad analogy...

pcosmar
03-03-2018, 08:21 PM
Then I realized "they" were a private company exercising their property rights,

No,, they are not.

r3volution 3.0
03-03-2018, 08:29 PM
No,, they are not.

I assume this will be parallel to your argument for why Dick's Sporting Goods isn't a private enterprise?

If so, you can go back and read my comments in that thread, as I've nothing new to say.

...I miss the days when people here defended property rights in principle, not only when doing so aligned with their personal preferences.

pcosmar
03-03-2018, 09:08 PM
I assume this will be parallel to your argument for why Dick's Sporting Goods isn't a private enterprise?

If so, you can go back and read my comments in that thread, as I've nothing new to say.

...I miss the days when people here defended property rights in principle, not only when doing so aligned with their personal preferences.
Property rights belong to individuals..

Despite The hokey legaleze,,Corporations are not individuals.. Not people.. NOT we the People..

Corporations are a GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCT,, created on paper and not in a womb.

I reject your argument wholesale... People have rights. Corporations do not.

Corporations are a legal creation,, a Government creation.. A socialist invention.... Giving the state control of Production.

We are a Corporatist nation,,, despite all the rhetoric. The Americanized Fabian Socialism. Corporatism.

Schifference
03-03-2018, 09:13 PM
Great this gives InfoWars the opportunity to publish their material on a competitor's website.

Dr.3D
03-03-2018, 09:15 PM
Great this gives InfoWars the opportunity to publish their material on a competitor's website.
The beast owns most of the media... it's hard to find any place where there is really the freedom to do that.

Schifference
03-03-2018, 09:17 PM
Haven't you ever heard of capitalism?

Created4
03-03-2018, 09:18 PM
Stefan Molyneux is starting a project that will be on freedomain.com (dropping 'radio')

https://about.d.tube/img/kit/Logo_Black.svg

https://about.d.tube/

donnay
03-03-2018, 09:25 PM
This is getting ridiculous now.

http://thehill.com/homenews/news/376581-major-brands-suspend-youtube-ads-on-infowars-channel

It is ridiculous. They do not want anybody questioning the 'official version' of this tragedy.

My question is, why did the secret service change the school's safety protocol two weeks prior to this shooting?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPX8TerWGmE&t=81s

Dr.3D
03-03-2018, 09:26 PM
Haven't you ever heard of capitalism?
Yeah, we should try that some time.

donnay
03-03-2018, 09:30 PM
Project Veritas warned about this type of censorship months ago.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4f1-wg0yWE

r3volution 3.0
03-03-2018, 09:37 PM
Property rights belong to individuals..

Despite The hokey legaleze,,Corporations are not individuals.. Not people.. NOT we the People..

Corporations are a GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCT,, created on paper and not in a womb.

I reject your argument wholesale... People have rights. Corporations do not.

Corporations are a legal creation,, a Government creation.. A socialist invention.... Giving the state control of Production.

We are a Corporatist nation,,, despite all the rhetoric. The Americanized Fabian Socialism. Corporatism.

Corporations are simply groups of people who've pooled their property; they are a creature of contract, not of the state.

In my experience, there are two reasons for confusion on this topic and, since I don't know what it is for you, I'll cover both:

1. HISTORICAL - Corporations were at one time legally prohibited, except when specially chartered by the state. Around the turn of the century, states began to pass general incorporation laws, which lifted these prohibitions (now only some paperwork and a nominal fee is required to incorporate in most places). Anti-corporation people such as yourself might look at this and mistakenly conclude that corporations were created by the state. No, rather, corporations are a natural outgrowth of the freedom to contract, which the state restricted for a long time, and thankfully does not anymore. It would be as if the state had always banned car loans for some reason, and then legalized them; that doesn't make car loans a creature of the state.

2. MORAL - People confuse limited liability for contracts with limited liability for torts. The former is perfectly consistent with libertarianism. If a corporation wishes to sell a bond (i.e. borrow money) on condition of limited liability, and you don't like this, you simply don't buy the bond. An individual can likewise negotiate a loan on condition of limited liability. This is a function of freedom of contract, not a state granted privilege. Limited liability for tort is another thing entirely, and would be a state granted privilege (the victim of a tort never agrees in advance to limit the liability of the tortfeasor, obviously, and so that liability should not be limited). In fact, today, corporations do not generally enjoy limited liability for torts, but if they did, the solution would be to eliminate that privilege, not outlaw corporations altogether (as I take it you want to do), and thereby restrict people's freedom of contract.

In any event, Dick's, Youtube, et al are private enterprises, and you're advocating violating their property rights.

pcosmar
03-03-2018, 10:17 PM
1. HISTORICAL - Corporations were at one time legally prohibited, except when specially chartered by the state.


Around the turn of the century, states began to pass general incorporation laws, which lifted these prohibitions

Was that after the Socialist Coup of 1913? or around that time?

anyway I rest my case,,, they are a construct of the state. and Declared "persons" by the same corrupt entity.

Corporations are nothing but a convenient shield against liability (responsibility).

r3volution 3.0
03-03-2018, 10:26 PM
Was that after the Socialist Coup of 1913? or around that time?

anyway I rest my case,,, they are a construct of the state. and Declared "persons" by the same corrupt entity.

Corporations are nothing but a convenient shield against liability (responsibility).

I get the impression you didn't actually read the post..

Have a good night.

pcosmar
03-03-2018, 10:36 PM
I get the impression you didn't actually read the post..



That must have been from the 2 lines that I cut and pasted..

are you as drunk as you are ignorant? Can't you read what you posted?

It proved my point. I win.

Swordsmyth
03-03-2018, 11:05 PM
Then I realized "they" were a private company exercising their property rights, not the Gestapo, and dropped the bad analogy...

