patrick.net

https://www.real.video/5805387945001

I liked this one

bob2356 says

ROFLOL.

History will judge you accordingly.

It's interesting that they only go after the centrist-ish type people.

ISIS, AQ, Jihadis, as well as Neonazis and actual White Supremacist accounts are mostly left alone.

That's because they use the extremes to ban the dissenting center. Use Nazis as an excuse to ban SJW or Corporate Legacy Media Critics, but leave the actual Nazis alone.

@Curious2

Here's one that fell through the cracks: Robert Spencer of Jihadwatch's Patreon was disabled.

I've been axed from Patreon, without explanation, warning or notice -- no doubt as part of the ongoing efforts of the Left to deny all platforms to those who reject its agenda. To those who supported me there, thank you, and I'm sorry we couldn't follow through on plans. pic.twitter.com/rJ8kaUNqYI— Robert Spencer (@jihadwatchRS) August 14, 2018

But not at the doing of Patreon, but of MASTERCARD.

Robert Spencer is the author of TWO NYT Bestsellers.

One is the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades:
https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Islam-Crusades/dp/0895260131

And the "Truth about Mohammed". "Complete Infidels Guide to Free Speech", etc.
https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Infidels-Speech-Enemies-Guides/dp/1621576272

Please don't order his books and make Censorious SJWs and their Corporate allies mad.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

It's interesting that they only go after the centrist-ish type people.

It's a coordinated silencing of Trump supporters and/or anti-leftists. We need an internet bill of rights asap

CBOEtrader says

History will judge you accordingly.

In just a few years, the Russia Collusion and Trump is the WORST! people are going to be regarded as the PMRC and Heavy Metal Moral Panickers.

Most will deny they were ever Russian Collusion Conspiracy Theorists. CNN will vehemently deny.

CBOEtrader says

We need an internet bill of rights asap

Yes, I'm sure that bill of rights will specifically dictate what content YouTube is allowed to moderate.

Please, how many times does it need to be repeated: Google/YouTube can remove whatever the hell they want from their websites. They are a American corporation, not a government agency, not an ISP. It's their sandbox, you're just being given (temporary) permission to play in it. You're free to go post your videos elsewhere.

CBOEtrader says

It's a coordinated silencing of Trump supporters and/or anti-leftists. We need an internet bill of rights asap

Next will be pushing hosts to ban infowars. "It's a Private COMPANY!", the former Net Neutrality Activists will scream.

Quigley says

Why do people have to use YouTube? Does YouTube host porn?

.

I have never heard of any censorship on PornHub. In terms of content volume and usage, who knows which site has more viewing time.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

It's interesting that they only go after the centrist-ish type people

So now a guy that caused people to go after and harass the parents of young children that were murdered, based on a ridiculous conspiracy theory is a centrist ?

"These people want to eat babies,...I've got them on video

Centrist ?

Evan F. says

Yes, I'm sure that bill of rights will specifically dictate what content YouTube is allowed to moderate.

An internet bill of rights should dictate that a platforms terms of service should be fairly implemented. If you dont want political wrongthink, say the exact things you dont want. Instead, YouTube/Facebook/Twitter allow businesses to spend time/money/effort building a following only to have their business efforts burned down by selectively applying terms of service violations.

An IBOR would also re-emphasize that tech companies cant collude to oppress one person or group of people, like they are doing w conservative/libertarian/anti-left voices.

If a judge has declared that Trump cant block trolls because it is public, how can twitter and by extension the other oligopoly platforms block public from using the platform? https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-24/trump-twitter-blocking-ruling-is-bad-for-free-speech

marcus says

So now a guy that caused

No one "causes" others to do anything.

Regardless AJ is a clown who also happens to be a constitutionalist libertarian. He isnt a KKK member, a nazi, a socialist or anything extreme in his political affiliation. AJ doesnt even curse. Other than being a conspiracists against the establishment who takes great liberty in his fantasies, AJ's content is completely harmless.

There is nothing hateful or identifiably noteworthy against Twitter/Youtube/FB terms of service. He is simply anti-left (also anti-right but that's irrelevant to the censors).

CBOEtrader says

An internet bill of rights should dictate that a platforms terms of service should be fairly implemented

Youtube isn't the internet. Youtube is a private company that uses the internet. It's not a hard concept. Are you really calling for government to dictate business practices for private companies? Seriously? . So a free market is a concept that only matters when you like the results?

CBOEtrader says

Regardless AJ is a clown who also happens to be a constitutionalist libertarian

Then he should be applauding youtube for exercising their right to practice business free of government constraint. It would seem that he is only a libertarian when convenient. If he doesn't like youtube practices he is free to deal with someone else or pursue his perceived grievance in court.

CBOEtrader says

If a judge has declared that Trump cant block trolls because it is public, how can twitter and by extension the other oligopoly platforms block public from using the platform?

Duh. Trump is a public figure, on the public payroll, accountable to the public despite bloombergs inane blathering that totally ignores this.

RafiMaas says

Just make sure to place the blame on those who rolled net neutrality back. You will do that, right?

Net Neutrality was a Google/Facebook/Big Tech plan to prevent ISPs from charging them or their users for all the bandwidth their sites sucked up.

Net Neutrality had nothing to do with TOS of Big Tech or Social Media Giants, at all.

If Net Neutrality had made sure WordPress, Youtube, Facebook, etc. could only ban users in very narrow circumstances, I would have approved it.

"Winnepesaukee Electric And Water is a PRIVATE Company. Who cares if they turned the lights and water of for Mr.. Joe Pildusky. He called Obama 'Obozo' in a letter to the Winnepesaukee Reporter last month. WE&W doesn't endorse hate speech against the President!"

