[Aurini]

So Google is stepping up their censorship. They tried this against Jordan Peterson last summer, but after a wide outcry they reinstated it. Now they're pulling this against Sargon of Akkad, without warning, notice, strikes - nothing.

[/url]

I owe Sargon a punch in the face ([url=https://rooshvforum.network/thread-54551-post-1744568.html#pid1744568]details here) but this is horseshit.

Before I suggest a solution, let me address a false argument: the "Free Speech only applies to the government, lol!" No, it's been long established case-law that you can't be denied vitals services based upon your political opinions (H/T Matt Forney):

Quote:

The reality is that U.S. law already has a precedent for forcing both edge providers like Google and Twitter as well as ISPs to allow any and all speech on their platforms, making net neutrality completely unnecessary. Contrary to the leftist/libertarian argument that these corporations can ban whoever they like due to the “free market,” the Constitution establishes set limits on how private entities can behave towards those who use their property.

In 1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech—and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects—the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.

So no, what Google is doing is not legal.

The solution? Well, same as Jordan Peterson: hue and cry. I would particularly recommend that our American members contact their representatives.

The Gmail Account isn't something as minor as the Twitter account - after ten years, it can often be the online hub of one's identity. This behaviour by Google is utterly disgusting, and they need to be brought to heel.

[Enoch]

If crimethink is the unspoken basis for this ban I expect Stefan Molyneux to be next. He has brought and Race & IQ quite a bit.

I never really listened to Sargon but I thought he avoided the JQ. If they are moving beyond JQ discussion for crimethink bans many are in the danger zone.

[Belgrano]

This seems to be part of a larger campaign. These articles are from yesterday or today:

YouTube Moves Towards Banning Conservative Vlogger for Correcting Parkland Shooting Conspiracy Theory

Quote:

Conservative YouTube commentator Ashton Whitty has been further sanctioned on the platform after she criticized the unverified claims of a Parkland student.

In the video titled “Florida Shooting Parents Teach Your Children,” which has since been removed by YouTube, Whitty criticized certain students’ attempts to become famous media personalities following the school shooting, and pointed out flaws in one student’s claims, including her claim that there was more than one shooter involved.

“YouTube is not a platform for things like predatory behavior, stalking, threats, harassment, bullying, or intimidation,” claimed YouTube in their email to Whitty. “We take this issue seriously and there are no excuses for such behavior.”

As well as having the video removed, Whitty also received a “strike” from YouTube on her channel. When a channel reaches three strikes, it is removed.

Whitty was previously sanctioned and censored by YouTube this week for another video, titled “Is CNN Coaching Kids,” which criticized CNN’s exploitation of the Parkland students for political gain, however, the video was reinstated two days later.

“YouTube is targeting conservative channels, saying our commentary is ‘bullying’ yet they allow Southern Poverty Law Center to hunt us like rabbits, strip away our voices like the skin, and grill anyone slightly right of Karl Marx with the term ‘fascist,'” claimed Whitty in an email to Breitbart Tech.

It is currently unknown if YouTube will reinstate Whitty’s video, as they did with the last, and remove the channel strike.

As previously reported:

InfoWars’ YouTube channel, which has more than 2 million subscribers, has now been blocked for two weeks over accusations that it posted “conspiracy theories” about Parkland. If it receives one more strike within three months, the channel will be permanently banned.

Lucian Wintrich of the Gateway Pundit says he has also been locked out of his YouTube account. Wintrich says the lockout occurred after he posted a video entitled “David Hogg Can’t Remember His Lines.” According to Wintrich, the YouTube video contained no commentary from him – it was simply a re-upload of the widely-shared video of Hogg’s interview with local media, in which he appears to receive encouragement from off-camera. The Gateway Pundit’s video has been re-uploaded to alternate platforms.

The Purge: YouTube Mass-Censors Conservatives, New Right, Classical Liberals

Quote:

YouTube is purging right-wing and independent commentators in the wake of the Parkland High shooting while admitting that it is mistakenly banning conservatives.

Independent journalist Mike Cernovich reported earlier today that a video he uploaded of left-wing Antifa activists chanting death threats had been taken down by YouTube. The video shows Antifa shouting violent threats at attendees of Cernovich’s Night for Freedom event in Washington DC, which took place on Saturday. Cernovich commented to Breitbart News on YouTube’s removal, saying, “YouTube is censoring honest, unedited reporting about ANTIFA’s actions. This can mean only one thing — they endorse far left wing violence.”

