Google suspends Trump’s YouTube account, disables comments

[jct74]

Google suspends Trump’s YouTube account, disables comments

Jennifer Elias
January 12, 2021

Google has suspended President Donald Trump’s account on YouTube, which is the world’s largest video platform.

The Google-owned company said Tuesday night that Trump uploaded content that violated its policies, giving it an automatic one-strike, which leads to a minimum seven-day suspension from uploading new content. It said it is also disabling the comments section.

Donald J. Trump’s YouTube account had 2.77 million subscribers and it typically posts several videos a day from himself and from right-wing media stations. The company has a three-strike rule before becoming permanently banned.

“After review, and in light of concerns about the ongoing potential for violence, we removed new content uploaded to Donald J. Trump’s channel for violating our policies,” the company said. “Given the ongoing concerns about violence, we will also be indefinitely disabling comments on President Trump’s channel, as we’ve done to other channels where there are safety concerns found in the comments section.”

...

read more:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/12/goog...-comments.html

[rpfocus]

[Dary]

That clown is smiling. That's a happy clown.

[A. Havnes]

...as we’ve done to other channels where there are safety concerns found in the comments section.

So, if I found a random YouTube channel and commented that X person or video made me want to commit violence, I could get that YouTube channel shut down? Something doesn't sound legit...

[CaptUSA]

So, if I found a random YouTube channel and commented that X person or video made me want to commit violence, I could get that YouTube channel shut down? Something doesn't sound legit...

Sounds like an interesting experiment.

In the old Ron Paul Forums days, we'd target something, focus our fire, and highlight the hypocrisy of the press. Man, I miss those days.

[DamianTV]

So, if I found a random YouTube channel and commented that X person or video made me want to commit violence, I could get that YouTube channel shut down? Something doesn't sound legit...

Sure but what if that person was CONDEMNING VIOLENCE on their youtube channel?

THEN (here is the important part) they whip together a DEEP FAKE AUDIO using video of another clip and literally put words in that persons mouth where they ARE advocating violence? Even though they really did NOT do that, the ones who publish the videos now have TOTAL CONTROL of the narrative, and thereby the person who just got censored.

WHY? Manufacture anger and hatred of the VIEWERS in order to truly incite violence.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Sounds like an interesting experiment.

In the old Ron Paul Forums days, we'd target something, focus our fire, and highlight the hypocrisy of the press. Man, I miss those days.

Agreed. I also miss the times where we actually stood for some principles around here. It seems to me too many have been happy with having someone in power who from time to time. Someone that does things we would have agreed with before but many things we wouldn't have. I think too many of us have been too happy to accept there's someone messing with the system itself.

[familydog]

So, if I found a random YouTube channel and commented that X person or video made me want to commit violence, I could get that YouTube channel shut down? Something doesn't sound legit...

You are correct. However, the right and libertarians never push those boundaries.

Remember when Colorado tried to force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Why didn't the right and libertarians try to force a Muslim baker to bake a bacon flavored cake for a Christian wedding? Let's see what the government and court system would have done then.

The right and libertarians just whine about hypocrisy like it matters.

[A. Havnes]

You are correct. However, the right and libertarians never push those boundaries.

Remember when Colorado tried to force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Why didn't the right and libertarians try to force a Muslim baker to bake a bacon flavored cake for a Christian wedding? Let's see what the government and court system would have done then.

The right and libertarians just whine about hypocrisy like it matters.

Now you just have me thinking of whether or not a bacon-flavored cake is a good idea or not.

It would be an interesting experiment, though. I'm talking about both the cake thing (I do remember that incident, when the so-called leftists wanted to condemn property rights and force the bakery to bake the cake) and the random commenting thing.

Has any reason come out yet as to why Ron Paul's page was limited?

[Occam's Banana]

Why didn't the right and libertarians try to force a Muslim baker to bake a bacon flavored cake for a Christian wedding? Let's see what the government and court system would have done then.

Putting aside the fact that Muslims are forbidden to eat pork themselves but are not (as far as I know) forbidden to cater to those who do, why do such a thing? What would be the point? Either you would win, which would erode property rights even further, or you would lose, in which case it wouldn't change anything. (And in either case, you'd be guilty of engaging in the same hypocrisy you were supposedly trying to fight.)

Has any reason come out yet as to why Ron Paul's page was limited?

Facebook says it was just an "error."

They made an innocent oopsie. That's all. Now move along ...