In the coming days you will learn that YouTube suddenly cut off Matt Christiansen’s live YouTube feed Sunday evening, a little over 30 minutes into the broadcast.
You can still watch it here.
#ScaryTimes #Censorship
In the coming days you will learn that YouTube suddenly cut off Matt Christiansen’s live YouTube feed Sunday evening, a little over 30 minutes into the broadcast.
You can still watch it here.
#ScaryTimes #Censorship
That link said no Matt Christiansen channel here. What the heck??
I guess we’ll have to find a new method of communicating. When I was a kid, my Dad gave me a Sanyo all-band radio. That was 1963. I got it on Christmas day, and a few days later, after dark, I climbed the roof of the house to install my home made antennae. It was a crystal clear evening, and I still recall a squadron of B-52 bombers from nearby Glasgow, Montana flying high above our farm and headed North on a practice run.
I also remember rogue stations that were set up in South America. They had everything on shortwave from commie supporters to fiery preachers. Shortwave is still available today. They’ll never silence free speech, never!!
Yep … Nellie Ohr got a license! And found a frequency, Kenneth. A frequency for coup planning.
Maybe we should all buy shortwave scanners to catch these Traitors as they conspire.
I wonder how the founders of the country communicated. Ya right it was so complicated that no one today can figure it out. F–k , when did really stupid become the order of the day?
Personal messenger. On horseback. Spies would intercept every messenger they could. Notes marked with unique sealing wax stamps.
On the topic of censorship, I was quite surprised to find this on the CBC!!
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/asithappens/as-it-happens-tuesday-edition-1.5230248/antique-dildo-will-stay-in-ireland-after-sex-shop-owner-campaigns-to-save-it-1.5230262
Robert… try again from inside the USA.
I’m in Calgary, Canada and am able to view this on YouTube, it’s at the 53 minutes mark now, though I don’t know if it cut out at 30 minutes here in Canada as well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ba1rgLeuNK4
I watched to the end of the program. Matt mentioned then that YouTube had interrupted the program and deleted the first 30 minutes as he mentioned (and mispronounced intentionally) the US whistleblower’s name. He said it with an “o” at the end of his name instead of the “a”…
Apparently the YouTube censors don’t have a sense of humor.
They don’t have a sense of humor, they have a censor of humor.
#Censorship
You can still watch it here.
Try that again, slowly this time.
YouTube is not a public commons or a community cable channel. It’s a private, for-profit business and they don’t have to do business with you if they don’t want to. That includes allowing you to use their computers for free, or paying you for the content you upload.
Soi-disant conservatives who can’t get their head around why demanding de facto nationalization of any web site that gets really popular is the antithesis of their alleged principles deserve exactly what follows.
I always hear this argument from the same assholes who insisted that Christians have to bake cakes for all comers, and fully support the firings of people like Brendan Eich…
If Google is free to censor at will, then why can’t racists refuse to serve black people? If you want a secular state, then why do you support blasphemy laws that apply to islam only?
You’re exactly right. It is a private company for-profit business. However, 47 U.S.C. § 230 provides an immunity against civil cases provided Youtube is not acting as an editor of their users. Conservative opinion is defined by most of Silicon Valley as “Offensive.” They use that position to remove content. So yeah, private company….which loses immunity from civil cases…that works for me. Wave bye bye to Youtube and watch all the start ups pop up.
No, that’s not what s.230 says. Let’s have a look at the actual law:
(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
(2) Civil liability: No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
Nothing in there about “as long as they aren’t being editors”. You made that shit up, because it’s not in there.
And the US federal courts, all the way up to the SCOTUS, have a very long history of choosing not to try and legally define what “obscene, lewd, lascivious [etc]” is. They’re not going to do it here, regardless of Dennis Prager’s persecution fantasies.
If you (and the various other soi-disant conservatives can’t figure out why you really, really want s.230 to stay exactly as it is, I can’t help you.
Hey Kate, remember when you had to put a masthead on the site apologizing to Richard Warman because Kathy said mean things about him? Good times. Good times.
You are probably *technically* right about censorship. As a former citizen under Soviet influence, I find little difference between what Youtube does and what people did in Soviet Union.
Once Donald Trump Jr gets punished by the government for mentioning RealClearInvestigations mentioning ‘Erica Ciaramello’, we end up having Soviet East Europe recreated in the USA. Please don’t go there.