Google, which owns YouTube, has also banned political YouTube star and classical liberal Carl Benjamin, better known by his online pseudonym “Sargon of Akkad.”

In a comment to Breitbart News, Benjamin said the ban, which mirrored that of Canadian academic Jordan Peterson last August, was the beginning of a “platform-wide purge.”

“As James Damore’s lawsuit against Google has shown, the entire company is riddled with a far-left ideological orthodoxy that has taken hold to a radical degree,” said Benjamin.

“Google’s active suppression of individualist ideas within its own ranks has caused classical liberal and conservative commentators to be considered as far-right as Nazis, and are being treated with the same kind of prejudice and ruthlessness.”

The YouTube purge has also hit InfoWars, a popular alternative media channel run by radio host Alex Jones, who interviewed Donald Trump while he was still a candidate. InfoWars’ YouTube channel, which has more than 2 million subscribers, has now been blocked for two weeks over accusations that it posted “conspiracy theories” about Parkland.

In a comment to Breitbart News, InfoWars Editor-at-Large and YouTube star Paul Joseph Watson said Google’s unchecked power and influence over civil discourse required regulation.

“Google is a monopoly, and its anti-free speech policies are beginning to erode the sanctity of civil discourse,” said Watson. “We need some kind of constitutional amendment or mass movement, such as the one against SOPA, in order to re-assert the supremacy of free expression.”

“YouTube admitting they made a “mistake” in terminating some accounts and content does offer a glimmer of hope that there are some rational actors within the company.”

“However, this speaks to the wider phenomenon of how society has become so coddled and infantilized, that stridently challenging the views of public figures is now being treated as ‘bullying’ and ‘harassment.'”

Watson warned that the “fury” caused by mass censorship on social media platforms would only increase the same “hyper-partisan tensions” that the big tech companies claim to oppose.

A YouTube spokeswoman recently admitted that some videos were being removed in error, attributing it to teething problems caused by their recent hiring of 10,000 new human moderators.

“Newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals” admitted the spokeswoman. “We’ll reinstate any videos that were removed in error.”

At a Senate hearing last month, Sen. Ted Cruz called out YouTube’s alleged ideological bias, highlighting Prager University’s lawsuit against the company over censorship of conservatives. Cruz told a YouTube representative that if the platform did not remain politically neutral, they could lose legal immunity for user content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Without this protection, social media companies would be legally liable for all content posted on their platforms – an existential threat to their business model.

YouTube’s New Moderators ‘Mistakenly’ Delete Conservative Videos from Platform

Quote:

Newly hired YouTube moderators have reportedly deleted videos from conservative channels across the platform, which the Google subsidiary is describing as “mistaken removals.”

Bloomberg reports that YouTube’s newly hired moderators, who were brought on at the company in an attempt to crack down on fake news, misleading videos and extreme content on the platform, have been accidentally removing content published by right-wing channels on YouTube. Google said in December that they would be assigning more than 10,000 new employees to moderate content on YouTube following multiple issues with extremist content on the platform — and advertisers becoming increasingly upset about their products appearing alongside certain content.

Following the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, the YouTube moderators deleted a number of videos from conservative, pro-gun channels. One channel in particular, Military Arms Channel, has received multiple warnings and strikes on their videos, resulting in the account owner temporarily taking down their channel in order to avoid further penalties from YouTube. Military Arms Channel boasts 700,000 subscribers and over a 100 million monthly views.

Jerome Corsi, who heads the Washington D.C. bureau of Alex Jones’ website InfoWars.com, stated that YouTube had removed one of his videos and disabled a live stream he was broadcasting.

A YouTube spokesperson said in a statement “As we work to hire rapidly and ramp up our policy enforcement teams throughout 2018, newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals.” The spokesperson continued, “We’re continuing to enforce our existing policies regarding harmful and dangerous content, they have not changed. We’ll reinstate any videos that were removed in error.” YouTube has faced fierce pressure from left-wing activists to permanently ban the NRATV channel from their platform following the Parkland school shooting.

Too long, didn't read:
YouTube hired 10,000 new moderators who...

unfortunately
sometimes
may or may not
mistakenly
accidentally
misapply policies, resulting in
mistaken removals.

Which miraculously only affects conservative/right wing/alternative view points.

Quite a coincidence, but with n=10,000 it can obviously not be ruled out.

Nothing to see here folks!

[Aurini]

From Belgrano's post (quoting Breitbart):

Quote:

Cruz told a YouTube representative that if the platform did not remain politically neutral, they could lose legal immunity for user content under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Without this protection, social media companies would be legally liable for all content posted on their platforms – an existential threat to their business model.

