YouTube to Remove Non-Political Gun Content

[MichaelJames1971]

86% of the smartphone market is owned by Google and 14% by Apple - the negligible .000000002% of third parties is nearly useless in the US. Can you reasonably work in your field without a smart phone? I know I can't in either field, so I'm stuck in an oligarchy where my money goes to either one megacorporation or another, even as they operate to restrict my rights by financing and giving support to these causes.

You honestly believe that 3 political activist trillion dollar companies controlling most of communication from hardware to software and 3 political activist trillion dollar companies controlling most major media outlets doesn't represent a threat to your rights? You think this is a move not to appease advertisers (that was dealt with months ago) and not one to influence society to bring them in line as footsoldiers against your rights? Get real.

Never mind that content creators (like myself, and better than myself) have invested a lot of time and effort to make this stuff, with the understanding that we would continue to be able to. YouTube has essentially become like a utility - imagine the phone company cutting off service to your business because they didn't like ornery a**h***s, despite your having done nothing wrong?

By the way, our Attorney General is "investigating" not lawbreaking, but "terms of service" violations at Facebook right now. Let that sink in; the impact here isn't limited to what happens on some website when it comes to TOS violations.



Bullshit. Citizens did that, at the behest of marxists or fascists, sure, but citizens just as much as governments.




Whatever, a**h***. Whatever happened to the negative rep button?

Conservatives don't believe in Anti-Trust and Anti-Monopoly activities - they're viewed as Anti-Capitalist. Let me know when you change your tune on breaking-up the Big Banks because they're "too big to fail".

THEN we'll consider the Cellular Monopolies. I'll wait.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Conservatives don't believe in Anti-Trust and Anti-Monopoly activities - they're viewed as Anti-Capitalist. Let me know when you change your tune on breaking-up the Big Banks because they're "too big to fail".

THEN we'll consider the Cellular Monopolies. I'll wait.

You're thinking of anarcho-capitalists.

Plenty of "conservatives" support anti-trust activities, and in this case it isn't a monopoly but an oligopoly - and "big banks" (JPM, BAC, C, WFC) aren't a monopoly OR an oligopoly as collectively they control less than 39% of the market. And no, not all or even most conservatives believed in "too big to fail" - unless you're suggesting that Clinton, Bush and Obama didn't all play in Bernankes little kiddie pool? Are you confusing "monopolistic competition" with a "monopoly"? I could see that being an easy mistake for someone of your mental abilities.

Honestly, this thread has really brought the marxists out of the woodwork.

Go back to digging ditches, or was it building unlawful uzi clones (per the 98 ban, not the 16 adjustment) and claiming they were legal while encouraging members to do the same?

 

[drgrant]

Conservatives don't believe in Anti-Trust and Anti-Monopoly activities - they're viewed as Anti-Capitalist. Let me know when you change your tune on breaking-up the Big Banks because they're "too big to fail".

THEN we'll consider the Cellular Monopolies. I'll wait.

As usual, you're off in left field somewhere....





-Mike

 

[drgrant]

People on this thread are raving about this crackdown being some political coup or government censorship program, which is absurd. Social media sites are first and foremost businesses. A cabal of liberals headed by George Soros didn't pull the plug, some PR manager looking at a spreadsheet of ad revenues did.

If this was simply a business thing, then this would have happened a long time ago. That said I can agree with you in that its likely not some kind of huge soros conspiracy, but you're dreaming if you think they haven't been pressured by moonbats (or have moonbats internally) that have desired this policy change. Gun videos have been on youtube for like a decade... but yet only somehow, NOW it is a problem? lol. Anyone who thinks that there isn't some political element to it is being naive at best.

-Mike

 

[Frizzle Fry]

If this was simply a business thing, then this would have happened a long time ago. That said I can agree with you in that its likely not a conspiracy, but you're dreaming if you think they haven't been pressured by moonbats (or have moonbats internally) that have desired this policy change. Gun videos have been on youtube for like a decade... but yet only somehow, NOW it is a problem? lol. Anyone who thinks that there isn't some political element to it is being naive at best.