The fakeblower is a part of a concerted effort to get Trump unelected that has been going on ever since the usual elite’s Hillary Clinton lost her chance in what I’d call the most spectacular loss in a setup where the MSM was fully behind her. That fakeblower’s name were a secret is an odd idea.
“I find little difference between what Youtube does and what people did in Soviet Union.”
How many people does YouTube send to gulags?
“any action voluntarily taken in good faith”
But, they aren’t acting in good faith. They are shaping opinion….labeling what you should and should not believe. They apply their “policies” selectively based on opinion. They are editing content. They are removing content that DOESN’T violate any of their policies. They have every right to do so. But, they can’t keep their immunity from civil law suits in the process.
I would add that they are demonetizing conservative content sights (that have not violated company policy) which they don’t support politically. That’s a whole different can of worms. It’s a contractual violation…also, not in good faith.
Mr Ream you are incorrect,
Section 230 is immunity from prosecution from removing offensive content. They are required by law to remove “offensive” content that may lead to child trafficking etc. and are protected from prosecution for doing so.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
The problem is that Google/Facebook/YT/Twitter are extending the “offensive” tag to views they disagree with which happen to be Conservative views and also it appears to protect the Deep State. i.e. You Tube censoring any creator that mentions a certain name.
Hence the call to remove or amend section 230.
Epstein didn’t kill himself.
Another note summarizes:
Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act of 1996 (CDA), a cornerstone of internet law, which generally immunizes technology companies from lawsuits that seek to treat them as publishers or speakers of content that the companies’ users generate or share.
They are either a public platform that is exempt from legal liability for what is posted upon them, or they are a publisher that can pick and choose what they display that has their name on it, but can face legal sanction for what is posted.
Choose. Right now they enjoy the best of both worlds, and are engaging in arguably illegal acts.
As Ream points out, this is a wholly fictional dichotomy.
Is it really ‘for profit’ tho, if, as Christiansen said, YT loses money when they jerk around his feeds? And it IS still censorship. It’s just that they’re free to do it since they’re not Uncle Sam.
Number one rule I have learned in my life; the better sounding a label someone gives themselves, the more likely they want the opposite.
Google: don’t be evil — full evil.
antifa: anti-fascist — double plus fascists.
social justice — opposite of justice.
pro choice — mandatory infanticide.
BLM — no lives matter.
Democratic party — more oppression than Pol Pot.
As Bob Hope said “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d better get out before they make it compulsory.”
Great list – you should give it a name.
“Kevin’s rule of opposites”.
Reading through Matt Christiansen‘s twitter thread, he was cancelled for Ukraine whistleblower non-naming. Tim Pool has a rant yanked pulled down for similar reasons.
The do-evil company really wants Trump cancelled I guess.
What will eventually resolve the situation will be the RICO Act. When a start up tries to gain a foothold and compete against something like YouTube, the other entities of Silicon Valley circle the wagons and disallow that start up the use of their services to protect YouTube. Example, Pay Pal will refuse to do business with the start up, as will all the other major payment centers. There is active “collusion” among these companies. Conspiracy, in a sense. It’s a cartel that actively flaunts a monopoly in their respective positions. You keep hearing that “conservatives” should just start their own “Youtube” or “Facebook” or “Twitter.” The problem is that it can only be done if someone invests billions to start up the whole ball of wax including server farms, payment services, innovative software etc. And, the entire time that new entity is trying to gain a foothold, every one of the established entities will be deluging it with trademark infringement suits. Kate keeps saying “break them into a 100 Million pieces.” I don’t support that…but I do support enforcing the RICO Act, because the law was created just for such abuse.
Gotta love that juxtaposition of this story with the preceding one about ‘snowflakes’. When you’re equating YouTube cutting a stream with a totalitarian nation’s Orwellian regime, you might be a conservaderp snowflake.
Except we’re not blocking traffic, posting our screams to the sky on Twitter, snatching hats off teens, yelling at people in restaurants, banning folks from restaurants, parading around in vulgar hats, doxing people, trying to get people fired, crying, screaming at people in libraries, etc. over this like the lefty snowflakes might do. So, no snowflakery happening. Just complaints.
get used to it folks.
get real real real used to the facial recognition stuff, the private info for sale tot he highest bidder,
censorshit rampant, LIEberals winning hands down, kaybeck getting BILLIONS regularly, CBC and MSM deep in
the pockets of the LIEberals (or is it the other way around???)
etc
etc
we are sca-REWED BLUED AND TAAAAAAAATOOED !!!!