[Captain Gh]

"There was more than 1 Shooter"! Hmmm... where have I heard this before I Wonder?

[Kona]

Davis Aurini you gotta watch it with your YouTube. Maybe stop putting forney's name in the title since he's banned on twitter? But I'm no whiz kid about this shit.

I already told you you are not on the apple car play YouTube app. So it's starting.

Aloha!

[Vladimir Poontang]

(03-01-2018 02:04 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

I owe Sargon a punch in the face (details here) but this is horseshit.

aka I don't like this person but I'm going to back them up on principle.

It's hard to imagine a woman ever saying such a thing. This, female lurkers, is why men are in charge.

[Gambler]

Who is this Sargon guy?

[Belgrano]

Report: Far-Left SPLC Helping YouTube Police Videos as Conservatives Increasingly Censored

Quote:

A report claims that the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is assisting Google with the policing of content on its YouTube platform, while conservatives face increased censorship.

According to the Daily Caller, the SPLC “is one of the more than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s ‘Trusted Flaggers’ program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.”

“The SPLC and other program members help police YouTube for extremist content, ranging from so-called hate speech to terrorist recruiting videos,” the Daily Caller explained. “All of the groups in the program have confidentiality agreements, a spokesperson for Google, YouTube’s parent company, previously told TheDC. A handful of YouTube’s ‘Trusted Flaggers,’ including the Anti-Defamation League and No Hate Speech — a European organization focused on combatting intolerance — have gone public with their participation in the program. The vast majority of the groups in the program have remained hidden behind their confidentiality agreements.”

By the way, remember that guy from yesterday:

(03-01-2018 03:56 PM)Belgrano Wrote:  

Jerome Corsi, who heads the Washington D.C. bureau of Alex Jones’ website InfoWars.com, stated that YouTube had removed one of his videos and disabled a live stream he was broadcasting.

Yeah...he didn't make it.

Quote:

Update - InfoWars contributor Jerome Corsi reports that his YouTube account has been terminated.

I'm afraid everyone's favourite show on the internet, Roosh Live, has an expiry date.
Especially now that Roosh is even officially on the SPLC's list of hate groups.

[911]

Is Trump so out of touch that he'd let the corpo-tech censors wipe out free speech for an important element of his base?

[Aurini]

It looks like Natural News is jumping into the ring:

Quote:

My advice is: Don’t promote a video site unless the people behind it are proven survivors and proven patriots. I can assure everyone that my video site will defend your free speech rights against tyranny and censorship, and my site will never be for sale to the highest bidder. I will fight for your right to speak, your right to challenge the status quo and your right to criticize the deranged lunatics of the left-wing CULT that has now infected Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

[redpillage]

(03-02-2018 09:11 AM)911 Wrote:  

Is Trump so out of touch that he'd let the corpo-tech censors wipe out free speech for an important element of his base?

That's something I was wondering myself actually. How about an industry wide deep IRS audit? Fuckers all think they are untouchable now. President Trump must realize that they are systematically dismantling popular conservative voices out there, and thus by extension his own base. Being banned merely for being a conservative implicitly paints our entire political spectrum as hate speech. Let that roll around in your mind for a few seconds: Our understanding of Western conservative culture is being made semi-illegal across the Western hemisphere. In the U.S. you guys are only getting banned and ostracized. Over here in Europe you go to jail if you say the wrong thing.

This is fucking serious people and it's time to fight back. Thus far there has been ZERO push back, one by one conservative voices are being knee capped and nothing is being done. Fuck this gay world.

[Praetor Lupus]

[CynicalContrarian]

Is all this an indication that the control freaks are on the rise?
Or is it an indication the control freaks are in fact, freaking out?

Of interest :

[url=https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/968650412847898625][/url]

[911]

Kim is a freakin champ.

[Thersites]

Here a quick run down from David Cullen about the current purge:

(03-02-2018 05:07 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:  

Of interest :

[url=https://twitter.com/KimDotcom/status/968650412847898625][/url]

Translation, Kim is waiting for the right moment to screw over Youtube. Everything is being setup and ready for launch day for the killing blow.

[Tytalus]

Well... I think Im Going to move on to proton mail. And get rid of as many Google apps as I can.

[deuce]

Just made the move over to ProtonMail along with getting ProtonVPN. It’s time.