-Mike

Exactly. Months ago YouTube "demonetized" many types of firearm videos; they weren't allowed to be used for advertising, so advertisers had no complaint. Many videos entered "limited state" where they didn't show up in suggestions or even broad searches - you had to be linked or seek them out with more specific search terms. So why this move? Public outcry? How many stories did you ever hear about this before it happened? C'mon.

"Soros Didn't Pull The Plug"

And yet the SPLC, ADL, ET, and their ilk have become "Truster Flaggers" (i.e. the official wrongthink content removal police) on Youtube, Twitter and Facebook.

 

[MichaelJames1971]

You're thinking of anarcho-capitalists, you autistic stain.

Plenty of "conservatives" support anti-trust activities, and in this case it isn't a monopoly but an oligopoly - and "big banks" (JPM, BAC, C, WFC) aren't a monopoly OR an oligopoly as collectively they control less than 39% of the market. And no, not all or even most conservatives believed in "too big to fail" - unless you're suggesting that Clinton, Bush and Obama didn't all play in Bernankes little kiddie pool? Are you confusing "monopolistic competition" with a "monopoly"? I could see that being an easy mistake for someone of your mental abilities.

Honestly, this thread has really brought the marxists out of the woodwork.

Go back to digging ditches, or was it building unlawful uzi clones (per the 98 ban, not the 16 adjustment) and claiming they were legal while encouraging members to do the same?

Well, then keep whining because you can't play in someone else's sandbox then. I couldn't care less....still, Google/YouTube and Apple don't owe you anything. Get a REAL job that doesn't involve your movie camera and your momma's basement.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

Well, then keep whining because you can't play in someone else's sandbox then. I couldn't care less....still, Google/YouTube and Apple don't owe you anything. Get a REAL job that doesn't involve your movie camera and your momma's basement.

So you're in favor of breaking up the big banks (monopolistic) but don't care about telephones (2-party oligopoly)? Some set of values you've got there; sorry your girl didn't win, but my congratulations on being programmed properly - you definitely know all the party lines!

I made a few Youtube videos about gunsmithing as a hobby and public service. A lot of gunsmiths and amateurs alike do. It was not monetized even from the get-go.

I have several real jobs; I work at a shop and carry state licenses as a firearm vendor, instructor, and gunsmith - I'm also a federal contractor. I even sit on the board of the business department of a local college, which informs my understanding of these issues to a greater degree than your own (some sort of parrot of Dem talking points who doesn't understand the most basic of economics terminology as taught in early high school).

 

[milktree]

Well, then keep whining because you can't play in someone else's sandbox then. I couldn't care less....still, Google/YouTube and Apple don't owe you anything. Get a REAL job that doesn't involve your movie camera and your momma's basement.

Who shit in your oatmeal? "real job"? WTF does that mean? One that breaks your body and pays poorly? Do you have a list of "real jobs"?

 

[MichaelJames1971]

So you're in favor of breaking up the big banks (monopolistic) but don't care about telephones (2-party oligopoly)? Some set of values you've got there; sorry your girl didn't win, but my congratulations on being programmed properly - you definitely know all the party lines!

I made a few Youtube videos about gunsmithing as a hobby and public service. A lot of gunsmiths and amateurs alike do. It was not monetized even from the get-go.

I have several real jobs; I work at a shop and carry state licenses as a firearm vendor, instructor, and gunsmith - I'm also a federal contractor. I even sit on the board of the business department of a local college, which informs my understanding of these issues to a greater degree than your own (some sort of parrot of Dem talking points who doesn't understand the most basic of economics terminology as taught in early high school).

The Telephones didn't NEED my tax-dollars to stay solvent a few years ago.....thanks to Bush's BLANK CHECK, they're happily running their businesses like Casinos again knowing that the next time they invest in some boondoggle they can count on your ignorance to find the next taxpayer-funded bailout.

Either way, I haven't heard of Conservatives championing Government intrusion into the affairs of private business. Not part of the NEOCON playbook. Period. If YouTube wants to ban ALL gun-related videos, and ALL Conservative video content - guess what - THEY CAN. Nobody cares how you feel about it, and there's nothing you can DO about it, either. Oh, and another thing - there's nothing "Marxist" about it. This has 'lots' to do with profit, and from-whom they want to obtain profit from. You have ZERO clue what you're talking about.