They and most of silicon valley are sock-puppets of the CIA.

r3volution 3.0
03-03-2018, 11:11 PM
They and most of silicon valley are sock-puppets of the CIA.

The state has its tentacles into every business in the country in one way or another.

This argument that it's not a pure free market situation, therefore we can (further) ignore property rights is nonsense.

...disturbingly popular nonsense, on a range of issues, from media, to guns, to immigration.

timosman
03-03-2018, 11:30 PM
They and most of silicon valley are sock-puppets of the CIA.

Some even used to claim Do No Evil as their motto. :cool:

pcosmar
03-03-2018, 11:56 PM
Some even used to claim Do No Evil as their motto. :cool:

Some of us knew just how truly evil it was before we learned to use it.

It is a tool to be used and discarded when no longer useful or safe to use.

But the purpose behind it is insanely malignant.

timosman
03-04-2018, 12:05 AM
Some of us knew just how truly evil it was before we learned to use it.

It is a tool to be used and discarded when no longer useful or safe to use.

But the purpose behind it is insanely malignant.

We just want to know you better.:cool:

pcosmar
03-04-2018, 12:12 AM
We just want to know you better.:cool:

You buy the beer. :cool:

dannno
03-04-2018, 12:14 AM
You buy the beer. :cool:

How about a free email account instead :confused:

timosman
03-04-2018, 12:15 AM
How about a free email account instead :confused:

We'll monitor your behavior.

pcosmar
03-04-2018, 12:27 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiZZ0IJL2_w

jct74
03-04-2018, 07:25 AM
970130051910991873


original channel is still up, but it could be taken down today according to Alex

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel/videos

donnay
03-04-2018, 08:01 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvKFifQOGPk

acptulsa
03-04-2018, 08:09 AM
970130051910991873


original channel is still up, but it could be taken down today according to Alex

https://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel/videos

Translation: We almost have the all videos where I didn't make a complete ass of myself transferred over.

juleswin
03-04-2018, 08:48 AM
Just at the point people are waking up to the controlled opposition fraud that is Alex Jones, he pulls this stunt with the help of the MSM to trying and regain a lot of the anti establishment street cred that he lost.

I really hope this backfires on him, yes they came for one of their own and I ignored their whining. If these people were really after him, all the MSM would have ignored his whining just like they avoid the war in Yemen.

Hold the line people, this is not your fight. Let the establishment eat their own. Taking Alex Jones out of the anti establishment media will free the spot light up for real alt media personalities like Ben Swann and James Corbett.

donnay
03-04-2018, 09:05 AM
CNN Pushes YouTube to Ban Alex Jones, Demonetize Video Channel

by JOEL B. POLLAK3 Mar 2018

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/03/Brian-Stelter-CNN-Associated-Press-640x481.jpg

Right-wing broadcaster Alex Jones announced Saturday evening that YouTube had frozen his video channel and would delete it on Sunday, after CNN pursued the social media giant and its advertisers.
The announcement came just hours after CNN published a story, “Advertisers flee InfoWars founder Alex Jones’ YouTube channel,” in which journalists Paul P. Murphy and Gianluca Mezzofiore approached companies to explain why their ads were showing up on Alex Jones’s channel.

Murphy and Mezzofiore also asked YouTube why it had not filtered out certain advertisers from showing up on the channel due to its “offensive content.”

The CNN article reads less like coverage of news and more like a chronicle of an activist campaign to damage Jones’s channel. “Many of the brands — including Nike, Moen, Expedia, Acer, ClassPass, Honey, Alibaba and OneFamily — have suspended ads on InfoWars’ channels after being contacted by CNN for comment,” the authors noted.

On Saturday evening, Jones tweeted: “The Alex Jones channel with billions of views is frozen. We have been told it will be deleted tomorrow and all 33 thousands videos will be erased.”

970130051910991873

(UPDATE: Per CNN’s Oliver Darcy, YouTube has denied telling Jones his channel will be deleted.)

Jones referred to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a left-wing group whose overly-broad lists of “hate” groups have provoked criticism by conservatives, and have led to innocent people being targeted — literally. (The domestic terrorist who tried to carry out a mass shooting at the offices of the Family Research Council in 2012 told interrogators that he had targeted the organization after he read that it was “anti-gay” at the SPLC website.)

The SPLC mentioned Jones in a Feb. 23 article attacking some right-wing outlets for spreading a conspiracy theory that some of the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School who had appeared in numerous television interviews since the Feb. 14 mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, were actors coached to deliver anti-gun messages. The SPLC also describes Jones as “almost certainly the most prolific conspiracy theorist in contemporary America.”

CNN reported on Feb. 24 that YouTube had punished the Alex Jones Channel for a video titled, “David Hogg Can’t Remember His Lines In TV Interview.” Hogg, a student at the high school, has been among the most strident gun control activists in the days since the shooting, vowing not to return to school until new gun control laws were passed, and accusing National Rifle Association spokeswoman Dana Loesch — a mother of two — of not caring about children.

In response, InfoWars published an article accusing CNN of conducting a “campaign to ban conservative media.” The author, Paul Joseph Watson, defended the Alex Jones Channel’s video: “The videos in question did not claim the school shooting didn’t happen or that the victims were ‘actors,’ as CNN has falsely misrepresented. The videos questioned if some of the prominent students who are now publicly leading a nationwide campaign for gun control were being coached on what to say.”

Watson continued: “The ability to question the statements of public figures on television is part of basic free expression under the First Amendment, and does not constitute ‘bullying’ or ‘harassment,’ as YouTube claims.”

