• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [5:15 am CDT] - in 15 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Youtube Deletes David Icke's Channel

beefheart said:
Prager will lose, again. Let him waste his money.

Comedy gold.
Click to expand...

He didn't appeal it. The problem is that Google has billions and is stacked with twentysomething far leftists who hate conservatives as much as Comey, Strzok, etal hated Trump. They donate 90% to the Democrats every year and just to keep the Republicans guessing and not making Google breakup, they give them 10%. Think anyone wants to give up those donations by forcing an anti trust suit?
 
Paradoxical said:
He didn't appeal it. The problem is that Google has billions and is stacked with twentysomething far leftists who hate conservatives as much as Comey, Strzok, etal hated Trump. They donate 90% to the Democrats every year and just to keep the Republicans guessing and not making Google breakup, they give them 10%. Think anyone wants to give up those donations by forcing an anti trust suit?
Click to expand...

You are all for corporations having rights, till you aren't. Free market at work, too bad...
 
Drawdown said:
If they do, they do it voluntarily except to the extent required by law such as no kiddie porn.
Click to expand...

And you know that how? Are you in the censorship business?

Regarding government goals and private industry, do you know what Bigelow Aerospace is?

Private companies are not bound by the same laws as government agencies.
 
Thoreau72 said:
And you know that how? Are you in the censorship business?

Regarding government goals and private industry, do you know what Bigelow Aerospace is?

Private companies are not bound by the same laws as government agencies.
Click to expand...

I believe that was the company that lost all of its government contracts it had VOLUNTARILY undertaken when its whacky founder VOLUNTARILY started going on TV talking about aliens visiting earth.
 
Drawdown said:
I believe that was the company that lost all of its government contracts it had VOLUNTARILY undertaken when its whacky founder VOLUNTARILY started going on TV talking about aliens visiting earth.
Click to expand...

Your beliefs regarding Bigelow Aerospace are misplaced and inaccurate. It is doing things the government cannot do in the open. It can operate in secret while the government is somewhat the subject of oversight. Bigelow is one of many companies that are the glove covering the government hand.
 
Thoreau72 said:
If you check around, you will find that many companies have laid off employees. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Oh you have made it quite clearly
 
nota bene said:
Great article. Thank you so much. What I remember from back in the day is that the Chinese government wanted to prevent Googling for "liberty" and "freedom" and so on and that Google was willing to oblige.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I mean, cost of doing business in an authoritarian country, I guess. I suppose Google could have stuck to their principles and refused to expand their business into one of the biggest markets in the world because of their regional stance on censorship. But under strict capitalist values that would be perfectly fine. If we judge Google for letting their bottom line drive them in problematic directions, we certainly have our work cut out for us, as I think you would be hard pressed to find any fortune 500 company that did not engage in problematic business practices at one point or another.

As a filthy lefty, I'm actually all for this. :) But as someone who is reasonable, I don't think we can embark on that reckoning unless we use the same standard to address the business practices of all corporations...and if they were acting within the laws at the time, all we can really do is shake our finger at them....barely. If you want to see corporate standards created to make corporations act in less problematic ways, that needs to be legislated by government, and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are ready to do that in your country...which means that no country who is a trade partner with America will do it either.

So...while I'm not a fan of censorship, or of supporting governments that oppress their people, until we find a way to change the ways corporations do business we cannot fault them for simply being capitalist, just as we cannot hold different companies to different standards, depending on whether or not we are a fan of the direction they are going, politically or otherwise.
 
OlNate said:
Yeah, I mean, cost of doing business in an authoritarian country, I guess. I suppose Google could have stuck to their principles and refused to expand their business into one of the biggest markets in the world because of their regional stance on censorship. But under strict capitalist values that would be perfectly fine. If we judge Google for letting their bottom line drive them in problematic directions, we certainly have our work cut out for us, as I think you would be hard pressed to find any fortune 500 company that did not engage in problematic business practices at one point or another.

As a filthy lefty, I'm actually all for this. :) But as someone who is reasonable, I don't think we can embark on that reckoning unless we use the same standard to address the business practices of all corporations...and if they were acting within the laws at the time, all we can really do is shake our finger at them....barely. If you want to see corporate standards created to make corporations act in less problematic ways, that needs to be legislated by government, and neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are ready to do that in your country...which means that no country who is a trade partner with America will do it either.

So...while I'm not a fan of censorship, or of supporting governments that oppress their people, until we find a way to change the ways corporations do business we cannot fault them for simply being capitalist, just as we cannot hold different companies to different standards, depending on whether or not we are a fan of the direction they are going, politically or otherwise.
Click to expand...

You make a strong argument, you filthy lefty. ;)
 
No matter who does it, censorship shows that the censor has something to hide, some secret to keep. It also shows that whatever the censor claims to protect, he is unable to answer dissent. The censor is unable to let his argument stand on its merits.

So reminiscent of the Roman Church.
 
