Youtube's Terms of Service Get Even More Strict

[Esmeralda]

It is not pervasive in my life, and I doubt it is pervasive in 'everyone's lives.' LOL

Oh yeah? Take a look at the cookies from your browser.

Only 1/3 of Americans own guns. The majority of Americans want more effective gun control. You people are not as powerful and influential as you like to think.

Oh really? Who has all the guns? LOL! Where's YOUR army?

My army is the American military, the National Guard and America's law enforcement departments. Where's yours?

Sorry. Many from your army will be on OUR side.

If you think that you are delusional.

 

[Esmeralda]

It is not pervasive in my life, and I doubt it is pervasive in 'everyone's lives.' LOL

Oh yeah? Take a look at the cookies from your browser.

Only 1/3 of Americans own guns. The majority of Americans want more effective gun control. You people are not as powerful and influential as you like to think.

Oh really? Who has all the guns? LOL! Where's YOUR army?

My army is the American military, the National Guard and America's law enforcement departments. Where's yours?

The projected active duty end strength in the armed forces for fiscal year 2017 was 1,281,900 servicemembers, with an additional 801,200 people in the seven reserve components.

There are around 100,000,000 gun owners in America. If we decided to act, no one could stop us. No government can exist without the consent of the governed. Remember that.

You are very seriously delusional.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Only 1/3 of Americans own guns. The majority of Americans want more effective gun control. You people are not as powerful and influential as you like to think.

Majority popularity does not get to deprive minorities of their rights in a free and just society. That's why Jim Crow laws are a no-no.

 

[Esmeralda]

Only 1/3 of Americans own guns. The majority of Americans want more effective gun control. You people are not as powerful and influential as you like to think.

Majority popularity does not get to deprive minorities of their rights in a free and just society. That's why Jim Crow laws are a no-no.

The 2nd Amendment does not mean there can't be some reasonable control over gun owernship. We already have some, they are just not enough to be effective. No one is considering a complete ban on firearms, only enacting effective, sane, sensible restrictions. No one is going to deprive any sane adult of the right to bear arms, except for convicted felons.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The 2nd Amendment does not mean there can't be somwe reasonable control over gun owernship. We already have some, they are just not enough to be effective. No one is considering a complete ban on firearms, only enacting effective, sane, sensible restrictions. No one is going to deprive any sane adult of the right to bear arms, except for convicted felons.

Effective

Any kind of "effective" gun control must, by definition, deprive people of some portion of their right to keep and bear arms. If it does not, then the regulation has not been effective. I see this word tossed around all of the time and it makes me sick. By saying that you want "effective" gun control, you are admitting that you want regulations that deprive people of their rights.

Sane

This is a meaningless description, at best. It's full of emotional rhetoric, having no other value when used here. Who defines what is "sane"? You? Is "sane" gun control whatever you decide is adequate? I would instead suggest that nearly any proposed gun control is insane, based on the fact that gun control proposals always seem to ignore reality and are often scraped together by people who don't even know what they are talking about.

Sensible

This is the adjective that has any merit. Unfortunately you seem to be failing the test. You don't actually want sensible gun control. You want whatever arbitrary gun control you've decided makes you feel content in your false sense of security. I am all for "sensible" gun control. I have yet to hear anyone make a truly sensible proposal that can realistically be expected to serve a valid purpose.

 

[Esmeralda]

The 2nd Amendment does not mean there can't be somwe reasonable control over gun owernship. We already have some, they are just not enough to be effective. No one is considering a complete ban on firearms, only enacting effective, sane, sensible restrictions. No one is going to deprive any sane adult of the right to bear arms, except for convicted felons.

Effective

Any kind of "effective" gun control must, by definition, deprive people of some portion of their right to keep and bear arms. If it does not, then the regulation has not been effective. I see this word tossed around all of the time and it makes me sick. By saying that you want "effective" gun control, you are admitting that you want regulations that deprive people of their rights.

Sane

This is a meaningless description, at best. It's full of emotional rhetoric, having no other value when used here. Who defines what is "sane"? You? Is "sane" gun control whatever you decide is adequate? I would instead suggest that nearly any proposed gun control is insane, based on the fact that gun control proposals always seem to ignore reality and are often scraped together by people who don't even know what they are talking about.

Sensible

This is the adjective that has any merit. Unfortunately you seem to be failing the test. You don't actually want sensible gun control. You want whatever arbitrary gun control you've decided makes you feel content in your false sense of security. I am all for "sensible" gun control. I have yet to hear anyone make a truly sensible proposal that can realistically be expected to serve a valid purpose.

