Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You said you like proof of things and question if the videos violated the TOS, didn't you? What else would satisfy you other than seeing the vids? Admit it, you don't like the decision so you are going to declare it unfair whether it is or not. There is nothing else to add at this point.I don't feel the need to see every video. That's irrelevant to any point made in this thread.Go get a job at You Tube then, if you feel the need to see every video they remove.
Thinking for yourself often is for people not used to it.I find that level of skepticism exhausting.
Would you like another go?
Did I say it was unfair? I have no idea if it was unfair or not... I can't see the vids to know.You said you like proof of things and question if the videos violated the TOS, didn't you? What else would satisfy you other than seeing the vids? Admit it, you don't like the decision so you are going to declare it unfair whether it is or not.
If you aren't going to actually address the things I say, I have no idea why you thought it was a good idea to reply to me.There is nothing else to add at this point.
What you speak of is known as state-corporate fascism, prominent examples being fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini and wartime imperialist Japan under Emperor Hirohito.How much Chinese or foreign influences are within these "private" companies that are screwing with social issues in America?
Orwell was only half right. Our freedoms and right to expression is under far more threat from the private sector which is more powerful and directly influences the government sector.
truthout.org
www.britannica.com
www.snopes.com
he does it about twice a week,, i've seen people quote him and get deleted but when he says it nothing happens,,When has he contradicted WHO? Given advice contrary to the CDC?heck dr fauci has violated it several times and nothing he says is removedI don't follow. They have a policy, it was violated x 3, they banned it.thats just more proof they dont apply their rules equally,,I notice your link doesn't mention why. Here ya go:this makes me cringe
LifeSite silenced by YouTube
YouTube censors have completely shut down the pro-life LifeSite channel, as well as erased all the Christian group’s videos. While YouTube is privately owned, within its free-market rights to pick and choose its posters — come on, now. As if the abortion matter only had one side?www.washingtontimes.com
Google, YouTube’s owner, later said it had banned LifeSiteNews for violating its COVID-19 misinformation policy, including “content that promotes prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO.” Channels that receive three strikes in a 90-day period will be permanently removed, a Google spokesperson told Daily Caller News Foundation.
Were they selling bleach cures? (Don't laugh--there was a preacher making a bundle off it.) Apparently, it was more than a Pro Life site.
I commend You Tube for trying to limit swill on their channel that can cause harm to people. There is NO credible reason to go against the CDC or WHO precautions; gullible people can lose their lives or cause the death of others by following cockamamie advice from snakeoil salesmen. This virus has killed half a million Americans in one year and a mutated version which is several times more contagious is spreading as we speak. This has nothing to do with being pro life or Christian, just goddamned dumb. GOOD FOR YOU TUBE!
Give me an example of them not applying that equally.
tell us whats it feel like to be a useful idiot??
All of a sudden right wingers don't support a private businesses right to do its business however it wants to.
All of a sudden, Left Wingers don't support the freedom of speech in public.
Private platforms are public spaces now?
All of a sudden right wingers don't support a private businesses right to do its business however it wants to.
All of a sudden, Left Wingers don't support the freedom of speech in public.
Private platforms are public spaces now?
They put themselves out there as a place where the public could be heard and got concessions and protections from the Government to do it. Now, they want to be a "private" company and that's fine, but they should no longer get the concessions and protections.
All of a sudden right wingers don't support a private businesses right to do its business however it wants to.
All of a sudden, Left Wingers don't support the freedom of speech in public.
Private platforms are public spaces now?
They put themselves out there as a place where the public could be heard and got concessions and protections from the Government to do it. Now, they want to be a "private" company and that's fine, but they should no longer get the concessions and protections.
That doesn't alter the fact they have terms of service users agree to and a legal right to act on those who violate it. They are not a public entity, but a private company, regardless of the access they provide to their private property.
All of a sudden right wingers don't support a private businesses right to do its business however it wants to.
That doesn't alter the fact that they get special legal protections for being a online "public square"... They need to lose that if they are indeed not a online "public square"That doesn't alter the fact they have terms of service users agree to and a legal right to act on those who violate it. They are not a public entity, but a private company, regardless of the access they provide to their private property.
That doesn't alter the fact that they get special legal protections for being a online "public square"... They need to lose that if they are indeed not a online "public square"That doesn't alter the fact they have terms of service users agree to and a legal right to act on those who violate it. They are not a public entity, but a private company, regardless of the access they provide to their private property.
No. That's the whole point. There is no recourse against facebook. There would be against a newspaper... You know... the people who CHOOSE what can and can't be read.They can't discriminate based on political ideology (and a host of other factors) - but they can have ToS rules that help maintain a good community and an environment where people feel free to speak. That means they can have rules against things like "hate speech" (where as the government can not). As long as everyone is treated the same under those rules. There is nothing wrong with that. If someone feels unfairly targeted they have recourse to courts right?
That's exactly right. They should have something that is like the boards here... An "ignore" function. That's all that is necessary. If you are a public square, then you can't get sued.What makes no sense to me is that opponents of the current system want them to be regarded as "publishers". In that case they still would not be required to allow everyone equal voice, and they could be liable for content. That means even more censorship to avoid being sued.
