Crowder can't catch a break. He operates within the "rules and guidelines" of Twitter and YouTube and he still gets banned.

This should worry every single one of you. Your 1A rights are being ripped away from you, and many on this forum are implicit in removing those rights by the way you continue to vote, and its infuriating.

All you need is one psycho activist SJW employee with enough pull in the department doing the reviews of videos to authorize it, and it happens. They get flooded with requests to silence views contrary to politically correct dogma all the time, and eventually they sometimes find a sympathetic ear that is willing to stretch their policies enough to respond.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

All you need is one psycho activist SJW employee with enough pull in the department doing the reviews of videos to authorize it, and it happens. They get flooded with requests to silence views contrary to politically correct dogma all the time, and eventually they sometimes find a sympathetic ear that is willing to stretch their policies enough to respond.

---

So...are Facebook/Twitter/YouTube going to continue to tout that they are "platforms" then?

In my opinion, they are becoming a publisher that edits what is allowed on its sites.

Yet this is their statement about a music video calling for robbing Chinese neighborhoods.

"We'll start by saying we find this video to be highly offensive and understand it is painful for many to watch, including many in Trust & Safety and especially given the ongoing violence against the Asian community," the statement reads. "One of the biggest challenges of working in Trust & Safety is that sometimes we have to leave up content we disagree with or find offensive."

"While EDSA is not a free pass for any content, there are likely thousands of music videos that would otherwise violate policies including Sex & Nudity, Violent or Graphic Content and Hate Speech were it not for these sorts of EDSA exceptions," the statement reads. "As a result, removing this video would have far-reaching implications for other musical content containing similarly violent or offensive lyrics, in genres ranging from rap to rock. While we debated this decision at length amongst our policy experts, we made the difficult decision to leave the video up to enforce our policy consistently and avoid setting a precedent that may lead to us having to remove a lot of other music on YouTube."

Double standards if you're a minority.

Double standards if you are a member of identity groups known to back the political party that also receives the support of a large majority of YouTube employees. the institutional culture is sharply biased and due to the perception bubble this creates, they have little comprehension of their own biases.

crowman2010 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

All you need is one psycho activist SJW employee with enough pull in the department doing the reviews of videos to authorize it, and it happens. They get flooded with requests to silence views contrary to politically correct dogma all the time, and eventually they sometimes find a sympathetic ear that is willing to stretch their policies enough to respond.

---

So...are Facebook/Twitter/YouTube going to continue to tout that they are "platforms" then?

In my opinion, they are becoming a publisher that edits what is allowed on its sites.

---

Not while the democrats are in charge.

When does significant litigation start against these platforms by people like Crowder? Just complaining will get you nowhere. Once an onslaught of litigation comes rolling in you may see some action.

Time to switch to alt-tech.

This is as stupid as complaining about how bad Twitter is through a Twitter post.

It's astonishing the number of people who think the First Amendment applies to companies like YouTube. It doesn't. Never has.

Stop feeding marxists in USA. STOP

blacksox said:

---

It's astonishing the number of people who think the First Amendment applies to companies like YouTube. It doesn't. Never has.

---

If they're publishers, they need to stop being protected by Section 230. They can't have it both ways.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Time to switch to alt-tech.

---

And other alt- routes.

If there is a counter left censorship and entire underground tech economy emerging, good. That sounds like what you are tallking about.

Texit. ban facebook and twitter in our new country unless they uphold free speech.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

blacksox said:

---

It's astonishing the number of people who think the First Amendment applies to companies like YouTube. It doesn't. Never has.

---

If they're publishers, they need to stop being protected by Section 230. They can't have it both ways.

---

This 100%

I listennto him on spotify and am a member of mug club. He always jokes about how youtube will pull him. Find it funny how conservative and libertarian. Channels in get cancelled yet youtube is a cess pool of lies and smut.

blacksox said:

---

It's astonishing the number of people who think the First Amendment applies to companies like YouTube. It doesn't. Never has.

---

That is half true. You should probably read up on section 230.

agsalaska said:

---

blacksox said:

---

It's astonishing the number of people who think the First Amendment applies to companies like YouTube. It doesn't. Never has.

---

That is half true. You should probably read up on section 230.

---

Exactly. And bring in the additional factor of highly anti-competitive monopolistic behavior and they really do need to be broken up due to anti Trust violations.

Certainly the behavior already exceeds what was enough for President Reagan's admin to do with Ma Bell.

blacksox said:

---

It's astonishing the number of people who think the First Amendment applies to companies like YouTube. It doesn't. Never has.

---

Section 230 provides immunity and was introduced by Clinton back in the 90's and is extremely dated. It's exactly why companies like twitter, google/youtube, and facebook haven't been sued into oblivion.

Get rid of the Sullivan and NYT ruling as well.

will25u said:

---

---

Its clear as day that they are now in violation of policy 230

kag00 said:

---

When does significant litigation start against these platforms by people like Crowder? Just complaining will get you nowhere. Once an onslaught of litigation comes rolling in you may see some action.

---

He's already launched a massive lawsuit. Crowder isn't one who will let this go.

blacksox said:

---

It's astonishing the number of people who think the First Amendment applies to companies like YouTube. It doesn't. Never has.

---

It would be interesting to see if 1A applies to private companies acting on behalf of the government.

This applies to censorship of free speech as well as government sponsored tyranny for COVID passports to travel, shop, etc.

According to his video it seems like it's a temporary ban. But we all know what happens once people get temporarily banned. The permaban isn't that far away.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Time to switch to alt-tech.

---

Cactus Jack said:

---

According to his video it seems like it's a temporary ban. But we all know what happens once people get temporarily banned. The permaban isn't that far away.

---

But there is no reason for the temporary ban. Hell even Twitter hasn't given him a specific reason why he was removed.

This crap has to stop