Project Veritas - Why are they not blocked/banned on YouTube?

[BortSimpson]

It doesn't make sense to me that they wouldn't be blocked/banned. Is this controlled opposition? If it is, my best guess is that maybe they're looking to to win the trust of the more serious whistleblowers and they turn those people in to the authorities.

But this is all conjecture on my part. It's hard to truly understand what's going on these days.



Johnson & Johnson: 'Kids Shouldn’t Get A F*cking [COVID] Vaccine;' There are "Unknown Repercussions"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNIj83XNNeE

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

I think he has a reservation in Ecuador.

[Occam's Banana]

[Invisible Man]

What's a specific example of something you think should have gotten them banned?

[acptulsa]

What's a specific example of something you think should have gotten them banned?

Did he say they should be banned? Did he give even one iota of a hint that he thinks Google only bans people who deserve it?

[Invisible Man]

Did he say they should be banned? Did he give even one iota of a hint that he thinks Google only bans people who deserve it?

I think he was saying that they should be banned according to what he thinks Youtube's banning policies are.

If he thinks there's some special treatment being given to them, where they're not getting banned for things that others would get banned for, then I wonder if he could provide a specific example.

[BortSimpson]

That's disappointing that you would mock someone for questioning stuff. Did YouTube not ban other channels that were asking questions?

[BortSimpson]

What's a specific example of something you think should have gotten them banned?

I'm not saying they should be banned but just that plenty of others have been banned for less.

[BortSimpson]

Did he say they should be banned? Did he give even one iota of a hint that he thinks Google only bans people who deserve it?

Thank you. I would think more people on this site would be open to these types of topics. If the Ron Paul forum isn't a place where people question things then who is going to do that?

[Invisible Man]

I'm not saying they should be banned but just that plenty of others have been banned for less.

Can you give any specific examples?

[Occam's Banana]

That's disappointing that you would mock someone for questioning stuff. Did YouTube not ban other channels that were asking questions?

I'm not mocking you for "questioning stuff".

I'm mocking you for suggesting that Project Veritas is "controlled opposition" that is plotting to "win the trust of the more serious whistleblowers" so that they can then "turn those people in to the authorities" - all merely because PV hasn't been banned from YouTube yet.

[BortSimpson]

I'm not mocking you for "questioning stuff".

I'm mocking you for suggesting that Project Veritas is "controlled opposition" that is plotting to "win the trust of the more serious whistleblowers" so that they can then "turn those people in to the authorities" - all merely because they haven't been banned from YouTube yet.

Well that's the thing I'm questioning.

[acptulsa]

I'm not mocking you for "questioning stuff".

I'm mocking you for suggesting that Project Veritas is "controlled opposition" that is plotting to "win the trust of the more serious whistleblowers" so that they can then "turn those people in to the authorities" - all merely because PV hasn't been banned from YouTube yet.

And despite the fact that their style so far has been exclusively in the vein of Candid Camera.

Well that's the thing I'm questioning.

I agree it's an anomaly. But there are other explanations besides "controlled opposition". And if they are controlled opposition, the gambit seems to be something else.

[BortSimpson]

Can you give any specific examples?

They banned the POTUS. (I'm not a Trump fan, btw).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLQzWc5OqS0

[Occam's Banana]

Well that's the thing I'm questioning.

You didn't question anything. You just pulled some random $#@! out your ass and made a ridiculous accusation without so much as a scintilla of supporting evidence.

[BortSimpson]

And despite the fact that their style so far has been exclusively in the vein of Candid Camera.



I agree it's an anomaly. But there are other explanations besides "controlled opposition". And if they are controlled opposition, the gambit seems to be something else.

For the record, I'm not saying it's necessarily controlled opposition (though I know you're not saying that I said that). I'm just saying it seems weird to me and I wanted to raise it for discussion in this forum.

[BortSimpson]

You didn't question anything. You just pulled some random $#@! out your ass without so much as a scintilla of evidence.