You can play word games all you want; the majority of Americans want better gun control. Therefore, it will happen. Deal with it.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

The 2nd Amendment does not mean there can't be somwe reasonable control over gun owernship. We already have some, they are just not enough to be effective. No one is considering a complete ban on firearms, only enacting effective, sane, sensible restrictions. No one is going to deprive any sane adult of the right to bear arms, except for convicted felons.

Effective

Any kind of "effective" gun control must, by definition, deprive people of some portion of their right to keep and bear arms. If it does not, then the regulation has not been effective. I see this word tossed around all of the time and it makes me sick. By saying that you want "effective" gun control, you are admitting that you want regulations that deprive people of their rights.

Sane

This is a meaningless description, at best. It's full of emotional rhetoric, having no other value when used here. Who defines what is "sane"? You? Is "sane" gun control whatever you decide is adequate? I would instead suggest that nearly any proposed gun control is insane, based on the fact that gun control proposals always seem to ignore reality and are often scraped together by people who don't even know what they are talking about.

Sensible

This is the adjective that has any merit. Unfortunately you seem to be failing the test. You don't actually want sensible gun control. You want whatever arbitrary gun control you've decided makes you feel content in your false sense of security. I am all for "sensible" gun control. I have yet to hear anyone make a truly sensible proposal that can realistically be expected to serve a valid purpose.

You can play word games all you want; the majority of Americans want better gun control. Therefore, it will happen. Deal with it.

So you're right back to using majorities to deny minorities of their rights.

 

[RWNJ]

Closed my account yesterday.

Anyone who wants to delete their Google accounts should take the time to scrub them, first. Delete your search history, delete every file you have on Drive, delete every last email in your Gmail inbox, delete all of your YouTube history, and so on. Otherwise, all you're doing is quitting your account and leaving your profile for Google to control, which it can still use to profit from.

Google has said before that it has a profile for just about everyone, even if they've never used Google products before. That might be slightly exaggerated, but creating ghost profiles is still fairly easy to do. And any data you leave behind before you "delete" your account (which really isn't a deletion, they just deactivate and archive it) will be used exactly for those purposes. Another important step to keep Google's prying eyes out of your business is to block third party cookies. Even after all of this, Google still gets to peak into your life any time you send an email to someone who has a Gmail account or who gives Gmail access to an external account.

The same goes for Facebook. Don't just quit. There is a way to completely delete your FB account. If you do not do this, FB still owns everything you've got on your account.

Facebook is a little more stalkerish when it comes to data. There's no real way to delete your Facebook data. Once they have it, Facebook will keep your profile for all time. Facebook does not provide any meaningful way to scrub your profile. At most, you can do things like unliking business pages, but Facebook will still retain the data in their databases. Facebook knows every person who was ever on your friends list, every page you ever liked, every message you ever sent. Changing these things on the user end never changes what Facebook retains in their profile about you. Even after you fully delete (not just deactivate) your account, Facebook will continue to retain all data in their ghost profile about you, and will continue to collect data on you to expand that profile long after you've deleted your account.

You are mistaken. You can complete erase your account. Even the backup data.
How do I permanently delete my account? | Facebook Help Center | Facebook

Keep thinking that. Just because you have deleted your account does not mean Facebook deletes what they know about you. Facebook will never delete what they know about you. Never. Like Google, Facebook maintains ghost profiles of people who have never used Facebook. They will keep everything they've learned about you in their ghost file. They have become rather good at extracting information about people through secondary methods. For example, once Facebook manages to figure out your Google ID, they will suss you out by reading Google data. Deleting your Facebook account might prevent you from recovering your account as it existed, but they aren't deleting their access to that data.

Facebook has even become adept at connecting multiaccount users and combining them into single identities. Some time ago there was a small dust up when sex workers discovered that Facebook was serving up their clients as "people you may know" and vise versa, despite having absolutely nothing in common that would seem to be visible. In some instances, girls maintained fully independent online identities that never crossed in any ways. Separate phone numbers, separate names, separate email accounts, sometimes even separate devices that never "cross the barrier" by ever being used to log in to the other accounts. Much of Facebook's data collection about people happens outside of Facebook. By the time someone creates a Facebook account for the very first time Facebook already knows quite a bit about you, and they are usually able to peg you to the appropriate ghost account almost instantly.