CNN once seemed to agree. Brian Stelter, host of CNN’s media analysis show, Reliable Sources, wrote an op-ed in November, “Whose freedom is it?“, arguing that the First Amendment did not just protect citizens against government censorship, but was also relevant to users of social media networks.

Stelter argued:

Press freedom is YOUR freedom. That’s the way I recommend thinking about “freedom of the press.”



Press freedom means you have the information you need to make up your own mind. And you have the ability to speak out. Nowadays, if you share links on Facebook or tweet on Twitter or chat on Snapchat, you’re a part of the media and you benefit from the constitutional protection of the free press.

Now, those social media sites and apps are owned by private companies, with their own rules that sometimes restrict free expression. This is an issue that we’re going to be grappling with for years to come.

But those sites enable hundreds of millions of people to participate in the news process — providing eyewitness information and new perspectives. The web has enabled countless people, myself included, to become bloggers and reporters and commentators.

The remedy for “hoaxes and other forms of misinformation” was for members of the public be more careful consumers of media, and to resist “government attempts to devalue and delegitimize journalism,” Stelter argued.

But now, rather than standing up for InfoWars’ right to free speech, Stelter appears to have backed his channel’s efforts to boycott and ban the Alex Jones Channel.

On Saturday, he retweeted news about 20th Century Fox withdrawing its ads from the channel:

http://media.breitbart.com/media/2018/03/Screen-Shot-2018-03-03-at-8.56.49-PM.png

The Alex Jones Channel on YouTube has existed for over ten years and has over 1.5 billion views.

This article has been updated to include YouTube’s denial, via CNN.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/03/03/cnn-pushes-youtube-ban-alex-jones-delete-video-channel/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+breitbart+%28Breitbart+News%2 9

donnay
03-04-2018, 09:12 AM
970308254319362048

The Northbreather
03-04-2018, 09:20 AM
https://about.d.tube/img/kit/Logo_Black.svg

https://about.d.tube/

I was hoping for this!

kahless
03-04-2018, 09:27 AM
OOh- an anonymous source from 4chan!

Tucker Carlson led with it a few nights ago - Google sharing user data with SPLC.

AuH20
03-04-2018, 09:33 AM
Just at the point people are waking up to the controlled opposition fraud that is Alex Jones, he pulls this stunt with the help of the MSM to trying and regain a lot of the anti establishment street cred that he lost.

I really hope this backfires on him, yes they came for one of their own and I ignored their whining. If these people were really after him, all the MSM would have ignored his whining just like they avoid the war in Yemen.

Hold the line people, this is not your fight. Let the establishment eat their own. Taking Alex Jones out of the anti establishment media will free the spot light up for real alt media personalities like Ben Swann and James Corbett.

They have little to no name ID. They can't push out stories.

Danke
03-04-2018, 10:59 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvKFifQOGPk


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to donnay again.

Donated again.

AZJoe
03-04-2018, 03:11 PM
Infowars has over 2.2 million followers on YouTube (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501997-Youtube-Heroes-Flagging-Program&highlight=youtube). Its big enough to go wherever it wants. It ought to just leave CensorTube (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501997-Youtube-Heroes-Flagging-Program&highlight=youtube) to one of the many alternatives.

****Minds.com (https://www.minds.com/discovery/trending/channels)
*****Steemit (https://steemit.com/)
****BitChute (https://www.bitchute.com/)
**BitTube (https://www.bittube.co/)
Metacafe (http://www.metacafe.com/)
Dailymotion (http://www.dailymotion.com/us)
Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/watch)
Streambotz (http://streambotz.com/)

acptulsa
03-04-2018, 03:16 PM
Infowars has over 2.2 million followers on YouTube (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501997-Youtube-Heroes-Flagging-Program&highlight=youtube). Its big enough o go wherever it wants. It ought to just leave CensorTube (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501997-Youtube-Heroes-Flagging-Program&highlight=youtube) to one of the many alternatives.

****Minds.com (https://www.minds.com/discovery/trending/channels)
*****Steemit (https://steemit.com/)
****BitChute (https://www.bitchute.com/)
**BitTube (https://www.bittube.co/)
Metacafe (http://www.metacafe.com/)
Dailymotion (http://www.dailymotion.com/us)
Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/watch)
Streambotz (http://streambotz.com/)

But, of course, it isn't. Which is also a clue.

AZJoe
03-04-2018, 03:26 PM
Don't forget to flag CNN for bullying old ladies. See how Youtube (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501997-Youtube-Heroes-Flagging-Program&highlight=youtube)responds.

969919384931225607

TheCount
03-04-2018, 03:37 PM
Infowars has over 2.2 million followers on YouTube (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501997-Youtube-Heroes-Flagging-Program&highlight=youtube). Its big enough to go wherever it wants. It ought to just leave CensorTube (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501997-Youtube-Heroes-Flagging-Program&highlight=youtube) to one of the many alternatives.

****Minds.com (https://www.minds.com/discovery/trending/channels)
*****Steemit (https://steemit.com/)
****BitChute (https://www.bitchute.com/)
**BitTube (https://www.bittube.co/)
Metacafe (http://www.metacafe.com/)
Dailymotion (http://www.dailymotion.com/us)
Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/watch)
Streambotz (http://streambotz.com/)


Well, maybe if you bought more dick pills they could afford to give up that sweet sweet Youtube ad money.

kpitcher
03-04-2018, 04:15 PM
Didn't alex jones specifically say his show is entertainment? Still seems wrong to ban him when everything else goes. It's not like youtube is holding all of its content up to journalistic integrity.

Maybe he should change his format to showing a variety of fails, inter spaced with whatever conspiracy theory he's pitching that day.