Infighting is not going to get us anywhere. I get that you disagree with me.

[BortSimpson]

You didn't question anything. You just pulled some random $#@! out your ass and made a ridiculous accusation without so much as a scintilla of supporting evidence.

Do you miss the "But this is all conjecture on my part" of my original post? Infighting is not productive btw. Let's stop doing that.

[acptulsa]

Infighting is not going to get us anywhere. I get that you disagree with me.

Casting aspersions on an organization that's exposing the rotten core could be regarded as "infighting" too.

[Occam's Banana]

Do you miss the "But this is all conjecture on my part" of my original post?

No, I didn't miss it.

In fact, that kind of rhetoric is a tactic frequently used by concern trolls.

So maybe it's you who is the "controlled opposition".

That's just "conjecture on my part", though ...

(See how that works?)

Infighting is not going to get us anywhere.

Infighting is not productive btw. Let's stop doing that.

Sez the guy who started this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ccine-Mandates

[BortSimpson]

Casting aspersions on an organization that's exposing the rotten core could be regarded as "infighting" too.

How so? I'm posting an open question on a forum that has nothing to do with PV.

[BortSimpson]

No, I didn't miss it.

In fact, that kind of rhetoric is a tactic frequently used by concern trolls.

So maybe it's you who is the "controlled opposition".

That's just "conjecture on my part", though ...

(See how that works?)




Sez the guy who started this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ccine-Mandates

This back-and-forth is exhausting and not a productive use of time. Let's just end it here.

[acptulsa]

Sez the guy who started this thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ccine-Mandates

I forgot that little jewel was one of his. Charming.

[Occam's Banana]

This back-and-forth is exhausting and not a productive use of time. Let's just end it here.

But starting a thread impugning an organization that has done invaluable work by exposing liars and hypocrites is a productive use of time?

Concern troll achievement unlocked.

[Invisible Man]

They banned the POTUS. (I'm not a Trump fan, btw).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLQzWc5OqS0

This is like pulling teeth.

What was the cause that they had (according to their own criteria, whatever those are) for banning him? And did this Vertitas outfit do the same thing he did that resulted in the ban? If they didn't, then there's no case of inconsistency there.

It may be that when you actually look into the details, it will turn out that they haven't done the things that resulted in others getting banned.

Also, what is it with people on this website and videos and the apparent aversion to providing links to sources that provide information in the form of written text, and not videos? Not just you, but in general. I don't get that. I don't doubt that Youtube banned Trump. But if I did, I would hope that I could confirm that in 10 seconds of reading, instead of watching a 4 minute video talking about it that has only 10 seconds of substantive content in it.

[BortSimpson]

I forgot that little jewel was one of his. Charming.

Yes, it was. And I completely stand by my right to make that point.

Though check the post I made at 09-10-2021, 04:29 PM ("Okay that one is much better. I'll rescind my original point then").

And FTR, while I don't think Rand is nearly as good as his father, I have never questioned his integrity. He is and always has been a good guy. (He and Thomas Massie are the 2 best congressmen). My disappointment in his statement was that, if he was going to fight for liberty, do it on the proper principles. I know he has those principles. I just think the argument he used was weaker than he should've gone with. We know TPTB are against us. If you're going to defend liberty, why not make the full argument?

I realize I'm not even going to win that argument, even on Ron Paul forums. I don't get why people are so eager to shoot down attempts at truly promoting liberty. But that's where we're at I guess.

[acptulsa]

Yes, it He and Thomas Massie are the 2 best congressmen

No small trick for a senator.

[BortSimpson]

No small trick for a senator.

The senate is part of congress.

[Invisible Man]

Yes, it was. And I completely stand by my right to make that point.

We all stand by your right to make the point. Your right to make the point was never at issue. It was the point itself that was the problem.

[cjm]

When you want to post "stings" on topics YouTube doesn't like, start by stinging YouTube and then strike a deal.