censorship ratcheting up on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bePsGivjZpg

Nobody gives a flying fuck about Jewtube.

jewtube isn't the only video host. no one is forcing these cucks to use jewtube. furthermore no one has an inalienable right to host videos on someone else's servers with no strings attached.

if you really wanted no censorship, write your own jewtube and set up some onion servers in your garage to host it.

Also, this is not an imageboard nor /r/videos. Take your ``cucks'' and your videos to their respective places.

/sjw/

>>3
you just don't get it, man
it's about more than that

>>6
No, it isn't.

>>3
You're right. Youtube has absolutely zero legal obligations to host any content what so ever. But any business with that much power to influence public opinion by extinguishing certain content has a moral obligation to not perform censorship.

It's like you're saying that Facebook has no social impact when they censor pro-republican news. Or when Twitter shadowbanned that reporter on drone killings.^[1]

This kind of censorship, although legal, certainly has a social impact. Word of the original news still gets out, but the exposure the public gets to whatever was censored in the first place is still diminished and now "Youtube censoring" is the news instead of -- well, whatever this guy was gonna say.

Censorship like this is certainly a handy tool for powerful groups to control what media we're not exposed to.

[1]: https://cryptome.org/2015/10/AdventuresinCensorship.pdf

How about when they censor pro-pedo podcasts that broke no rules? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRxJlAvET9KvHfFb__h6Esw

>>9
I see so many people being fucking hypocrites and lobbying for the censorship of their political opponents. Yet they're getting sooooooo fucking outraged when some other group is lobbying for them to get shut down.

Where the fuck are the reasonable people that are opposed to this shit? When the fuck did we replace "I may disagree with you, but don't want censorship of any kind" with this "that'll show those fucking _____" behavior?

I don't know what was shown in that podcast nor can I find out because all material is deleted. Maybe they showed kiddie porn, I don't fucking know. But the occurrence of this hypocrisy still remains.

Freedom of assembly of the non-x86 kind is a basic human right. So why deny your opponents that? Even on the internet? Does that not go counter to your political ideology? Or is censorship okay as long as it's some group you oppose? Or maybe because your investors or advertisers buying ad-space on your site might not like it and you might lose out a little?

Have a little fucking backbone for once. It's time for non-censorable systems to be created.

>>10
Freedom of assembly doesn't really apply to Youtube, the basic human right to freedom of assembly doesn't mean they're obligated to host whatever you want them to, any more than the basic right to self-defense means gun stores are obligated to give firearms away for free. Youtube has an image to maintain, they're in it for the money, they're not going to host content that scares away advertisers. And if Youtube can't censor, then we'd have to extend that expectation to the rest of the internet, and we'd basically have total chaos. In any case though, Youtube isn't TAKING AWAY your right to peaceably assemble, it's the same as a local Wal-Mart manager saying you can't assemble THERE. You're still free to express your free speech elsewhere, in the public domain. Corporations are private entities, and forcing them to facilitate the spreading of your message is a violation of THEIR freedom of speech. It would be the equivalent of Microsoft telling you "You have to tell everyone you meet to buy Microsoft products, you won't get paid for this, and if you refuse we'll take you to court for suppressing our freedom of speech".

It's time for non-censorable systems to be created.

There really isn't any such thing in the real world. This board comes pretty close, due to minimalist rules and lax administration, but that's mostly because progrider is a small, tight-knit community that's largely able to regulate itself. But any POPULAR site has to engage in some form of censorship, or be flooded by spamming idiots, and then they have to decide where to draw the line. Even 4chan, which has a reputation of being a "free speech" site (because they're okay with discussions that would be unacceptable in mainstream society), acts basically Orwellian towards anyone who questions the mods.

This isn't even about censorship, it's about Jews not paying you for shit that isn't profitable to them.

>>9
No one cares about pedophiles. I'm no sure if I agree, but do understand why your shit gets shut down. So sorry pedo-kun, but into the ovens you go.

>>6,8,10
*hits blunt*

what if the world didn't have ownership or rules?

Shutting down whiny irritating narcissists and their channels isn't censorship, it is just common sense.

>>14

what if the world didn't have ownership or rules?

What if you don't bow down to others trying to assert their views? Do these concepts have any power if you ignore them?

>>13
Shalom, Heinrich!

>>10

I don't know what was shown in that podcast nor can I find out because all material is deleted. Maybe they showed kiddie porn, I don't fucking know. But the occurrence of this hypocrisy still remains.

No, it was just a static image of a cartoon juice box, there was no video or image other than that.

>>13
You know, it makes me really sad when you say thing like that Anon.

hate speech is not free speech

Did you know that the concept of "free speech" is from common law? The constitution's guarantees of free (political) speech are on top of the common law fundamental human right to speak your mind and the government's fundamental responsibility to protect that right.

That means that not only can you expect to be free to speak in any publicly-owned space, you also have the right to free speech in private institutions and the government is obligated to protect that right. Your boss can't fire you for wearing a political shirt, and your video cost cannot cut you off for expressing opinions.

I bet most of you assholes didn't even know that. I also bet many turn your noses up at common law because you are too damn stupid to understand that it is the only reason 'western' society is superior to the nightmarish shitholes outside of it, and you want to live "libertarian" like a common savage ape. Tolerating any suppression of speech in private or public life shows a pathetic disregard for civilization. A moronic disregard, in fact.

>>20
*video host

Literally all that common law says about free speech is that you can't be prosecuted for exercising your right to free speech unless you exercise your right to free speech

>>20
Emperor Justinian's codified civil law is superior to English peasant-judge's common law.

>>23
Fail
>>22
No. Learn history.

>>24
Phail. Learn history.

>>11
Of course it freedom of assembly does not apply to Youtube.

But if Youtube bans your videos, Facebook shadowfilters links to your website and google decides to remove you from image search. You have now lost a LOT of traffic and exposure to your website.

Sure you can go use alternatives, but the public exposure you get is now limited. People who will find your material is smaller, etc.

Like >>20 said: Tolerating any suppression of speech in private or public life shows a pathetic disregard for civilization. A moronic disregard, in fact.
And that's why I don't use services with chodes of conduct.

>>11
Here's the weird thing though: How come it's accepted that the internet is a scary, hurtful place yet it mustn't be on Youtube?

How come we're okay with "Fuck off to another website" but not "Fuck off to webpage"?

Do any of you fucking retards know what "DEMONETIZED" even means?

>>26
The right to freedom of speech does not mean you're entitled to any particular amount of public exposure.

>>28
It's a portmanteau of ``demonized'' and ``monetized'', which means it has succumbed to the claws of a scheming kike.

>>29
Of course not.

What I'm saying is: political opponents have a perfect way of silencing your opinion by complaining to your service provider for 'muh racism'. Even the act of regularly renting a building can be taken away from you by people merely complaining about your presence, even if those complaints have no substantial evidence, a business usually budges because they feel that the majority of their customers disagree with providing you a service and as such they're "missing out" on those customers. Gamergate vs the SJWs is practically a war based around this power.

Even if what you're saying goes against the status quo, even if your opinion is absolutely unbelievable and misogynistic^[1], large companies like Intel still fucking budge and pull funding from websites.

THAT is what I have a problem with. The power switch on your server is controlled by your political opponent and it can be shut off any minute, the only thing required is a large volume of emails with complaints in them. -- DDoS by complaint.

[1] as considered by the recipient of the complaint; the service provider