 

[JJ4]

Normally I fall along the lines of "private company, they can do what they want".

But Youtube has a de-facto monopoly on the video sharing community. Yeah there are other sites out there, but they have nowhere near the reach and market share of Youtube. Their suggestion engine keeps people engaged and the general public is much more likely to browse upon something on Youtube than they are to follow a sketchy link to a website they've never heard of. If youtube intends to act this way, I think it's time we treat them either as a monopoly or as a public utility.


Market share in 2016: Notice that the only real competitors (Netflix and Hulu) do not serve user-created content.

Source: U.S. market share of multimedia video sites 2016 | Statistic

 

[Matt-CZ]

If this was simply a business thing, then this would have happened a long time ago. That said I can agree with you in that its likely not some kind of huge soros conspiracy, but you're dreaming if you think they haven't been pressured by moonbats (or have moonbats internally) that have desired this policy change. Gun videos have been on youtube for like a decade... but yet only somehow, NOW it is a problem? lol. Anyone who thinks that there isn't some political element to it is being naive at best.

-Mike

Fair enough. But the line between political and social is getting pretty blurry these days. It's a very divided nation and people seem to take politics a lot more personally than they used to.

 

[Boris]

Well, then keep whining because you can't play in someone else's sandbox then. I couldn't care less....still, Google/YouTube and Apple don't owe you anything. Get a REAL job that doesn't involve your movie camera and your momma's basement.

not if you pay taxes
View: https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/how-the-cia-made-google-e836451a959e

 

[10thSFFD]

Few more months and we will all end up in the underground. Private, public, it ain't matter. I have told you on this forum many times that liberals, as stupid as they are, control everything, including online communications. They control it because we do not believe it and because we do not care to do anything about it. If you are still playing bipartisanship games you better change your gender to a skateboard because nothing good will come from that fake community hug either.

We have no videos, buh, buh.....Wait when they will start publishing your names, your guns and everything else they have already. Who will be the idiot then?

 

[Frizzle Fry]

The Telephones didn't NEED my tax-dollars to stay solvent a few years ago.....thanks to Bush's BLANK CHECK, they're happily running their businesses like Casinos again knowing that the next time they invest in some boondoggle they can count on your ignorance to find the next taxpayer-funded bailout.

Either way, I haven't heard of Conservatives championing Government intrusion into the affairs of private business. Not part of the NEOCON playbook. Period. If YouTube wants to ban ALL gun-related videos, and ALL Conservative video content - guess what - THEY CAN. Nobody cares how you feel about it, and there's nothing you can DO about it, either. Oh, and another thing - there's nothing "Marxist" about it. This has 'lots' to do with profit, and from-whom they want to obtain profit from. You have ZERO clue what you're talking about.

So let's conflate "conservatives" with "neocons" (a subset of conservatives, as indicated by the name) as well as "an-caps" now?

Also, the discussion of phones was around the operating system oligopoly, and hardware - when did your tax dollars go to bail out Google (86% of the smartphone market) or Apple (16% of the smartphone market)? Or any of the major US hardware companies for that matter? It didn't happen - sorry. The EESA didn't touch these companies, period. Banks, sure. Carriers, sure. Not Apple or Google.

But "blank checks!" and "Bush did it!" - right.

But I don't know what I'm talking about.

I say "marxist" because you're just repeating marxist/liberal talking points and rhetoric, with no basis in fact, and have made it abundantly clear through your own statements that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry about that. Not everyone understands the subject, but if you want to, educate yourself and draw your own conclusions - at least then you'll understand the terminology and the facts. You might reach the same conclusion, fine, but at least you'll know what you're saying. Parroting DNC bullet points isn't an argument, especially if they're not relevant to the conversation. It's just white noise.

 

[Matt-CZ]

So let's conflate "conservatives" with "neocons" (a subset of conservatives, as indicated by the name) as well as "an-caps" now?

Also, the discussion of phones was around the operating system oligopoly, and hardware - when did your tax dollars go to bail out Google (86% of the smartphone market) or Apple (16% of the smartphone market)? Or any of the major US hardware companies for that matter? It didn't happen - sorry. The EESA didn't touch these companies, period. Banks, sure. Carriers, sure. Not Apple or Google.