OK. I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have anything to back that up with? If true, it's pretty disturbing, and probably illegal.

 

[RWNJ]

Oh yeah? Take a look at the cookies from your browser.

Only 1/3 of Americans own guns. The majority of Americans want more effective gun control. You people are not as powerful and influential as you like to think.

Oh really? Who has all the guns? LOL! Where's YOUR army?

My army is the American military, the National Guard and America's law enforcement departments. Where's yours?

Sorry. Many from your army will be on OUR side.

If you think that you are delusional.

Really? The majority of our service members are Conservatives. They will defend our Constitutional rights. If you think otherwise, YOU are the delusional one.

 

[RWNJ]

Oh yeah? Take a look at the cookies from your browser.

Only 1/3 of Americans own guns. The majority of Americans want more effective gun control. You people are not as powerful and influential as you like to think.

Oh really? Who has all the guns? LOL! Where's YOUR army?

My army is the American military, the National Guard and America's law enforcement departments. Where's yours?

The projected active duty end strength in the armed forces for fiscal year 2017 was 1,281,900 servicemembers, with an additional 801,200 people in the seven reserve components.

There are around 100,000,000 gun owners in America. If we decided to act, no one could stop us. No government can exist without the consent of the governed. Remember that.

You are very seriously delusional.

Not at all. We may not be capable of winning a standup fight against military forces, but guerilla warfare is very effective. You have no idea who you are dealing with. If push comes to shove. If it ever gets to the point where we feel that we have nothing to lose, we will take back our country, and no one can stop us. 300,000,000 guns vs your little army? No contest. In all of history, when the people have decided that they have had enough, armies and governments have fallen. Shoot. Widespread civil disobedience could do it on it's own. If people decided to stop producing weapons and ammunition for the government, what could the government do? Nothing. If several million Americans decided to act, no army could stop them.

 

[Esmeralda]

The 2nd Amendment does not mean there can't be somwe reasonable control over gun owernship. We already have some, they are just not enough to be effective. No one is considering a complete ban on firearms, only enacting effective, sane, sensible restrictions. No one is going to deprive any sane adult of the right to bear arms, except for convicted felons.

Effective

Any kind of "effective" gun control must, by definition, deprive people of some portion of their right to keep and bear arms. If it does not, then the regulation has not been effective. I see this word tossed around all of the time and it makes me sick. By saying that you want "effective" gun control, you are admitting that you want regulations that deprive people of their rights.

Sane

This is a meaningless description, at best. It's full of emotional rhetoric, having no other value when used here. Who defines what is "sane"? You? Is "sane" gun control whatever you decide is adequate? I would instead suggest that nearly any proposed gun control is insane, based on the fact that gun control proposals always seem to ignore reality and are often scraped together by people who don't even know what they are talking about.

Sensible

This is the adjective that has any merit. Unfortunately you seem to be failing the test. You don't actually want sensible gun control. You want whatever arbitrary gun control you've decided makes you feel content in your false sense of security. I am all for "sensible" gun control. I have yet to hear anyone make a truly sensible proposal that can realistically be expected to serve a valid purpose.

You can play word games all you want; the majority of Americans want better gun control. Therefore, it will happen. Deal with it.

So you're right back to using majorities to deny minorities of their rights.

Word games. Gun nuts are denying others their rights. Kids have the right to go to school in safety.

 

[Esmeralda]

Only 1/3 of Americans own guns. The majority of Americans want more effective gun control. You people are not as powerful and influential as you like to think.

Oh really? Who has all the guns? LOL! Where's YOUR army?

My army is the American military, the National Guard and America's law enforcement departments. Where's yours?

Sorry. Many from your army will be on OUR side.

If you think that you are delusional.

Really? The majority of our service members are Conservatives. They will defend our Constitutional rights. If you think otherwise, YOU are the delusional one.

They will support and abide by the law. If you think otherwise, you are deluding yourself.

 

[Esmeralda]

Only 1/3 of Americans own guns. The majority of Americans want more effective gun control. You people are not as powerful and influential as you like to think.

Oh really? Who has all the guns? LOL! Where's YOUR army?

My army is the American military, the National Guard and America's law enforcement departments. Where's yours?

The projected active duty end strength in the armed forces for fiscal year 2017 was 1,281,900 servicemembers, with an additional 801,200 people in the seven reserve components.

There are around 100,000,000 gun owners in America. If we decided to act, no one could stop us. No government can exist without the consent of the governed. Remember that.