ChristianAnarchist
03-04-2018, 04:18 PM
I really don't like AJ (I've explained it many times) but this nonsense with YouTube just shows how much we need another platform for videos that does not censor. They can always "tag" videos they deem offensive or sensitive and only present those with certain tags when you want that kind of video. Some people don't want to see Nazi propaganda so you can allow that, just tag it and only show it to people who are looking for that content. Same with human sacrifice (Hillary), war violence, etc...

Zippyjuan
03-04-2018, 04:19 PM
Well, maybe if you bought more dick pills they could afford to give up that sweet sweet Youtube ad money.

Looks like pill sales ARE what funds him.

http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/05/how-does-alex-jones-make-money.html


To sum up: Jones makes no money from selling advertisements on his radio show. He makes no money selling advertisements on his YouTube channel. His subscription service languishes on a separate site that is no longer promoted by Infowars.com display ads (for that matter, it appears to consist mostly of videos you can find for free on YouTube). He makes, most likely, around $1 million from selling ad space on his popular website — not a paltry sum by any means, but not nearly enough to support a media empire on the order of Infowars. (For context, Jones is paying $516,000 a year, half of that figure, in alimony, according to recent court filings.) So where does Alex Jones’s money come from?

It comes from dietary supplements.

If the number of reviews for each product on his Infowars Store website can be taken as an indication of the relative popularity of each product, the dietary supplements are extremely lucrative for Infowars. One BuzzFeed source says that the Infowars Store brought in $10 million in revenue over two years in 2012 and 2013, before the supplements were introduced. (Jones apparently bragged that the store grossed $18 million over that period.) How much is he making from the supplements now? Fully 81 percent of the more-than-30,000 product reviews on Alex Jones’s InfowarsStore.com are for Infowars Life–brand dietary supplements. Assuming the product reviews are generally real (and I believe they are), it’s possible to roughly estimate just how lucrative this line of products has been for Alex Jones. The more-than-25,000 dietary-supplement reviews on InfowarsStore.com only go back as far as February 2015, so we are looking at approximately two years of reviews. A representative from PowerReviews, which manages Infowars’ review system, told me that between 3 percent and 8 percent of purchasers generally review their products. Assuming that 5 percent of Jones’s customers review each product they’ve purchased, the total sales would be more than 500,000 units sold over two years. At an average price of $30, this would represent $15,000,000 in sales over the same two-year period. If we assume more generously that reviews represent closer to 3 percent of the total number of purchasers, the number balloons to nearly $25,000,000. That’s a lot of money — especially when you consider that a devoted audience like Jones’s is likely filled with repeat customers who may not review each individual purchase.

It is a brilliant business model. If you can be convinced that an international cabal of globalists is hell-bent on creating a New World Order, perhaps you could be persuaded to buy Infowars Life Survival Shield X-2, a one-fluid-ounce bottle of iodine supplement for $39.95. If you can be convinced that President Barack Obama was a member of Al Qaeda, perhaps you will buy two ounces of Infowars Life Super Male Vitality drops for $59.95. Alex Jones does sell some other products on his website, but the vast majority of the web ads and on-air product pitches are for his dietary supplements. The products themselves are largely produced by Dr. Edward F. Group III, a Houston chiropractor and founder of dietary-supplement-maker Global Healing Center. Group is an atypical doctor in that while he lists a bevy of educational accomplishments on his website and LinkedIn profile, degree-verification services indicate that he seems not to have completed college. When asked about Group’s undergraduate education, a representative of Global Healing Center declined to comment.

More at link.

TheCount
03-04-2018, 04:32 PM
This argument that it's not a pure free market situation, therefore we can (further) ignore property rights is nonsense.

...disturbingly popular nonsense, on a range of issues, from media, to guns, to immigration.

Free? Who wants free? Free is old fashioned. Populism is about fair. Fair trade; impose government prices and force retailers to sell products whether they want to or not. Fair speech; force internet and broadcast media to provide a platform whether they want to or not. And so on. Freedom has been replaced by fairdom.

r3volution 3.0
03-04-2018, 04:37 PM
Free? Who wants free? Free is old fashioned. Populism is about fair. Fair trade; impose government prices and force retailers to sell products whether they want to or not. Fair speech; force internet and broadcast media to provide a platform whether they want to or not. And so on. Freedom has been replaced by fairdom.

Well put

AuH20
03-04-2018, 04:52 PM
They are trying to ban one of my favorite channels. Military Arms Channel. Smells like SPLC.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ym9KzRxDbM

jct74
03-04-2018, 08:49 PM
update from Alex, channel back online



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgV9azkdKXE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6ziMueXC88

William Tell
03-04-2018, 09:38 PM
update from Alex, channel back online



Was the channel actually down? Serious question I haven't kept up with this.

dannno
03-04-2018, 09:41 PM
Was the channel actually down? Serious question I haven't kept up with this.

No, they had three strikes, in fact they have racked up at least 5, but youtube is claiming it is rogue people within the organization and they keep removing the strikes. Apparently a lot of google employees have access.

TheCount
03-04-2018, 10:40 PM
Was the channel actually down? Serious question I haven't kept up with this.
Nope, never. Bet he got a fat amount of donations though; rather than leave youtube, expect this to become a regular scenario for milking his fans.

TheCount
03-04-2018, 10:41 PM
No, they had three strikes, in fact they have racked up at least 5, but youtube is claiming it is rogue people within the organization and they keep removing the strikes. Apparently a lot of google employees have access.
Fan fiction.

dannno
03-04-2018, 11:08 PM
Fan fiction.

Nope, Mike Cernovich had his reversed as well.

Youtube Gives Cerno 'Strike' Towards Ban for Reporting on Death Threats Against Himhttp://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519928-Youtube-Gives-Cerno-Strike-Towards-Ban-for-Reporting-on-Death-Threats-Against-Him

TheCount
03-05-2018, 10:09 PM
Nope, Mike Cernovich had his reversed as well.