But "blank checks!" and "Bush did it!" - right.

But I don't know what I'm talking about.

I say "marxist" because you're just repeating marxist/liberal talking points and rhetoric, with no basis in fact, and have made it abundantly clear through your own statements that you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm sorry about that. Not everyone understands the subject, but if you want to, educate yourself and draw your own conclusions - at least then you'll understand the terminology and the facts. You might reach the same conclusion, fine, but at least you'll know what you're saying. Parroting DNC bullet points isn't an argument, especially if they're not relevant to the conversation. It's just white noise.

I suppose the irony of conflating liberals with marxists is lost on you when you are complaining about conflating conservatives with ancaps.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

I suppose the irony of conflating liberals with marxists is lost on you when you are complaining about conflating conservatives with ancaps.

I'm not conflating the two; I'm saying there's a shared talking point or talking points on specific subject matters... They happen to be the ones this guy is repeating, despite being irrelevant to the conversation.

 

[Dadstoys]

Someone will fill the void eventually.
They always do.
For those old enough, AOL was basicly the God of the internet, nothing was ever going to surpass it or replace it.
Times change.

 

[T-Unit]

If this was simply a business thing, then this would have happened a long time ago. That said I can agree with you in that its likely not some kind of huge soros conspiracy, but you're dreaming if you think they haven't been pressured by moonbats (or have moonbats internally) that have desired this policy change. Gun videos have been on youtube for like a decade... but yet only somehow, NOW it is a problem? lol. Anyone who thinks that there isn't some political element to it is being naive at best.

-Mike

It's clearly a political move, but it's a political move that makes no sense business wise. Youtube is telling people to take their gun videos elsewhere and it's not like all the gun channels on Youtube make up a huge chunk of traffic, but they aren't an insignificant amount either.

Advertisers weren't demanding that Youtube remove gun content, if anything, Everytown was paying to have their ads played on gun channels. Now that the gun channels aren't going to be on youtube much longer, what's the point of Everytown paying Youtube anymore?

All this move does is it exposes Youtube as liars when it comes to free speech and creativity. What's going to happen when movie studios demand that movie reviews that spoil the plot of a movie be removed? Or video game companies that demand recordings of video games be taken down so it doesn't expose how broken new video games are the first few days and weeks they're released?

10+ years ago the future of Youtube was the entertainment and information you want On Demand, but today the future of Youtube is censorship and content accepted by the website to decrease issues with advertisers so the ad money keeps coming. Eventually Youtube is going to look exactly like cable television does; language will be censored, violence censored, content censored... we've moved into the censorship phase of Youtube.

Cable television gets away with it because people pay for their subscription to cable, youtube is free. When another website comes along that has a different revenue method, maybe Bitcoin mining or some other nonsense, maybe in the future a new type of data storage and transfer technology will be developed that would allow video hosting websites to hold as many videos as Youtube does currently, but for pennies per zettabyte... there won't be a reason to deal with Youtube anymore because content creators will be able to make their own youtube from their basement and the cost of advertising will drop because the costs of data storage and delivery will drop.

But in 2018? Youtube just shot itself in the foot. All the other channels on youtube are going to understand that if youtube doesn't like what they say, they'll regulate them off the site.

 

[milktree]

Normally I fall along the lines of "private company, they can do what they want".

But Youtube has a de-facto monopoly on the video sharing community. Yeah there are other sites out there, but they have nowhere near the reach and market share of Youtube. Their suggestion engine keeps people engaged and the general public is much more likely to browse upon something on Youtube than they are to follow a sketchy link to a website they've never heard of. If youtube intends to act this way, I think it's time we treat them either as a monopoly or as a public utility.


Market share in 2016: Notice that the only real competitors (Netflix and Hulu) do not serve user-created content.
View attachment 226852
Source: U.S. market share of multimedia video sites 2016 | Statistic

I don't see Amazon on there, and the numbers don't add up to 100%.

It's also "share of visits", not "share of content", does that mean that one 2 hour movie on NetFlix counts as "1" visit, but 120 minutes of youtube cat videos counts as "60" visits?

The lack of porn sites makes me distrust the data.

