The Great Censoring is beginning - Youtube to block Firearms Content

[OrangeTuono]

The Great Censoring/Purge is beginning... Read it for yourself, and as we know the Twinks in San Fran censor with a broad had when it involved their fragile ideologies...

Examples
Here are some examples of content that isn’t allowed on YouTube.

• Links in the title or description of your video to sites where firearms or the accessories noted above are sold. You can link to sites that discuss or review the items as long as those sites don’t sell or give away those items directly.
• Displaying a firearm with the intention to sell that firearm via private sale. This includes giving the seller’s phone number, email address, or other contact information.
• Showing users step-by-step instructions on how to finish a lower receiver in order to complete fabrication of a firearm.
• Showing users how to make a silencer out of a flashlight, oil can, solvent catcher or other parts.
• Showing users how to install a bump stock, or install a comparable accessory built to enable simulated automatic fire.
• Live streams that feature someone holding or handling a firearm, regardless of whether or not they are firing it. Note: this does not include firearms in video games.
• Live streams that feature someone transporting firearms from place to place, such as by carrying them or traveling with them by car, truck, or other vehicle. Note: this does not include firearms in video games

Please remember these are just some examples, and don't post content if you think it might violate this policy.

Firearms policy - YouTube Help

Starting June 18, 2024, certain content showing how to remove safety devices will be prohibited. Content showing the use of homemade firearms, automatic firearms, and certain firearm accessori

support.google.com

 

[my_2cents]

The Great Censoring/Purge is beginning...

So you now oppose or take issue with a private social media company setting forth policies of what it will and will not allow on its own platform?

Is anyone forcing you to post content on YouTube? To visit and use YouTube?

 

[22LR]

What’s a ‘silencer’?

 

[osu_orangestreak]

A few of those protect people from getting robbed or killed. Some of the others block illegal activity.

 

[JimmyBob]

What’s a ‘silencer’?

It's my 22LR after I've shot all 17 shots!

 

[squeak]

“Silencer” lol

 

[N. Pappagiorgio]

I doubt one single liberal has shot a rifle with a suppressor. They would know it doesn’t sound like it does in the movies.

 

[OrangeTuono]

I doubt one single liberal has shot a rifle with a suppressor. They would know it doesn’t sound like it does in the movies.

The Texas Suppressor Law is weaving it's way nice to SCOTUS. Will be hard for the ATF Globalist Authoritarians (ech, just doesn't have the ring of Communist or Marxist) to show that their suppressor regulations are anything more than an attempt to expand scope into direct taxation.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Rumble.

Nuff said.

 

[OrangeTuono]

Rumble.

Nuff said.

And Twitter.

2Bits and StreakedUndies are such delusional little cuties.

 

[squeak]

So you now oppose or take issue with a private social media company setting forth policies of what it will and will not allow on its own platform?

Is anyone forcing you to post content on YouTube? To visit and use YouTube?

So you now oppose or take issue with a person taking issue with a social media company setting forth policies that limit the person’s freedom?

 

[my_2cents]

Rumble.

Nuff said.

There you go. Exactly!

If you don't like the policies of YouTube, go somewhere else. No one is stopping anyone from doing this or forcing anyone to use YouTube.

 

[my_2cents]

The Texas Suppressor Law is weaving it's way nice to SCOTUS. Will be hard for the ATF Globalist Authoritarians (ech, just doesn't have the ring of Communist or Marxist) to show that their suppressor regulations are anything more than an attempt to expand scope into direct taxation.

And Twitter.

2Bits and StreakedUndies are such delusional little cuties.

Again . . .

So you now oppose or take issue with a private social media company setting forth policies of what it will and will not allow on its own platform?

Is anyone forcing you to post content on YouTube? To visit and use YouTube?

 

[my_2cents]

So you now oppose or take issue with a person taking issue with a social media company setting forth policies that limit the person’s freedom?

Whose freedom is being limited and how?

Are you telling me that you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

 

[squeak]

Whose freedom is being limited and how?

Are you telling me that you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

That’s not what I said at all. You’re criticizing OP while doing exactly what OP is doing.

 

[my_2cents]

That’s not what I said at all. You’re criticizing OP while doing exactly what OP is doing.

This is what you asked:

So you now oppose or take issue with a person taking issue with a social media company setting forth policies that limit the person’s freedom?

See what you did there. You included a presupposition in your question. That YouTube is setting forth policies that limit a person's freedom. I disagree with this presupposition. That is why I asked you some clarifying questions about this claim that YouTube is "setting forth policies that limit a person's freedom."

As for the OP, I simply asked him two questions to determine what his position on this issue is and to determine why he appears to be so upset about a private social company doing what a private social media company has every right to do. Again, clarifying questions.