Thoreau72 said:
No matter who does it, censorship shows that the censor has something to hide, some secret to keep. It also shows that whatever the censor claims to protect, he is unable to answer dissent. The censor is unable to let his argument stand on its merits.

So reminiscent of the Roman Church.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that one can violate a companies posting policies without ramifications? Are you saying YouTube is hiding something because of censorship? If so, what is it they are hiding?

You do know there is a difference between what a private company does and a government when it comes to "censorship". No, Ickes got kicked off for continuing violating YouTubes policies. But hey, never let a good conspiracy go to waste.:mrgreen:
 
mike2810 said:
Are you saying that one can violate a companies posting policies without ramifications? Are you saying YouTube is hiding something because of censorship? If so, what is it they are hiding?

You do know there is a difference between what a private company does and a government when it comes to "censorship". No, Ickes got kicked off for continuing violating YouTubes policies. But hey, never let a good conspiracy go to waste.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...


You Tube is not hiding something because of censorship, it is hiding something by way of censorship, to put a fine point on it.

If the information they censor is so poor in quality, so untrue, so impossible, why don't they simply point all that out? Do they think the reader is unable to do that?

Censorship shows that the censor is afraid of the content, for whatever reason. It also shows that the censor treats all potential readers as children, unable to think for themselves.

It's true many people are not able to think for themselves, but in the so-called Land of the Free, it is not the responsibility of some corporation to decide that nobody can think for themselves.

Full disclosure: I doubt I have spent 30 minutes listening to David Icke. I know in general terms who he is--one of millions who understands he was deceived on 11 September, and that the governments routinely deceive the people.

You Tube doesn't want his material on their platform because they would rather people believe their government always speaks the truth. They do the government's dirty work with censorship.
 
Thoreau72 said:
You Tube is not hiding something because of censorship, it is hiding something by way of censorship, to put a fine point on it.

If the information they censor is so poor in quality, so untrue, so impossible, why don't they simply point all that out? Do they think the reader is unable to do that?

Censorship shows that the censor is afraid of the content, for whatever reason. It also shows that the censor treats all potential readers as children, unable to think for themselves.

It's true many people are not able to think for themselves, but in the so-called Land of the Free, it is not the responsibility of some corporation to decide that nobody can think for themselves.

Full disclosure: I doubt I have spent 30 minutes listening to David Icke. I know in general terms who he is--one of millions who understands he was deceived on 11 September, and that the governments routinely deceive the people.

You Tube doesn't want his material on their platform because they would rather people believe their government always speaks the truth. They do the government's dirty work with censorship.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the post. It is interesting that you still fail to answer questions asked. Wonder when you were going to play the government truth card. So we now have YouTube as a puppet of the government. Must be the new world order government since youtube is worldwide. :mrgreen:

- Are you saying that one can violate a companies posting policies without ramifications? Yes or No will do.

-
 
mike2810 said:
Thanks for the post. It is interesting that you still fail to answer questions asked. Wonder when you were going to play the government truth card. So we now have YouTube as a puppet of the government. Must be the new world order government since youtube is worldwide. :mrgreen:

- Are you saying that one can violate a companies posting policies without ramifications? Yes or No will do.

-
Click to expand...

One can violate any number of rules, policies or laws as one pleases. Sometimes one is punished, sometimes not.

Clapper, Brennan and others have violated the laws against perjury in Congress, but nothing happened at all. No censure, no prosecution, no enforcement of the law.

What's your point Mike?
 
Thoreau72 said:
One can violate any number of rules, policies or laws as one pleases. Sometimes one is punished, sometimes not.

Clapper, Brennan and others have violated the laws against perjury in Congress, but nothing happened at all. No censure, no prosecution, no enforcement of the law.

What's your point Mike?
Click to expand...

You have no case defending Ickes. Call it what you want, it is not censorship.
 
mike2810 said:
You have no case defending Ickes. Call it what you want, it is not censorship.
Click to expand...

Of course not Mike, and 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked 4 airliners that day. :lol:
 
Thoreau72 said:
Of course not Mike, and 19 arabs with box cutters hijacked 4 airliners that day. :lol:
Click to expand...

Amazing you finally got something correct. :lamo

That aside, you still fail to understand that Ickes broke the rules. So he was removed. Much like if someone breaks the rules on DP. Guess you believe when someone is banned on DP, its is just censorship. Now if the govt. does it, that is a different story.
 
ataraxia said:
It will be interesting to see how this dynamic tension between free-speech and absolute mayhem resulting from every clown being able to say whatever they want gets resolved by our society, in this age of the Internet.
Click to expand...
It's not that hard, start your own site, sell yourself to advertisers yourself to make money.

The internet is there for anyone to make a site, for pretty much anything, including conspiracy theories, regardless of how ridiculous or even dangerous. However, other people, other sites are not required to provide you a platform, to provide their services to support your views.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom