Paul Joseph Watson won't be around much longer.

[shakey1]

The clamps are tightening.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

He does make a valid point about how Alphabet and FB and the like have been ignored when it comes to monopoly/anti-trust laws, therefore there's essentially no competition allowed and somewhat negates the notion of private corporations being able to censor. The reasons they have been allowed to become such monopolistic behemoths are obvious though (or they better be by now).

More laws, whether anti-trust or otherwise, are the opposite of allowed. I hadn't realized that DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. were not allowed. Are they illegal?

 

[Champ]

Some Trumptard is whining that he isn't being given as much money as he used to be, and then says that YouTube shouldn't have private property rights. Can someone explain why I should care?

Fair enough, he is a Trump supporter, he is whining, and you don't like him.

Curious what your thoughts are on this similar issue, regarding a libertarian that this site is named after: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?514445-YouTube-quot-Economically-Censors-quot-Ron-Paul-Labels-Videos-quot-Not-Suitable-quot-For-All-Advertisers

 

[UWDude]

You think that 'private' companies funded and run by intelligence agencies should have private property rights?

Lol, some rebel you are.. maybe you should turn in your badge.

He is too smart to know about InQtel.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-ci...ts-sponsor-operates-in-the-shadows-1472587352

In Q tel, who put in about 30% of the funds to start up facebook....

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Some Trumptard is whining that he isn't being given as much money as he used to be, and then says that YouTube shouldn't have private property rights. Can someone explain why I should care?

Fair enough, he is a Trump supporter, he is whining, and you don't like him.

Curious what your thoughts are on this similar issue, regarding a libertarian that this site is named after...

Like this one?

My biggest beef is, from a libertarian viewpoint, there is absolutely no difference, meaningful difference, between Hillary and Trump. They both support the military industrial complex, the Federal Reserve, deficits, entitlements, invasion of our privacy. And it’s super nationalistic populism versus socialism. That is so removed from what we need to be doing. We need to remove ourselves from tyranny.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

More laws, whether anti-trust or otherwise, are the opposite of allowed. I hadn't realized that DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. were not allowed. Are they illegal?

AFAIK, DuckDuckGo sits on top of Google, so any censorship or results filtering implemented by Google will also effect DuckDuckGo. DDG is a middle layer to prevent (or hinder) Google from identifying and tracking searches by individual users.

 

[Champ]

Like this one?

That has nothing to do with the thread I linked or the issue I was curious about. Give the user I quoted a chance to respond if you could. Thanks for your input though, it's appreciated sir.

 

[Swordsmyth]

AFAIK, DuckDuckGo sits on top of Google, so any censorship or results filtering implemented by Google will also effect DuckDuckGo. DDG is a middle layer to prevent (or hinder) Google from identifying and tracking searches by individual users.

I was told DDG uses multiple search engines to minimize Google's influence.

 

[devil21]

More laws, whether anti-trust or otherwise, are the opposite of allowed. I hadn't realized that DuckDuckGo, Bing, etc. were not allowed. Are they illegal?

Doesn't fly when media pushes single options and single options only. Can't remember when I saw duckduckgo mentioned on any msm broadcast. Feel free to post your experiences, however.

Feds had no problem nailing MS for anti-trust even when OS/2 and Linux/Unix was an option. Anti-trust isn't triggered solely when there are literally no other options.

 

[TheTexan]

Paul Joseph Watson won't be around much longer.

It makes me sick, how youtube censors Trump supporters all the time.

The media is trying to black us out but you know what, #blackTHISout #Trump2020

 

[DamianTV]

Is RPF hypocritical in regards to free speech? Can I type and call you my ****** or will it be censored?

Also available under your own settings. Its the forum software, developed by VBulletin, not the mods. There is an option to disable the profanity filter. It was put there because youth tend to lead most tech changes so when it came out, their intentions were to make it under 18 friendly, as well as under 12 friendly.

In regards to OP, this is quite serious as Google is one of the new big six that controls a very high percentage of streaming user uploaded video content. They are demonetizing videos that they dont agree with, dont fit their agenda, are too political, arent "left" enough, or what ever their criteria of the day happens to be. Now Im seeing REQUIRED SIGN IN to view "politically offensive" material that they cant just take down.

YOUTUBE REQUIRED SIGN IN BYPASS

A typical youtube URL looks like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IQbF0IK-f4 (some random video)

To bypass the Required Sign In, remove the "watch?v=" and change it to "...tube.com/v/8IQbF0IK-f4" which is the same string at the end, just goes full screen. Get used to using your middle mouse button to open youtube in a new tab in case you have to bypass the Sign In.

DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK

SKIP YOUTUBE ADS IMMEDIATELY

Youtube is also trying something new, allowing you to only skip ads after 5 seconds. VERY simple to skip the ads entirely. Just press the F5 key to Refresh the page. Many times, you can reload the page faster than it takes to wait the 5 seconds and simply skip the ad entirely. Also, this does not always work, but it does most of the time. I may have to refresh a few times to skip video ads. If the ad keeps coming back up again and again, its up to you how many times to try the F5 Key to Refresh trick.

---

Truly the better solution here is to have videos hosted on a non politically motivated video server and vote with your feet.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Fair enough, he is a Trump supporter, he is whining, and you don't like him.

Curious what your thoughts are on this similar issue, regarding a libertarian that this site is named after: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...os-quot-Not-Suitable-quot-For-All-Advertisers

I agree with acptulsa:

He's definitely not suitable for all advertisers. Like Boeing. Lockheed Martin. General Electric...

I don't expect every private company to agree with my values. If you don't like YouTube try vimeo or start your own video hosting site. In spite of what some here seem to think, it is not yet illegal to start a competing website.

 

[The Rebel Poet]

there are literally no other options.

That is literally not where we are now.

 

[Dickens]

Well, he has a cool british accent(i.e. sounds intelligent), he is articulate and he talks a lot about SJW (aka beats a dead horse really well). Those three qualities alone would get you a boat load of American viewers

And why then is ramzpaul hundreds times less popular? Lack of Btitish accent?

 

[devil21]

That is literally not where we are now.

That's what I meant but my sentence structure wasn't clear.

Anti-trust/monopoly isn't only triggered by the time there are literally no other options available. It is triggered prior to that point to prevent the scenario of a sole producer/provider. It is when one corp has cornered a market on a good/service to the point that no competition can realistically compete. That's why I said that MS was hit with anti-trust even when there were Macs, Linux/Unix and IBM OS/2 options. Why isn't Google hit with anti-trust when there is Bing and a few other non-Google based engines?

 

[Champ]

I agree with acptulsa: I don't expect every private company to agree with my values. If you don't like YouTube try vimeo or start your own video hosting site. In spite of what some here seem to think, it is not yet illegal to start a competing website.

Thanks for your response. I guess I will be more specific. The market is already responding to what's been going on and motivating individuals to finding and building alternatives where they will not be censored. That's not really what I was asking your take on.
Other options are available out there and there is no doubt people will migrate away from YouTube.

With that being said I will try to restate; specifically, do you have any comments on the demonetization of Ron Paul videos, which is being discussed at the link I provided above, or are your feelings identical with both Paul Watson and RP videos?

 

[The Rebel Poet]

Thanks for your response. I guess I will be more specific. The market is already responding to what's been going on and motivating individuals to finding and building alternatives where they will not be censored. That's not really what I was asking your take on.
Other options are available out there and there is no doubt people will migrate away from YouTube.

With that being said I will try to restate; specifically, do you have any comments on the demonetization of Ron Paul videos, which is being discussed at the link I provided above, or are your feelings identical with both Paul Watson and RP videos?

I do not wish Ron Paul to be demonetized. But I wouldn't tolerate him calling it censorship either.

 

[Lamp]

Theres also these new youtube alternatives vid.me and Minds.com for posting videos

 

[Lamp]

Newgrounds is also there but most of the stuff there is flash content.

 

[DamianTV]

It will never be the popular thing to say, or person that needs to be afforded the protections of the First Amendment, rather the Unpopular thing to say.

If you guys dont agree with either Paul Joseph Watson, or even Ron Paul on any views, watch carefully to see if their contradictory viewpoints need the Freedom of Speech protections, for if you do not, it will only be a matter of time when not only will they come after you, but no one will be left to come to your aid.