Youtube Gives Cerno 'Strike' Towards Ban for Reporting on Death Threats Against Him

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519928-Youtube-Gives-Cerno-Strike-Towards-Ban-for-Reporting-on-Death-Threats-Against-Him
That doesn't support what you said. Where's the statement from YouTube about the rogue Google employees?

3 hour stickam videos don't count, btw.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
03-05-2018, 10:16 PM
Fan fiction.


You got that right.




TheCount
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/customavatars/avatar58229_4.gif
Supporting Member


Posts
4,458
Join Date
Mar 2014

timosman
03-05-2018, 10:18 PM
You got that right.

Please stop questioning the true liberty champions.:cool:

devil21
03-06-2018, 03:12 AM
Sooo yeah, it's still there.

Is everything fakery now?

donnay
03-06-2018, 10:07 AM
Sooo yeah, it's still there.

Is everything fakery now?

Yeah it is still there because they knew Jones would definitely come after than with a lawsuit. For breaking their terms of service contract (https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms).

acptulsa
03-06-2018, 10:29 AM
Yeah it is still there because they knew Jones would definitely come after than with a lawsuit. For breaking their terms of service contract (https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms).

Which part? This part?


You further agree that you will not submit to the Service any Content or other material that is contrary to the YouTube Community Guidelines, currently found at https://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines, which may be updated from time to time, or contrary to applicable local, national, and international laws and regulations.
YouTube does not endorse any Content submitted to the Service by any user or other licensor, or any opinion, recommendation, or advice expressed therein, and YouTube expressly disclaims any and all liability in connection with Content. YouTube does not permit copyright infringing activities and infringement of intellectual property rights on the Service, and YouTube will remove all Content if properly notified that such Content infringes on another's intellectual property rights. YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice.
7. Account Termination Policy
YouTube will terminate a user's access to the Service if, under appropriate circumstances, the user is determined to be a repeat infringer.
YouTube reserves the right to decide whether Content violates these Terms of Service for reasons other than copyright infringement, such as, but not limited to, pornography, obscenity, or excessive length. YouTube may at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or terminate a user's account for submitting such material in violation of these Terms of Service.

Or this part?


10. Limitation of Liability
IN NO EVENT SHALL YOUTUBE, ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM ANY (I) ERRORS, MISTAKES, OR INACCURACIES OF CONTENT, (II) PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE, OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, RESULTING FROM YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF OUR SERVICES, (III) ANY UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR USE OF OUR SECURE SERVERS AND/OR ANY AND ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION AND/OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION STORED THEREIN, (IV) ANY INTERRUPTION OR CESSATION OF TRANSMISSION TO OR FROM OUR SERVICES, (IV) ANY BUGS, VIRUSES, TROJAN HORSES, OR THE LIKE, WHICH MAY BE TRANSMITTED TO OR THROUGH OUR SERVICES BY ANY THIRD PARTY, AND/OR (V) ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN ANY CONTENT OR FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OF YOUR USE OF ANY CONTENT POSTED, EMAILED, TRANSMITTED, OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE VIA THE SERVICES, WHETHER BASED ON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANY IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE FOREGOING LIMITATION OF LIABILITY SHALL APPLY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW IN THE APPLICABLE JURISDICTION.

YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOUTUBE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR CONTENT OR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE, OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY AND THAT THE RISK OF HARM OR DAMAGE FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH YOU.

donnay
03-06-2018, 10:39 AM
Which part? This part?



Or this part?

I dunno, asks his lawyers. Because since his lawyers talked to them, miraculously his channel was back on line for them to post more videos.

acptulsa
03-06-2018, 10:49 AM
I dunno, asks his lawyers. Because since his lawyers talked to them, miraculously his channel was back on line for them to post more videos.

LOL

Theater.

donnay
03-06-2018, 10:54 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&time_continue=4&v=yVTxFvQunUs

Under the Communication Decency Act they cannot do what they did to Jones and other conservative Youtube accounts.

specsaregood
03-06-2018, 10:55 AM
LOL
Theater.

Totally. More like: once his cia handlers talked to their cia handlers, unmiraculously his channel was back online for them to post more videos.

donnay
03-06-2018, 11:01 AM
Totally. More like: once his cia handlers talked to their cia handlers, unmiraculously his channel was back online for them to post more videos.

Is that just your conspiracy theory?

acptulsa
03-06-2018, 11:01 AM
Under the Communication Decency Act they cannot do what they did to Jones and other conservative Youtube accounts.

A law attempting to censor internet porn protects Alex Jones?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg&time_continue=4&v=yVTxFvQunUs

Well, at great personal sacrifice (I think it cost me three or four IQ points) I listened to that tripe. I didn't hear the CDA mentioned even once.

Here's another question for you. If Jones actually has case, why isn't he pursuing a class action? Or even if he's too selfish to do such a public service for conservative Tube posters, why aren't the banned posters doing a class action?

donnay
03-06-2018, 11:08 AM
A law attempting to censor internet porn protects Alex Jones?

The selective censorship of which they contend they are Neutral Public Forums. Project Veritas brought this to the attention of people some months ago. It seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

dannno
03-06-2018, 11:09 AM
Which part? This part?



Or this part?

Both.

Did you even read them?

specsaregood
03-06-2018, 11:10 AM
Is that just your conspiracy theory?

Not really, I asked my coworkers. They showed me their file on AJ. He's a protected asset.

acptulsa
03-06-2018, 11:18 AM
The selective censorship of which they contend they are Neutral Public Forums. Project Veritas brought this to the attention of people some months ago. It seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

The CDA, a law designed to keep internet porn off the screens of children, protects that how?