So again . . .

Do you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

 

[aix_xpert]

So you now oppose or take issue with a private social media company setting forth policies of what it will and will not allow on its own platform?

Is anyone forcing you to post content on YouTube? To visit and use YouTube?

Was Google/Youtube contacted by any member of the government regarding these policies prior to enacting them? Coercion of a private entity by the government to infringe on 2nd amendment rights is illegal. History has shown that the leftist-led federal government has performed such coercion in the past, and as such, puts the onus on them to prove that they didn't do it here as well.

 

[OrangeTuono]

This is what you asked:


See what you did there. You included a presupposition in your question. That YouTube is setting forth policies that limit a person's freedom. I disagree with this presupposition. That is why I asked you some clarifying questions about this claim that YouTube is "setting forth policies that limit a person's freedom."

As for the OP, I simply asked him two questions to determine what his position on this issue is and to determine why he appears to be so upset about a private social company doing what a private social media company has every right to do. Again, clarifying questions.

So again . . .

Do you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

2Bits,
Yes Facebook and Google are private companies that claim protection from being sued through Section 230 for user posted content. The requirement is that they operate as a "public forum". These are infringements of both the 1st and 2nd Bill of Rights

You're running around being a little prick about this and most everything else. Guess that fuels your little narcissistic ego. It's almost as if you don't think Youtube is trying to "shape public opinion", which you know is intellectually dishonest. You do occasionally post something worth considering, but it's very rare.

If Facebook, Google (Youtube), Twitter, Instagram, whomever continue failing to operate as a "public forum", then they should have their Section 230 protections removed. Wouldn't it be nice to step seeing all the scam adverts on Youtube (paste that regrows teeth and will destroy the dentistry industry, free energy,...) that Youtube collects money for propagating.

 

[my_2cents]

Was Google/Youtube contacted by any member of the government regarding these policies prior to enacting them?

If they were, so what?

Unless you can prove that some entity in the government illegally forced Google/YouTube to enact these rules. Can you?

 

[my_2cents]

Yes Facebook and Google are private companies that claim protection from being sued through Section 230 for user posted content. The requirement is that they operate as a "public forum". These are infringements of both the 1st and 2nd Bill of Rights

YouTube is legally not a public forum. Would you like me to cite recent case law to back this up or can you do a simple Google search and read the law for yourself?

Oh wait, you will have to use Google to do that. You think your paranoid-conspiratorial mind can handle that? 🤣🤣

 

[aix_xpert]

If they were, so what?

Unless you can prove that some entity in the government illegally forced Google/YouTube to enact these rules. Can you?

Because per the Supreme court, its illegal for the government to coerce a private organization to restrict the rights of private citizens. So if the government contacted them in any way, then its not a "so what" matter. Let me quote Justice Sotomayer for you. I do believe she's still considered liberal, but then again, you guys eat your own more than Trump eats RINOs so who knows these days.

"Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors," liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote on behalf of the court in Thursday's ruling.

(NRA v Vullo)

 

[OrangeTuono]

YouTube is legally not a public forum. Would you like me to cite recent case law to back this up or can you do a simple Google search and read the law for yourself?

Oh wait, you will have to use Google to do that. You think your paranoid-conspiratorial mind can handle that? 🤣🤣

You've earned an Ignore for your complete lack of logical thought.

@Sunburnt Indian Can you give this moron an assessment?

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

You've earned an Ignore for your complete lack of logical thought.

@Sunburnt Indian Can you give this moron an assessment?

If we put 2cents on ignore, what do we do for laughs? The internet is littered with the complete status of YouTube. Do you think 2cents could understand if he would do a search?

 

[squeak]

This is what you asked:


See what you did there. You included a presupposition in your question. That YouTube is setting forth policies that limit a person's freedom. I disagree with this presupposition. That is why I asked you some clarifying questions about this claim that YouTube is "setting forth policies that limit a person's freedom."

As for the OP, I simply asked him two questions to determine what his position on this issue is and to determine why he appears to be so upset about a private social company doing what a private social media company has every right to do. Again, clarifying questions.

So again . . .

Do you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

You still don’t get it.

 

[2012Bearcat]

You still don’t get it.

It's not that he doesn't get it, he agrees with it. He's a self admitted Marxist revisionist.

 

[OrangeTuono]

It's not that he doesn't get it, he agrees with it. He's a self admitted Marxist revisionist.

Don't leave out his attention seeking narcissism. Narcissism, Neo Marxist ideology, and being a mouthy punk are the progressive trifecta.

 

[22LR]

You've earned an Ignore for your complete lack of logical thought.

Putting someone on ignore is something to be proud of?

Maybe you're not emotionally equipped to participate here.

