Social Black Pigeon Speaks Banned from Youtube

[Mr Holmes]

This is really nuts. I always thought BPS was tame and never really tried to challenge the rules. But he is a nationalist and is highly critical of the far left.

Mods feel free to merge with a censorship mega thread.

 

[Higus]

 

[abiG]

This isn't a left/right thing, cupcake. You either stand for free political speech or you don't.

 

[Mr Holmes]

This isn't a left/right thing, cupcake. You either stand for free political speech or you don't.

There's no reasoning with authoritative SJW totalitarians.

 

[Higus]

This isn't a left/right thing, cupcake. You either stand for free political speech or you don't.

False dichotomy FTL.

 

[Higus]

There's no reasoning with authoritative SJW totalitarians.

He's the one saying a privately owned platform must host content it doesn't want to at their cost even if it its not under the scope of legal free speech protections, but somehow I'm the authoritarian?

 

[panamaican]

Well, he can swing on over to Peterson's spot once it's up and running.

 

[Fawlty]

Looks like another guy who was all about "bankers" and "race realism." Apparently was also a prolific plagiarist.

 

[Higus]

Looks like another guy who was all about "bankers" and "race realism." Apparently was also a prolific plagiarist.

If people want GOOD content, Shaun has some exhaustive dissections on BP videos

 

[Mr Holmes]

He's the one saying a privately owned platform must host content it doesn't want to at their cost even if it its not under the scope of legal free speech protections, but somehow I'm the authoritarian?

Allowing a few mega corporations control the flow of communications unchallenged sounds a lot better.

 

[all caps]

Guys.. just make sure you are arguing about left vs right, race vs race, tranny vs not, and you have all the free speech you want. You can even be as nasty as you want. Just make sure you play by the "argue in circles about nothing" ruleset and you should be fine.

 

[Gregolian]

He's the one saying a privately owned platform must host content it doesn't want to at their cost even if it its not under the scope of legal free speech protections, but somehow I'm the authoritarian?

My contention though is, at what point does a private entity get so big that they basically are the only player in town?

You can be all Clint Eastwood "get off my lawn" all you want but what if your lawn is a international in size and covers everything? (Just a hypothetical essentially.)

 

[Higus]

My contention though is, at what point does a private entity get so big that they basically are the only player in town?

You can be all Clint Eastwood "get off my lawn" all you want but what if your lawn is a international in size and covers everything? (Just a hypothetical essentially.)

Just because Youtube is the dominant player in the market does not mean that there aren't alternatives content creators can go to. This is a capitalism issue more than a free speech issue.

 

[abiG]

This is a capitalism issue more than a free speech issue.

Idiot.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

This isn't a left/right thing, cupcake. You either stand for free political speech or you don't.

Yeah, they've made it clear that they don't.

 

[Gregolian]

Just because Youtube is the dominant player in the market does not mean that there aren't alternatives content creators can go to. This is a capitalism issue more than a free speech issue.

I can kind of see that but I think I posted it someplace else yesterday that YouTube is a bad example as you have Dailymotion and Vimeo too but say like... Facebook. They're essentially the ONLY player as far as I know. There has to be a point where even as a private corporation you're so dominant and the only player that you can't be so... cavalier? with how you go about your private business.

Case in point the vote by shareholders to oust Zuckerberg... too bad he still owns the dominant shares in stock but that says something to me.... at least a little.


The way a city can claim emminent domain when widening a street comes to mind. Yeah, that lawn is your property but the city needs it more so too bad so sad it's theirs now to do with as they wish.

 

[Higus]

Idiot.

 

[Higus]

I can kind of see that but I think I posted it someplace else yesterday that YouTube is a bad example as you have Dailymotion and Vimeo too but say like... Facebook. They're essentially the ONLY player as far as I know. There has to be a point where even as a private corporation you're so dominant and the only player that you can't be so... cavalier? with how you go about your private business.

Case in point the vote by shareholders to oust Zuckerberg... too bad he still owns the dominant shares in stock but that says something to me.... at least a little.


The way a city can claim emminent domain when widening a street comes to mind. Yeah, that lawn is your property but the city needs it more so too bad so sad it's theirs now to do with as they wish.

I understand your point of view, but it not a good comparison. Facebook and social media are subject to market competition and appeasing shareholders. If there is a space in the market for BP videos, then BP can choose to migrate it or someone else can create a space for it, like Jordan Peterson's experiment. If you don't like the law of a country, its more difficult to try to move to a different country that fits your needs better.

 

[Gregolian]

I understand your point of view, but it not a good comparison. Facebook and social media are subject to market competition and appeasing shareholders. If there is a space in the market for BP videos, then BP can choose to migrate it or someone else can create a space for it, like Jordan Peterson's experiment. If you don't like the law of a country, its more difficult to try to move to a different country that fits your needs better.

Like, I complete get private companies can do as they damn well please.

I think the issue I run into is they de-monitized Crowder (meh...), this Black Pigeon banning (never heard of him) but as far as I know haven't done shit to TYT who outwardly in old videos and shit denies a genocide didn't happen. That's where my brain is like "if you're going to demonitize and do this shit then do it to everyone".

.22 Plinkster is a guy that posts gun stuff on YouTube. Mostly him shooting playing cards in half with a .22 or using a mirror for a 50-100 yard shot and shooting hornets and stuff out of air. HE got demonitized because YouTube claimed he was promoting violence... meanwhile they won't take down all those WorldStar street fight vids. Those probably aren't monetized but which promotes violence more? The dude shooting a playing card in half or the videos of people out right trying to give someone else a concussion in non-sanctioned fights?

 

[White Whale]

Not surprising most people against the SJWs are likely going to be banned or demonetized. YouTube got government funding and tax breaks so it is a free speech issue.