Both.

Did you even read them?

You mean all that stuff about how YouTube reserves the right to decide what its community guidelines are and change them at any time with no notice, remove content even for ex post facto 'violations', reserves the right to remove content and ban accounts for any reason or no reason, and says that by using YouTube you agree to hold YouTube harmless for any damages whatsoever?

Yes, of course I read it. That's how I chose those relevant passages to cut and paste. Did you read any of it? Did you understand any of it?

dannno
03-06-2018, 11:23 AM
Here's the deal. Youtube created a platform for other people to create content for youtube to make money off of. Youtube historically did not create any content (now they do create some) but it is mostly their users creating content.

People here are acting like Youtube is the only one providing the service in this agreement, but the fact is that the content providers are providing a service to Youtube and the legal nature of this agreement is laid out in the TOS. Youtube has legal obligations to the content providers.

When you signup for youtube, you agree to a TOS. Then you provide content to youtube, youtube profits and you may profit as well. It's their platform, but it's your content, that you have partially signed the rights over to youtube.

If Youtube breaks their TOS and it hurts their users, users can sue them, because users are the ones providing them with content to make a profit off of.

If Alex Jones doesn't break the community guidelines, then they can't remove his videos or shut down his channel because that would be breaking their TOS.

acptulsa tried to argue that Youtube was within their legal TOS, but did a very poor job as what they posted clearly showed that infowars was in the right. acptulsa tried to argue that youtube cannot be held liable for anything, and did a very poor job because what he posted clearly did not indicate that wrongly enforcing their contract could not lead to legal liability, it only said that mistakes cannot lead to legal liability. Therefore, Youtube must attempt to fix mistakes in wrongly enforcing their contractual obligations, otherwise they can be held liable.

dannno
03-06-2018, 11:24 AM
You mean all that stuff about how YouTube reserves the right to decide what its community guidelines are and change them at any time with no notice, remove content even for ex post facto 'violations', reserves the right to remove content and ban accounts for any reason or no reason, and says that by using YouTube you agree to hold YouTube harmless for any damages whatsoever?

Yes, of course I read it. That's how I chose those relevant passages to cut and paste. Did you read any of it? Did you understand any of it?

That's not what it said at all. Try reading it again.

acptulsa
03-06-2018, 11:33 AM
Come on, donnay. First you said their terms of service are grounds for a suit, even though it basically says if you use the site, you agree not to sue them. When that didn't work, you brought up a law that tried to authorize censorship, tried to make censorship mandatory and was largely struck down by courts, and linked a video which does not even mention that law. Where are we going next?


That's not what it said at all. Try reading it again.

Why don't you, dannno? Why don't you excerpt the thing, and tell us what it means? Blanket generic denials are worthless. Show me a passage and tell me what it really says.

We come here for entertainment. Don't disappoint us.

acptulsa
03-06-2018, 11:49 AM
acptulsa tried to argue that Youtube was within their legal TOS, but did a very poor job as what they posted clearly showed that infowars was in the right.


...the YouTube Community Guidelines, currently found at https://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines, which may be updated from time to time...

YouTube reserves the right to remove Content without prior notice.

YouTube may at any time, without prior notice and in its sole discretion, remove such Content and/or terminate a user's account for submitting such material in violation of these Terms of Service.


acptulsa tried to argue that youtube cannot be held liable for anything, and did a very poor job because what he posted clearly did not indicate that wrongly enforcing their contract could not lead to legal liability, it only said that mistakes cannot lead to legal liability. Therefore, Youtube must attempt to fix mistakes in wrongly enforcing their contractual obligations, otherwise they can be held liable.[/QUOTE]


10. Limitation of Liability
IN NO EVENT SHALL YOUTUBE, ITS OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM ANY (I) ERRORS, MISTAKES, OR INACCURACIES OF CONTENT, (II) PERSONAL INJURY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE, OF ANY NATURE WHATSOEVER, RESULTING FROM YOUR ACCESS TO AND USE OF OUR SERVICES, (III) ANY UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR USE OF OUR SECURE SERVERS AND/OR ANY AND ALL PERSONAL INFORMATION AND/OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION STORED THEREIN, (IV) ANY INTERRUPTION OR CESSATION OF TRANSMISSION TO OR FROM OUR SERVICES, (IV) ANY BUGS, VIRUSES, TROJAN HORSES, OR THE LIKE, WHICH MAY BE TRANSMITTED TO OR THROUGH OUR SERVICES BY ANY THIRD PARTY, AND/OR (V) ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS IN ANY CONTENT OR FOR ANY LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND INCURRED AS A RESULT OF YOUR USE OF ANY CONTENT POSTED, EMAILED, TRANSMITTED, OR OTHERWISE MADE AVAILABLE VIA THE SERVICES, WHETHER BASED ON WARRANTY, CONTRACT, TORT, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE COMPANY IS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE FOREGOING LIMITATION OF LIABILITY SHALL APPLY TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW IN THE APPLICABLE JURISDICTION.

Emphasis added.

donnay
03-06-2018, 11:50 AM
Not really, I asked my coworkers. They showed me their file on AJ. He's a protected asset.


The CDA, a law designed to keep internet porn off the screens of children, protects that how?

Yeah AF is right, Freedom is not popular especially when it is a person you don't agree with. It's crystal clear here.

acptulsa
03-06-2018, 11:53 AM
Yeah AF is right, Freedom is not popular especially when it is a person you don't agree with. It's crystal clear here.

LOL

Controlled opposition, on the other hand, is clearly popular enough to have its staunch defenders. Staunch enough to rewrite the civil and criminal code, existing TOS verbiage, and even history, if need be, to make the self-proclaimed "opposition" look like it's not just another part of the Machine.