 

[peterk123]

Somebody needs to start an USTube.com or We Tube.. Ustube or WeTube would represent everybody, not just you, or whoever youtube decides is you. It would truly be a wide open platform. No censoring, ever.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

I'm amazed that "someone" could troll/****post in a thread, get told off, then proceed to go through every post I've made in the last year one by one and report a few of them for trolling... "someone" really has a lot of time on their hands, for a systems engineer, and maybe a little crush on me? Smoochie smoochie. Irony of ironies when you've got moderators PMing you in agreement and a moderator PMing you to say lay off about threads with the same "someone" from half a year ago.

Either way, sorry for the off topic posts. Has anyone signed up for any alt-tech options as a response? I know PornHub looks promising but unless they find a working name and layout I don't think it's going to work as a long term solution. Here's a list of free speech oriented or less restrictive alt-tech sites that I've run across, for video and otherwise:

Minds-------------(Facebook-y)
Gab---------------(Twitter-y)
Voat--------------(Reddit-y)
Steemit-----------(Facebook-y)
D.Tube-----------(Youtube-y)
Bitchute----------(Youtube-y)
Pewtube---------(Youtubey)
VidME------------(DEAD!)
Vimeo------------(Dying?)

The problem for mobile use at this time seems to be that the mobile OS providers (Google/Apple, AKA 99.9999999% of the smartphone market) are kicking apps out of their sanctioned "stores" for not enforcing so-called hate speech rules, or not having an NSFW content policing system. As such, most aren't available on Apple at all, and on Google you need to disable settings to download them independently of the "play store" if you can get them at all. This is politically motivated; they're using the same excuse with messaging apps "but it could contain hate speech or NSFW content" as if text messaging couldn't.

 

[Prepper]

I installed gab last night on Android. It was easy enough, just downloaded it through the browser in the phone, then open with file manager. Done. But this is still enough to make most people not bother.

If Google won't allow gab, would they allow a gab installer app? My proposed app would not be gab. But you press a button and it downloads and install the real gab.

After I signed up, and I started browsing around, I noticed posts from that POS Chris Cantwell. You know what I did?? I ignored him and carried on about my business!! It worked! Am I the first to discover this??

 

[namedpipes]

I'm amazed that "someone" could troll/****post in a thread, get told off, then proceed to go through every post I've made in the last year one by one and report a few of them for trolling... "someone" really has a lot of time on their hands, for a systems engineer, and maybe a little crush on me? Smoochie smoochie. Irony of ironies when you've got moderators PMing you in agreement and a moderator PMing you to say lay off about threads with the same "someone" from half a year ago.
...

That doesn't surprise me at ALL. It does sound like a passive aggressive little t**t, though, which is consistent with liberal trolls.

 

[wiryone1]

I think the heart of the matter or the argument if you will lies in how the big tech companies present the service they offer. They continue to maintain that they accommodate and promote freedom of speech and ideas. They say they support the 1st amendment. If that is the case, why are they censoring content they do not like? If companies like Google never claimed to offer a place accommodating all ideas, thoughts and lawful, legitimate information, then how can they kick out stuff they don't like? If they had created and maintained services that were specifically for certain types of content and ideas, then they do in fact have the right to remove content that does not agree with that goal. You cannot pretend to support the 1A and then do otherwise. If they changed and said we are now going to only support whatever group, then they could legitimately remove any other content.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

I installed gab last night on Android. It was easy enough, just downloaded it through the browser in the phone, then open with file manager. Done. But this is still enough to make most people not bother.

If Google won't allow gab, would they allow a gab installer app? My proposed app would not be gab. But you press a button and it downloads and install the real gab.

After I signed up, and I started browsing around, I noticed posts from that POS Chris Cantwell. You know what I did?? I ignored him and carried on about my business!! It worked! Am I the first to discover this??

I've been on Gab for over a year. There are a lot of people I "mute" (like blocking; you don't see what they say). Cantwell and Anglin (as well as their followers) are on that list. For those who don't know, Gab rules echo U.S. laws on speech - no threat of violence, no doxxing of users, no spam/malware/fake links, no impersonating others - however if you don't like the lawful free speech you're seeing, you simply mute the user, or mute a list of words, and you'll never see posts by that user or containing those words.