You are very seriously delusional.

Not at all. We may not be capable of winning a standup fight against military forces, but guerilla warfare is very effective. You have no idea who you are dealing with. If push comes to shove. If it ever gets to the point where we feel that we have nothing to lose, we will take back our country, and no one can stop us. 300,000,000 guns vs your little army? No contest. In all of history, when the people have decided that they have had enough, armies and governments have fallen. Shoot. Widespread civil disobedience could do it on it's own. If people decided to stop producing weapons and ammunition for the government, what could the government do? Nothing. If several million Americans decided to act, no army could stop them.

You are really crazy if you think it's going to come to warfare. The American people are not going to participate in a civil war over a few extra gun restrictions. How old are you? You sound like a pre-adolescent. No sense at all. No maturity. Are you writing from your mommy's basement? You have no sense at all.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Word games. Gun nuts are denying others their rights. Kids have the right to go to school in safety.

And there is the fantasy. You want "safety." But the world isn't safe. Grow up.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Anyone who wants to delete their Google accounts should take the time to scrub them, first. Delete your search history, delete every file you have on Drive, delete every last email in your Gmail inbox, delete all of your YouTube history, and so on. Otherwise, all you're doing is quitting your account and leaving your profile for Google to control, which it can still use to profit from.

Google has said before that it has a profile for just about everyone, even if they've never used Google products before. That might be slightly exaggerated, but creating ghost profiles is still fairly easy to do. And any data you leave behind before you "delete" your account (which really isn't a deletion, they just deactivate and archive it) will be used exactly for those purposes. Another important step to keep Google's prying eyes out of your business is to block third party cookies. Even after all of this, Google still gets to peak into your life any time you send an email to someone who has a Gmail account or who gives Gmail access to an external account.

The same goes for Facebook. Don't just quit. There is a way to completely delete your FB account. If you do not do this, FB still owns everything you've got on your account.

Facebook is a little more stalkerish when it comes to data. There's no real way to delete your Facebook data. Once they have it, Facebook will keep your profile for all time. Facebook does not provide any meaningful way to scrub your profile. At most, you can do things like unliking business pages, but Facebook will still retain the data in their databases. Facebook knows every person who was ever on your friends list, every page you ever liked, every message you ever sent. Changing these things on the user end never changes what Facebook retains in their profile about you. Even after you fully delete (not just deactivate) your account, Facebook will continue to retain all data in their ghost profile about you, and will continue to collect data on you to expand that profile long after you've deleted your account.

You are mistaken. You can complete erase your account. Even the backup data.
How do I permanently delete my account? | Facebook Help Center | Facebook

Keep thinking that. Just because you have deleted your account does not mean Facebook deletes what they know about you. Facebook will never delete what they know about you. Never. Like Google, Facebook maintains ghost profiles of people who have never used Facebook. They will keep everything they've learned about you in their ghost file. They have become rather good at extracting information about people through secondary methods. For example, once Facebook manages to figure out your Google ID, they will suss you out by reading Google data. Deleting your Facebook account might prevent you from recovering your account as it existed, but they aren't deleting their access to that data.

Facebook has even become adept at connecting multiaccount users and combining them into single identities. Some time ago there was a small dust up when sex workers discovered that Facebook was serving up their clients as "people you may know" and vise versa, despite having absolutely nothing in common that would seem to be visible. In some instances, girls maintained fully independent online identities that never crossed in any ways. Separate phone numbers, separate names, separate email accounts, sometimes even separate devices that never "cross the barrier" by ever being used to log in to the other accounts. Much of Facebook's data collection about people happens outside of Facebook. By the time someone creates a Facebook account for the very first time Facebook already knows quite a bit about you, and they are usually able to peg you to the appropriate ghost account almost instantly.

OK. I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you have anything to back that up with? If true, it's pretty disturbing, and probably illegal.

Guess you have some catching up to do. Time to get informed. Here is a link that describes some of the simpler, more overt ways that Facebook extracts data about people.

 

[JoeB131]

You will never see a conservative forum telling someone they cannot post a differing point of view.

Really? I've been banned from a couple of right wing sites for giving them more truth than they can handle.

 

[JoeB131]

You don't do citations because all of your assertions are based on nothing. The fact that you can't back up any of your statements just makes you a waste of time. In short, if you can't make any citations, you aren't debating, you're blustering.

Nope, not my job to correct your ignorance..

No, schools are targets because nobody in a school has any means to defend themselves.