Putting blinders on is not the way to defend freedom. Yeah, hundreds? thousands? millions? of genuine dissenting voices were banned from YouTube. But Alex Jones is still there so clearly we still have freedom. And if you don't think being free to listen to Alex Jones is genuine freedom, you don't like freedom.

Yee haw.

dannno
03-06-2018, 12:02 PM
Youtube claims they can use "sole discretion" on whether your video broke the community guidelines, but that is still very specific - if you can prove in court that there was ulterior motivations beyond the community guidelines, and they can show that other content providers are treated differently due to these motivations and that they banned your video for political reasons or some such, which is outside of the TOS, then Youtube can be held liable.

If Youtube wants to be able to ban content providers for political reasons, then they need to state that in their TOS. That way content providers know what they are getting into, and they don't build up their platform. Saying you have sole discretion on judging whether videos break the community guidelines gives Youtube some protection, but if you can prove that they are just using that as an excuse to work around their TOS, then you have a case in court.

It would be similar if a black person came into your restaurant and you didn't want them there, if they ask for a table you can't just say, "oh well they were making scene so I kicked them out, it's my restaurant, I have sole discretion." Except the big difference being a restaurant serves customers, whereas with Youtube both sides of are providing a service and are under contractual terms.

specsaregood
03-06-2018, 12:03 PM
Yeah AF is right, Freedom is not popular especially when it is a person you don't agree with. It's crystal clear here.

lol, I disagree with everybody on something or the other. But I must have missed it, what exactly am I supposed to be disagreeing with AJ on here? That a private company should be able to choose what content exists on their site? Strange, I'm pretty sure that's the freedom position.

dannno
03-06-2018, 12:10 PM
Emphasis added.

That would be a poor legal argument, the wording "interruption or cessation of transmission" would indicate they are talking about being unable to transmit the content as opposed to making the decision not to.

dannno
03-06-2018, 12:11 PM
lol, I disagree with everybody on something or the other. But I must have missed it, what exactly am I supposed to be disagreeing with AJ on here? That a private company should be able to choose what content exists on their site? Strange, I'm pretty sure that's the freedom position.

No, that private contracts are important and that user generated content is just as important to youtube as their platform in generating revenue, so the users who generate that content for them have some legal protections.

If they want to be able to decide content based on something other than their community guidelines, that is ok but they need to specify that in the TOS.

acptulsa
03-06-2018, 12:17 PM
That would be a poor legal argument, the wording "interruption or cessation of transmission" would indicate they are talking about being unable to transmit the content as opposed to making the decision not to.

Are you denying that YouTube has banned opposition voices and/or conservative comment? Do you have proof that Jones' lawyers were able to do what all those other people's lawyers were not?

No, I cannot prove that Jones is still on YouTube because they never had any real intention of banning him, and just made a show of it to make him look like genuine opposition. Neither have you proven, nor can you prove, that his channel stayed up because his lawyers forced YouTube to keep it. You think he's genuine opposition, I think he's controlled opposition, and this incident has not proven either point of view--at least not yet.

Bottom line.


No, that private contracts are important and that user generated content is just as important to youtube as their platform in generating revenue, so the users who generate that content for them have some legal protections.

Even with my ten each and your twelve each, we do not have enough fingers and toes to count the content providers who were not protected. Tubes--nonviolent, non-pornographic tubes--do disappear. Regularly. This is a fact.

Valli6
03-06-2018, 12:22 PM
Full complaint
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4403437-Pepe.html

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/pepe-frog-artist-suing-infowars-copyright-infringement-1092233

... beginning in 2015, various fringe groups connected with the alt-right attempted to coopt Pepe by mixing images of Pepe with images of hate, including white supremacist language and symbols, Nazi symbols, and other offensive imagery," states the complaint lodged in court on Monday. "Furie has worked hard to counteract that negative image of Pepe, including collaborating with the Anti-Defamation League on the #SavePepe campaign to restore Pepe as a character representing peace, togetherness, and fun."

The lawsuit pinpoints one poster in particular as a source of copyright infringement. The poster features Pepe alongside InfoWars founder Alex Jones, President Donald Trump, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge, Roger Stone and others with the text "MAGA," short for Trump's campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again."

Furie, represented by attorney Rebecca Girolamo at Wilmer Cutler, says he didn't authorize such use of Pepe. He alleges the poster is being sold by InfoWars in its online store.

Should InfoWars attempt to argue fair use, the case could become provocative. Copyright law isn't supposed to make value judgments. (See for example the time that Adolf Hitler's "Mein Kampf" triggered a lawsuit. https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1492918/houghton-mifflin-co-v-stackpole-sons-inc/?q=mein+kampf+copyright ) But then again, the purpose and character of use as well as the effect of the use on the potential market are two of the four factors comprising a potential fair use.

In this case, Furie says he has licensed intellectual property rights for card games and stuffed dolls. Further exploration of the impact of political co-opting could be forthcoming. The lawsuit also notes that Donald Trump Jr. posted an image of Pepe in a modified version of a movie poster for the film "The Expendables," labeled "The Deplorables."...

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/pepe-frog-artist-suing-infowars-copyright-infringement-1092233

specsaregood
03-06-2018, 12:22 PM
No, that private contracts are important and that user generated content is just as important to youtube as their platform in generating revenue, so the users who generate that content for them have some legal protections.

If they want to be able to decide content based on something other than their community guidelines, that is ok but they need to specify that in the TOS.

I think the contract makes it clear they can do whatever they want to remove content on their platform.