There are no paid advertisements, however you may advertise your business via your account, or create a business account with paid content which costs users $1/mo to access in addition to free content. The site is free to use, however you may purchase a Pro account for a few dollars a month which have more features.

Gab was on the Google store, was banned due to pornography issues, and when those were addressed (there's now an optional NSFW filter), was denied re-entry due to lack of "hate speech" moderating. The current system of installing Gab is "OK" however like you say it would be much easier with some sort of installer app - how Google would respond remains a question.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I think the heart of the matter or the argument if you will lies in how the big tech companies present the service they offer. They continue to maintain that they accommodate and promote freedom of speech and ideas. They say they support the 1st amendment. If that is the case, why are they censoring content they do not like? If companies like Google never claimed to offer a place accommodating all ideas, thoughts and lawful, legitimate information, then how can they kick out stuff they don't like? If they had created and maintained services that were specifically for certain types of content and ideas, then they do in fact have the right to remove content that does not agree with that goal. You cannot pretend to support the 1A and then do otherwise. If they changed and said we are now going to only support whatever group, then they could legitimately remove any other content.

Vimeo exists in part because Youtube was never really about free speech. Their big driver was copyright issues, but the pitch from the beginning has been "if you're an artist and care about what you put up, go to Vimeo." The best we ever was going to get was "don't be evil," which hinges on GOOG's definition of "evil."

 

[rep308]

I've said before, you should try the Brave browser. It is set up by default with much stronger privacy protections than Chrome, built in ad blocking, and a mechanism to actually pay sites that you browse directly instead of making them depend on ad revenue.

If people switched to it, then a company like Facebook would be forced to stop spamming people with ads, because it would be economically feasible for a competitor to be built that did not use ads and selling of your personal information as their business model.

I've been using Brave for about a year and it's ready for Prime Time. Just remember to adjust your shield setting (Brave speak, drop your shields) for sites you support like this one. The best damn part of Brave is that it is small enough that you can block all the damn ads on sites that don't normally allow plugin like AdBlock Plus. Use Brave and be a freeloader, I'm always in Brave Private mode and yes Brave is smoking fast, faster than Chrome. To all of you who log into Google and use Chrome you get what you deserve.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

I've been using Brave for about a year and it's ready for Prime Time. Just remember to adjust your shield setting (Brave speak, drop your shields) for sites you support like this one. The best damn part of Brave is that it is small enough that you can block all the damn ads on sites that don't normally allow plugin like AdBlock Plus. Use Brave and be a freeloader, I'm always in Brave Private mode and yes Brave is smoking fast, faster than Chrome. To all of you who log into Google and use Chrome you get what you deserve.

I've heard a bit about Brave. Is it user friendly?

 

[Prepper]

I've been on Gab for over a year. There are a lot of people I "mute" (like blocking; you don't see what they say). Cantwell and Anglin (as well as their followers) are on that list. For those who don't know, Gab rules echo U.S. laws on speech - no threat of violence, no doxxing of users, no spam/malware/fake links, no impersonating others - however if you don't like the lawful free speech you're seeing, you simply mute the user, or mute a list of words, and you'll never see posts by that user or containing those words.

There are no paid advertisements, however you may advertise your business via your account, or create a business account with paid content which costs users $1/mo to access in addition to free content. The site is free to use, however you may purchase a Pro account for a few dollars a month which have more features.

Gab was on the Google store, was banned due to pornography issues, and when those were addressed (there's now an optional NSFW filter), was denied re-entry due to lack of "hate speech" moderating. The current system of installing Gab is "OK" however like you say it would be much easier with some sort of installer app - how Google would respond remains a question.

I do find it ironic that Google would take a stance against the "hate speech" on Gab. Meanwhile have they ever looked at comment threads on their YouTube videos that they host?? Holy crap. You can post an innocuous video on how to service your lawn mower, then get filled up with utterly insane insulting comments about Hitler and such.

 

[Prepper]

I've heard a bit about Brave. Is it user friendly?

Yes. It is Chrome, but modified to be more private and add some more features like ad blocking and tipping web sites with cryptocurrency and such.