 

[OrangeTuono]

Putting someone on ignore is something to be proud of?

Maybe you're not emotionally equipped to participate here.

I like dialog, not throbbing ego preaching.

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

If we use the ignore feature with the slow, what do we do for comedy?

 

[OrangeTuono]

If we use the ignore feature with the slow, what do we do for comedy?

Slow is ok, it's the egotistical "look at me me me" narcissists that get boring. We can pat the attention whore on the head and they just demand more attention, which gets boring.

Now ideally, at least for me, it's to have discussion and dialog where I learn something on the topic.

 

[my_2cents]

You've earned an Ignore for your complete lack of logical thought.

So you don't have any response to the truth huh?

YouTube is not, legally speaking, and public forum. Your false statement was countered with the truth, and you get all upset and decide to put me on ignore. lol! 🤣🤣

As I said on the other thread, that is just like the typical Trump cultist. When they can't handle the truth, when their positions have been exposed for what they are, and when they have no rational or accurate response, they get mad, pout, and ignore anyone who challenges their cult programming. And in your case Tuono, your radical paranoid-conspiratorial mindset.

 

[my_2cents]

The internet is littered with the complete status of YouTube.

Yes it is. A simple Google search would reveal the constitution status of YouTube. So why do you guys keep believing a falsehood?

Just one example of many . . .

"Notwithstanding YouTube's significant role in public discourse--with more than 1.3 billion users and more than 30 million daily visitors--it is not a "public forum" subject to First Amendment scrutiny. Nor are its content moderation policies "commercial advertising and promotion" under federal false advertising law. So if your video is removed or "demonetized" under YouTube's policies, you'll have to find some avenue for redress other than the Constitution or the Lanham Act."

YouTube is Not a Public Forum

 

[my_2cents]

You still don’t get it.

And you still haven't answer the simple questions I asked of you. I wonder why?

Again . . .

Do you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

 

[my_2cents]

It's not that he doesn't get it, he agrees with it. He's a self admitted Marxist revisionist.

Do you even know what a revisionist-Marxist is without having to Google it? Nope, lol!

But hey, would you like to answer the questions @squeak is struggling with? Here you go . . .

Do you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

 

[my_2cents]

I like dialog

I'm giving you dialogue, it just isn't dialogue that is agreeing with everything you believe or claim. I'm giving you another perspective, giving you facts, and clearly, you can't handle it.

Putting someone on ignore is the act of a close-minded person. It says more about the person doing it then the person who is being ignored. As I noted above.

 

[my_2cents]

Because per the Supreme court, its illegal for the government to coerce a private organization to restrict the rights of private citizens. So if the government contacted them in any way, then its not a "so what" matter.

I am not disagreement with your legal claim. I agree with your claim.

What I am asking from you is proof that coercion occurred here. That some entity in the government illegally forced Google/YouTube to enact these rules.

Do you have any proof of this? Yes or no?

 

[2012Bearcat]

Do you even know what a revisionist-Marxist is without having to Google it? Nope, lol!

But hey, would you like to answer the questions @squeak is struggling with? Here you go . . .

Do you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

Do you. Simply put it's Marxism by manipulation instead of violence. Yea I oppose that as well.

 

[my_2cents]

Do you.

No, I do not believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube while YouTube is not allowed any oversight. For example, if YouTube doesn't want to allow porn on their platform, they don't have to.

And no, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives individuals the right to post whatever they want on a private social media platform.

So now, can you provide your answers to the questions:

Do you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

Simply put it's Marxism by manipulation instead of violence.

As usual, you are wrong. Unless you now believe, for example, a commitment to democracy is "manipulation." If you believe opposition to one party rule (a vanguard party) is "manipulation." If you believe opposition to Stalinism is "manipulation." Etc. Do you?

btw, being called a revisionist Marxist is actually a pejorative term used by Marxists to attack individuals who they don't believe are Marxist. I stated on the other thread to @OrangeTuono that if he was obsessed with labeling me a Marxist, then this would be the closet he could get and be somewhat accurate.

I consider myself a social democrat (social democracy) who shares much in common with democratic socialists, but not everything in common. To most traditional Marxists, that places me outside their club.

 

[squeak]

And you still haven't answer the simple questions I asked of you. I wonder why?

Again . . .

Do you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

That’s not the question. The question is, does OP have the right to question the censorship by YouTube? The answer is yes and you say no.

 

[squeak]

Do you even know what a revisionist-Marxist is without having to Google it? Nope, lol!

But hey, would you like to answer the questions @squeak is struggling with? Here you go . . .

Do you believe Americans have a right to post whatever they want on YouTube without any oversight by anyone? If so, where exactly is this right found in the Constitution?

You’re reading comprehension needs work.