As to user generated content generating revenue, you at correct it is important? When so many people that like AJ hating google and thinking they are the enemy, why is AJ intent on supporting them and making them money?

dannno
03-06-2018, 12:29 PM
I think the contract makes it clear they can do whatever they want to remove content on their platform.

I think it is ambiguous, they say that they can remove videos for breaking community guidelines, and they say they have sole discretion regarding whether they do or not, but that to me indicates that their discretion STILL must be based on the community guidelines and not some secret set of guidelines that are not available to the community. If they want to be able to ban content for any reason they want, then they should just say that in the TOS.

So if they were to prove in court that there were some other motivations outside the community guidelines that they were deciding to ban content on, as opposed to banning it with their discretion based on the community guidelines, they could have a case.



As to user generated content generating revenue, you at correct it is important? When so many people that like AJ hating google and thinking they are the enemy, why does AJ content to support them and make them money?

They are using the platform to get the word out to as many people as possible about the globalists and their agenda, and monetizing videos gets them higher priority in the algorithms.

I'm sure they would prefer not to support them from the beginning, but like I said it's a mutual deal - infowars gets more viewers by being on youtube, and youtube gets more ad-generating content with infowars being on youtube.

So infowars has been helping prop up youtube all this time, it is wrong for youtube to not keep up with their legal obligations.

AZJoe
03-06-2018, 01:22 PM
Good comment (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?520025-Social-Media-Censorship-Is-Vastly-More-Dangerous-Than-The-Censored-Material&p=6598374&posted=1#post6598374)from Caitlin Johnstone (https://steemit.com/@caitlinjohnstone):

​"when Infowars starts receiving strikes (https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/04/youtube-removes-ads-from-infowars-alex-jones-channel-but-says-it-has-no-plans-to-delete-it/) from YouTube (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?501997-Youtube-Heroes-Flagging-Program&highlight=youtube)for merely expressing skepticism, we should all get worried. … the things that he says are infinitely less dangerous than powerful media corporations censoring controversial political speech.

And when I say censorship, I mean censorship. America has a corporatist system of government, with no meaningful separation between government power and corporate power (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig), so corporate media is government media, and corporate censorship is government censorship. When you've got Senate Judiciary Committee meetings featuring plutocrat-sponsored Senators meeting with plutocrat-owned social media officials talking about how to use internet censorship to "prevent the fomenting of discord" in America, you've got government censorship. …

A few months ago the Senate Judiciary Committee spoke with top legal and security officials (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/01/goog-n01.html) … about the need to silence dissenting voices. Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono of Hawaii demanded that the companies adopt a “mission statement” declaring their commitment “to prevent the fomenting of discord.” Former FBI agent and deep state lackey Clint Watts kicked it up even further, saying, “Civil wars don’t start with gunshots, they start with words. … We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily .."

TheCount
03-06-2018, 03:26 PM
I dunno, asks his lawyers. Because since his lawyers talked to them, miraculously his channel was back on line for them to post more videos.
According to him, you mean.

Swordsmyth
03-06-2018, 07:23 PM
YouTube Deletes Mike Adams’ Entire Channelhttps://freedomoutpost.com/youtube-censors-health-ranger-entire-channel-deleted/

donnay
03-06-2018, 08:13 PM
According to him, you mean.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=218&v=nvZSiHrOTFQ

Page 37
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p02fijxrd7c6m/20180108%20Damore%20-%20Complaint_fs.pdf?dl=0

TheCount
03-06-2018, 09:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=218&v=nvZSiHrOTFQ

Page 37
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p02fijxrd7c6m/20180108%20Damore%20-%20Complaint_fs.pdf?dl=0
Donnay... That file is dated January 8th.

donnay
03-06-2018, 10:06 PM
Donnay... That file is dated January 8th.

Yeah this has been on-going. They have ramped it up to try and cripple Jones and other conservative sites.

UWDude
07-11-2019, 08:47 PM
Nope, never. Bet he got a fat amount of donations though; rather than leave youtube, expect this to become a regular scenario for milking his fans.

I see TheCount has it all figured out.
Alex Jones was just doing this as a cash grab. He secretly was in cahoots with Youtube the whole time.


Oh wait, that's too complicated, right TheCount?

No way it could be Youtube and all other social media was actually gunnign for Alex, and was trying to ban him, and would eventually ban him, right? And ban thousands of other users too, with hundreds of millions of subscribers and followers.

Nothing to see here. No big conspiracy. Too complicated. All one giant publicity stunt by these people to get money, sympathy and patreon donations (oops, Patreon denying accounts as well). It was all Alex Jones trying to sell more snakeoil, right TheCount?

1 year later after your stupid, ridiculous claim, Alex Jones is gone, from all social media.

But I am sure you are right, this is all just a publicity stunt and cash grab by Jones. He is voluntarily staying banned because this is making him more money and gaining him more publicity than ever.

Schifference
07-13-2019, 05:36 AM
I see TheCount has it all figured out.
Alex Jones was just doing this as a cash grab. He secretly was in cahoots with Youtube the whole time.


Oh wait, that's too complicated, right TheCount?

No way it could be Youtube and all other social media was actually gunnign for Alex, and was trying to ban him, and would eventually ban him, right? And ban thousands of other users too, with hundreds of millions of subscribers and followers.

Nothing to see here. No big conspiracy. Too complicated. All one giant publicity stunt by these people to get money, sympathy and patreon donations (oops, Patreon denying accounts as well). It was all Alex Jones trying to sell more snakeoil, right TheCount?

1 year later after your stupid, ridiculous claim, Alex Jones is gone, from all social media.

But I am sure you are right, this is all just a publicity stunt and cash grab by Jones. He is voluntarily staying banned because this is making him more money and gaining him more publicity than ever.

Great summation!