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

"Winnepesaukee Electric And Water is a PRIVATE Company. Who cares if they turned the lights and water of for Mr.. Joe Pildusky. He called Obama 'Obozo' in a letter to the Winnepesaukee Reporter last month. WE&W doesn't endorse hate speech against the President!"

Lol, yes, that's exactly the problem with the "private company" argument.

Patrick says

Lol, yes, that's exactly the problem with the "private company" argument.

Yep, and that's why utilities are forbidden from doing so.

A handful of Big Tech Giants monopolize - I forget if it's 80% or 90% - Traffic on the Internet.

Jones was the target of Brigading by Social Justice, with the active encouragement of Legacy Media (to whom, with his low overhead yet competitive internet presence is a threat - more subscribers than the NYT and competitive with MNBC and even the international CNN brand did not quite double his Youtube subscriber base). He got booted Facebook, Youtube, and a bunch of other companies, up to and including Disqus (for fuck's sake) that banned it's comment engine from his site, in what appeared to be a combined effort.

What happens if/when a slew of hosting companies decide to jump on the bandwagon and stop hosting his site?

Specifics were lacking on how Jones broke the TOS, nor why his Sandy Hook remarks should be penalized now, having been up and accessible from years ago when they were first made.

Patrick says

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

"Winnepesaukee Electric And Water is a PRIVATE Company. Who cares if they turned the lights and water of for Mr.. Joe Pildusky. He called Obama 'Obozo' in a letter to the Winnepesaukee Reporter last month. WE&W doesn't endorse hate speech against the President!"

Lol, yes, that's exactly the problem with the "private company" argument.

Dumb argument. Youtube can't turn off your internet like the water company can turn off your water. The content is still available, inforwars isn't shut down. It's just not on youtube. It would be like some kid delivering your water.from the town well for you. If you piss him off and he stops delivering the water is still there, you just have to get off your ass and go get it. ISP's are like water companies. content providers aren't.

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

What happens if/when a slew of hosting companies decide to jump on the bandwagon and stop hosting his site?

Then he can host himself. Jones is a bright boy. If he can figure out sandy hook was a hoax then he can figure out how to host his site.

bob2356 says

Youtube can't turn off your internet like the water company can turn off your water.

Nope. Youtube is the vast, vast vast majority of online video. The nearest competitor isn't even close. It's like saying if it's legal to have well water, you can't complain about being cut off by the Water Company.

bob2356 says

ISP's are like water companies. content providers aren't.

Nope, since you can get 4G internet and many places DO have alternative ISP providers.

bob2356 says

Then he can host himself. Jones is a bright boy. If he can figure out sandy hook was a hoax then he can figure out how to host his site.

Why all of a sudden, after years of hosting Jones' videos and opinions, did it become a big deal. We still don't know the reasons why, that was just one reason given.

Freedom of Speech is a societal value. Hate Speech, mostly in the eye of the beholder, is protected by law and tradition and reaffirmed yet again in a unanimous SCOTUS decision just weeks ago. Stating that Sandy Hook was being used by the Government to push for Gun Control is political speech, not hate speech, anyway.

Time to make Big Tech respect American values.

RafiMaas says

Nothing like more government regulation, am I right?

Oh, that's just the beginning.

I like my Academic Freedom act, that prohibits any Academic Institution that receives $1 in any Federal Funds from penalizing Free Speech protected under the 1st Amendment.

Next time a Faculty Member or Student wants to put on Blackface at a Halloween Party on private property, or say "The Resident Advisor is a tightass bigot." not a damn thing the Admin can do about it. In fact they'll be fined or cut off from Government dough if they do.

RafiMaas says

Actually the water company is a utility so this really isn't a good analogy.

It is, because you have the alternative of well water, you could have gotten water somewhere else.

And since there is 4G internet, from the cell companies, no need to regulate Comcast, amirite?

I'm very amused at Liberals all of a sudden defending Corporate Power.

RafiMaas says

No, it is not. How can a public company be compared to a utility? Especially in regards to being denied service.

I just said, if it's legal for you to have a well, then you have an alternative.

"Well, just because you can have a well, the utility company shouldn't bar you from service because of your views."

Well, Youtube is easily 90% of non-porn video traffic. Same Shit.

RafiMaas says

Cable, another quasi utility. They usually hold a monopoly in a region as far as I know.

Ever use your 3G/4G network? Who says you have a right to ethernet? You can use T-Mobile to access the internet instead of Comcast.

RafiMaas says

I thought the Trump supporters we're about less regulation not more? But what you are calling for is more regulation.

I'm an American nationalist, not a "True Conservative"(tm).

By the way, lovely hypocrisy today.

CNN & Others are whinging about the Free Press days after celebrating loudly that Infowars was kicked off most major platforms.

RafiMaas says

TwoScoopsOfWompWomp says

RafiMaas says

I thought the Trump supporters we're about less regulation not more? But what you are calling for is more regulation.

I'm an American nationalist, not a "True Conservative"(tm).

Ok so what kind of regulatios are you calling for on internet content providers? Seems like a slippery slope if you ask me.

The issue is that these huge social media platforms are mostly exempt from libel/slander laws which is a huge boon to them. In turn they may not simply behave like businesses to which the full extent of the law applies and freely censor whoemever they want. They could be viewed as de facto public platforms, hence the exemption from libel/slander. I'm also against more regulation, but it seems there could be grounds for lawsuits even without any new regulations.