Posted on 03/25/2017 12:05:22 AM PDT by BlueDragon
New wave of censorship @
Paul Joseph Watson goes into some of the details (10:14 runtime).
Please can you summarize who this gentleman is and what the video is about?
“Our way or die!”
Who’s the fascist again?
My husband follows some indie animators and art instructors.
A few are slavishly inserting anti-Trump comments after feeling this chill wind. He unsubbed and told the presenter why. All are complaining that, even though they are not political at all and avoid such topics, they are seeing suppression as well.
It is also about monetization. The greedy establishment can’t take a chance on new stars rising up without a leash. So, they may leave someone up, but cut their income.
Gotta make sure the SJWs can survive. And they are complaining that restricted mode deprives the alphabet gender crowd of an audience. You must watch the homosexual agenda and you must not hear a breath of dissent.
The proper response to this is a conservative competitor to youtube. We can call it screwyoutube.
Might as well eat gravel. I want mine slathered in coconut oil “butter”.
I don’t like censorship, but they are a private company so they should run their business as they see fit, and so should others.
He often gets the same message across;
and
that is proved in final results (sometimes we have to wait for "results" -- some are here already -- and it was all easy enough to have foretold).
He has fairly wide appeal among the younger set, which is why he is as he says, dangerous to liberal intelligentsia.
So are guys like Crowder. Many hands make light work?
When it comes to the ad placement aspect --yes. Watson agreed, yet brought up the point that the same mindset held by google drone and executive social justice conscious know-it-alls (my description, not his) force a business to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Which begs the question; Where are "the others" in the
The bigger danger is how outfits like Google (who owns own YouTube) can force their own form of censorship from both ends (from supplying ads which content creators get some revenue from, and while influencing/practically controlling policy in the subsidiary YouTube, itself) while virtually hiding their hand, allowing room enough for them to have some measure of plausible deniability.
Watson was pulling the covers on that.
That would be a bit difficult. To tell what first comes to mind could be harmful in guilt-by-association way. He was featured on Alex Jones' Infowars channel. There, I said it. BUT (we knew there was a big bertha coming, didn't we?) his presence and inputs raised the InfoWars content level immeasurably. The over-the-top, 'taking the guesswork too far' that was indulged in regarding Pizzagate notwithstanding?
I don't know if Watson was much involved with the extreme edges of that "story", like; Comet Ping Pong (the business itself) was a location for sex trafficking of children.
Podesta is still likely dirty though. I believe Andrew Breitbart nailed it (two or three days before Breitbart's untimely and sudden death).
I would say I'm dying to see what's in the computer file allegedly named "insurance" that was found on Huma Abedin's NY politician husband Anthony Weiner's laptop -- but I would rather not end the same as Andrew, quite yet.
You may be able to glean the answer from my own, and others' comments, particularly #23 this thread from newfreep (thank you, new) with additional answer being YouTube is apparently threatening to force people to "sign in" to a YouTube account in order to view particular uploads. As Watson noted, that would stifle the 'viral' quality of the stuff he uploads to youtube -- and which would most likely cut his viewership to the bone.
We're not talking only about Jihadi training/encouragement videos (how to: cut the kafir infidel's heads off) -- but effectively silencing political dissent from progressive agenda quite possibly across the board, at least as much as YouTube management and personnel can think they can get away with. Google execs and lower ranked drones would likely applaud the moves. Google itself has been steadily working for years now at "how to steer public perception", yet without getting caught in the act, too red-handed.
Although Watson did not single out "Google", this effort to control and program the masses was part of the point he was trying to make, this coming on the back of advertisers contracting with Google having recently raised objections to having their ad content associated with YouTube content they were squeamish about.
As I understand it, not that Watson went into this precise type of detail;
The advertisers understandable, and justifiable complaints set stage for YouTube to now begin creating forms of in-house 'autosearch' algorithm for categorizing so-called "questionable content" which could include viewers needing to "sign in" to view the videos. Who will set the parameters of that? If they are already going after Tucker Carlson (he said 'violent Islamists', or something) what's next? Where would it end? We could rest assured final "action" would be taken by YouTube employees? And who are they? They're West Coast 'Rat Party weenies -- pretty much the whole entire lot of them. Hirelings in offices elsewhere, we could safely assume also must conform to Progressive Agenda Weenyism ---or lose their jobs.
Once they could effectively enough silence dissent from youtuber's themselves ---who will be around to tell the world what YouTube just did? It's hard to hear from those who have been shipped away to gulag archipelago.
Thank you.
lol
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.