Bullshit.

Parkland had an armed guard.
Columbine had an armed guard
VA Tech had a whole police force.

The reason why these guys are successful is not because there isn't a "Good guy with a gun", because there usually is. The problem is, they are usually caught by surprise by a maniac who came better prepared and more committed to what he planned to do that day.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You don't do citations because all of your assertions are based on nothing. The fact that you can't back up any of your statements just makes you a waste of time. In short, if you can't make any citations, you aren't debating, you're blustering.

Nope, not my job to correct your ignorance..

No, schools are targets because nobody in a school has any means to defend themselves.

Bullshit.

Parkland had an armed guard.
Columbine had an armed guard
VA Tech had a whole police force.

The reason why these guys are successful is not because there isn't a "Good guy with a gun", because there usually is. The problem is, they are usually caught by surprise by a maniac who came better prepared and more committed to what he planned to do that day.

Even if that adhom were accurate, it IS your job to prove your statements. If you're not going to prove your statements, you're only a time waster and nobody should bother replying to you.

Armed guards have to be there to protect the individual from the threat. If you are armed, you don't need a guard. Of course, logical conclusions are beyond your comprehension, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your life hating specific groups of individuals, just because you disagree with them.

 

[MisterBeale]

Google is way too pervasive in everyone's lives. I don't use a Google account on the phone, either. Once you sign in on a phone, you can never sign out.

It is not pervasive in my life, and I doubt it is pervasive in 'everyone's lives.' LOL

Oh yeah? Take a look at the cookies from your browser.

Only 1/3 of Americans own guns. The majority of Americans want more effective gun control. You people are not as powerful and influential as you like to think.

Oh really? Who has all the guns? LOL! Where's YOUR army?

My army is the American military, the National Guard and America's law enforcement departments. Where's yours?

Government workers that get paid, are often pretty unreliable.

You are saying that your army are folks like the cops that waited outside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School while the kids were butchered?



nice.

 

[MisterBeale]

Oh really? Who has all the guns? LOL! Where's YOUR army?

My army is the American military, the National Guard and America's law enforcement departments. Where's yours?

The projected active duty end strength in the armed forces for fiscal year 2017 was 1,281,900 servicemembers, with an additional 801,200 people in the seven reserve components.

There are around 100,000,000 gun owners in America. If we decided to act, no one could stop us. No government can exist without the consent of the governed. Remember that.

You are very seriously delusional.

Not at all. We may not be capable of winning a standup fight against military forces, but guerilla warfare is very effective. You have no idea who you are dealing with. If push comes to shove. If it ever gets to the point where we feel that we have nothing to lose, we will take back our country, and no one can stop us. 300,000,000 guns vs your little army? No contest. In all of history, when the people have decided that they have had enough, armies and governments have fallen. Shoot. Widespread civil disobedience could do it on it's own. If people decided to stop producing weapons and ammunition for the government, what could the government do? Nothing. If several million Americans decided to act, no army could stop them.

You are really crazy if you think it's going to come to warfare. The American people are not going to participate in a civil war over a few extra gun restrictions. How old are you? You sound like a pre-adolescent. No sense at all. No maturity. Are you writing from your mommy's basement? You have no sense at all.

Extra gun restrictions are not the end goal of the governing elites here.

Sure, it starts with that, but that is not, in the end, what they have in mind.

What they want, is a complete and total disarming of the public. It starts with a changing of the culture, and with incrementalism, one small change to the law at a time, so that the next change doesn't seem unreasonable, till finally, the whole of society feels that the second Amendment is clearly outdated. I already see folks talk and write things today, which a decade ago folks would have thought to be unheard of in anyplace but a dictatorship, and these folks are serious. People today don't do their own thinking, they just repeat what is in the MSM. Or in your awful case, the global corporate media.



They have a long term plan to ensure guns are out of the hands of the masses, for when that happens, they can finally strip Americans of their assets and trash the dollar. Why do you think they really didn't give a crap about this last, completely ludicrous budget? Both congress, Trump, and the entire bureaucracy know where the nation and the world are headed. When it happens, they want to make sure Americans are completely under their control and HAVE to accept the solution they have already come up with. If Americans had a say, they probably would have some other ideas. They want them to be as helpless, mindless, and as compliant as the Greeks, the Irish, the etc. . . . . . They want the entire western peoples, from Australia, to Europe, to Canada, AND THE U.S. to just roll over and accept what they have planned when it comes, and make no mistake, it's coming.