[churros]

Seems appropriate for me to shill the Brave browser which has built-in adblockers and a payment system for content providers that's based around a proprietary blockchain... called BAT or basic attention token

[Batka]

(03-01-2018 02:04 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

So Google is stepping up their censorship. They tried this against Jordan Peterson last summer, but after a wide outcry they reinstated it. Now they're pulling this against Sargon of Akkad, without warning, notice, strikes - nothing.

[/url]

I owe Sargon a punch in the face ([url=https://rooshvforum.network/thread-54551-post-1744568.html#pid1744568]details here) but this is horseshit.

Before I suggest a solution, let me address a false argument: the "Free Speech only applies to the government, lol!" No, it's been long established case-law that you can't be denied vitals services based upon your political opinions (H/T Matt Forney):

Quote:

The reality is that U.S. law already has a precedent for forcing both edge providers like Google and Twitter as well as ISPs to allow any and all speech on their platforms, making net neutrality completely unnecessary. Contrary to the leftist/libertarian argument that these corporations can ban whoever they like due to the “free market,” the Constitution establishes set limits on how private entities can behave towards those who use their property.

In 1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech—and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects—the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.

So no, what Google is doing is not legal.

The solution? Well, same as Jordan Peterson: hue and cry. I would particularly recommend that our American members contact their representatives.

The Gmail Account isn't something as minor as the Twitter account - after ten years, it can often be the online hub of one's identity. This behaviour by Google is utterly disgusting, and they need to be brought to heel.

It's not just the Right that is coming under attack, but it's also happening to those on the Progressive Left.

Jimmy Dore, one of the few on the Left who I have any time for has been highlighting how Google is de-listing him in their search engine and how YouTube is unsubscribing people from his channel without any explanation given.

The big issue is 'net neutrality' and how it is coming under attack from both Democrats and Republicans in both the Senate and the House. Right wing sites like Infowars and Sargon are coming under attack. Progressive sites are now in the firing line. Dangerous times ahead.

[Malone]

(03-02-2018 06:37 PM)Thersites Wrote:  

Translation, Kim is waiting for the right moment to screw over Youtube. Everything is being setup and ready for launch day for the killing blow.

Ridiculous. There's basically 0 tech barrier to entry for a Youtube clone these days. The problem is that after you launch your clone, you're still not Youtube. (See Vimeo, minds, whatever other ones.)

To say that Kim Dot Com is getting ready for the knockout blow is laughable. At best he'd have a competitor, a small one.

The only thing that can kill YT right now is itself.

[Thersites]

(03-03-2018 07:24 AM)Malone Wrote:  

The only thing that can kill YT right now is itself.

More specifically when YT kills itself when it becomes full blown echo chamber of SJWism and incompetence. It current success comes from its ease of use, popularity and ad revenue it gives to its creators to help make more content. YT will destroy itself regardless of the warning put out by the creators on the website as they plead with management at its current trajectory.

I'm not expecting Kim to roll out anything in the near future or go through with his threat of making a new site. Its wishful thinking on my part for me to get a laugh. If he has all the parts available to make an easy to use website similar to YT, he maybe able to pull it off. Maybe.

[Sidney Crosby]

Are there not any popular alternatives to youtube right now that aren't as leftist?

Anyone who is tired of Twitter should check out GAB.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Any serious threat to Youtube will simply have their app tossed out of GooglePlay and the AppleStore. The grounds will be "does not do enough to protect users from hatespeech".

The tech monopolies get broken up with anti-trust suits or they dominate forever.

There will be no serious grassroots competition while the hardware is fundamentally intertwined with the software for the average schmuck pulling a phone off a shelf at Kmart, jamming a sim card in it and wanting to watch funny dog videos.

[Suits]

(03-01-2018 02:04 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Before I suggest a solution, let me address a false argument: the "Free Speech only applies to the government, lol!" No, it's been long established case-law that you can't be denied vitals services based upon your political opinions (H/T Matt Forney):

Quote:

The reality is that U.S. law already has a precedent for forcing both edge providers like Google and Twitter as well as ISPs to allow any and all speech on their platforms, making net neutrality completely unnecessary. Contrary to the leftist/libertarian argument that these corporations can ban whoever they like due to the “free market,” the Constitution establishes set limits on how private entities can behave towards those who use their property.

In 1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech—and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects—the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.

So no, what Google is doing is not legal.

If Google is clearly violating your constitutional rights, then sue them.

If you can't find a lawyer in the US willing to take on a landmark free speech case pro bono, then your case is pretty weak.