ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2018 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, March 04, 2018

Stop fighting on their ground

YouTube hits Infowars with a third strike preparatory to deleting Alex Jones's channel:
After one strike was removed earlier in the week, YouTube hit the Alex Jones Channel with a third strike for a video that had already been appealed and restored.

In the video, Jones clearly explains how the victims of the Parkland shooting were not “crisis actors”.

YouTube’s flagging system is clearly being abused in a flagrant effort to shut down Infowars following a public campaign by CNN.

This sets a horrific precedent for free expression and the First Amendment and YouTube is in direct violation of the Communications Decency Act in adopting this approach.
Protest! Shock! Horror! Unfair! Come on, now. The inevitability of these deplatforming actions is why I have been repeatedly and relentlessly advising people to build their own platforms. There is little point in building up a highly fragile operation on your enemy's turf that they can literally take out at will without warning.

The high-profile men and women of the Right absolutely need to stop thinking about maximizing their short-term benefit and start looking to support the platforms that are not going to a) silence them, b) sell them out, or, c) leave them completely exposed to their enemies. And they also need to stop "fighting for free speech". Free speech is little more than anti-Christian Enlightenment propaganda, which very few of its self-appointed defenders seem to know.

In case you haven't noticed, it is utterly useless to appeal to the ideological purists who run these Big Social platforms. No amount of reason is going to sway them. So stop relying upon them! If you notice, I used Freestartr instead of Kickstarter and Bitchute instead of Youtube for Voxiversity. If even 10 percent of the Right would stop bitching and wailing and whining about their inevitable ill-treatment at the hands of the Left and publicly support the alternative platforms instead, we would have a fully functional Alt-Tech ecosystem before the end of 2018.

Stefan Molyneux clearly gets it. One hopes that others will before it's already too late.

UPDATE: This again. I had a feeling someone was going to leap in to "call me out" for "hypocrisy" sooner or later. At least this was friendly concern.
This post being made on a Google-owned property, is at best hypocritical (which is fucking horrible to your credibility). Please take a look at platforms like Steemit, Minds, etc. because Goolag can bring the ban-hammer down on Vox Populi in a nanosecond. You're a sonofabitch, but you're an excellent sonofabitch, and I do not want to see you banned or discredited.
First, I was reliably informed that my credibility was destroyed back in 2001. So, who cares about that. Second, do you really think I am not prepared for Google to take down the blog without warning for no reason, or that Google does not know that? And third, Blogger is not a critical platform. It is merely a delivery vehicle for text on a screen and literally no one is dependent upon it.

Labels: ,

106 Comments:

Blogger Zaklog the Great March 04, 2018 10:48 AM  

Since I've been building a (small) YouTube channel for a little over a year, and I watched Vidme vanish from under my feet when I tried over there, what is the best free speech alternative to YouTube? Is it Bitchute? I'd be willing to try, but I'd rather not go through the same thing as with Vidme.

Blogger Nick Siekierski March 04, 2018 10:53 AM  

Just registered on BitChute, out of the box it looks like a compelling alternative to YT. Based on the community guidelines it looks like they're trying to avoid the mess that happened with Gab. Hopefully they can handle the inevitable deluge of content and new users. I don't see any options for a paid account yet, but I'll be interested in that once it's available. Video has been the Achilles' heel of the right in this battle, glad to see a non-SJW alternative is available.

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) March 04, 2018 10:54 AM  

Isn't Alex Jones controlled opposition?

Blogger pyrrhus March 04, 2018 10:56 AM  

Some channels have gone to D-Tube...Can someone explain these options?

Blogger Nakota Publishing March 04, 2018 10:58 AM  

The right (or more correctly, the anyone-whos-not-extreme-left) needs to get over and move en masse and leave You-tube. That's sort of hypocritical for me to say, because in my struggle to be recognized as an indy author, I've been posting anywhere and everywhere. But if my favorite channels all left You-tube, I'd be at the new one in a heartbeat.

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 11:00 AM  

Isn't Alex Jones controlled opposition?

How would I know? I don't think I've ever watched a single show or video of his.

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 11:02 AM  

But if my favorite channels all left You-tube, I'd be at the new one in a heartbeat.

And therein lies the problem. Everyone is waiting for everyone else to jump ship.

Is it Bitchute? I'd be willing to try, but I'd rather not go through the same thing as with Vidme.

That or Daily Motion. But it's better to have a small channel fail than build up a larger one on YouTube then having it yanked as soon as it is big enough to come to their attention.

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 11:03 AM  

I would remove Voxiversity from YouTube, except that I want people to see how YouTube is restricting it. But I would prefer for people to watch it on BitChute. It has to be on Facebook to reach the people who are only active there.

Blogger Nate March 04, 2018 11:04 AM  

I would argue this is an extremely counter productive move for the left. Alex Jones is a huge help to them.

Blogger Man of the Atom March 04, 2018 11:05 AM  

Zaklog the Great wrote:Since I've been building a (small) YouTube channel for a little over a year, and I watched Vidme vanish from under my feet when I tried over there, what is the best free speech alternative to YouTube? Is it Bitchute? I'd be willing to try, but I'd rather not go through the same thing as with Vidme.

Why is this a question? YouTube gets money (read: eyeballs for ads) when you use it, even if there is no competing platform. It doesn't matter that YT loses money hand over fist -- it's money that should never once pass into their hands.

Money quote: "Don't give money to people who hate you."

Blogger Killua March 04, 2018 11:06 AM  

Well said! In the short term, the left will try to silence the right, but in the long term, their strategy will backfire since it is clear to everyone that they can't defend their position on the marketplace of ideas, so they have to silence and censor the opposition.

Whenever the left reacts to a right wing speaker by protesting, or pulling fire alarms, or demanding said speaker to be prevented from entering an entire country (Roosh), they only end up giving him more press. Despite their futile efforts, the alt right is inevitable.

Blogger FUBARwest March 04, 2018 11:22 AM  

@Vox I don't expect an answer but, how does one stay logically consistent with defending the second amendment and not defending the the first amendment if the reside in the USA?

Blogger Josh (the sexiest thing here) March 04, 2018 11:24 AM  

and not defending the the first amendment if the reside in the USA?

YouTube is Congress?

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 11:26 AM  

how does one stay logically consistent with defending the second amendment and not defending the the first amendment if the reside in the USA?

The 2nd Amendment is considerably more important than the 1st. If people are using the 1st Amendment to attack the 2nd, then get rid of it.

Especially since the Left already has. Never try to defend ground that has already been lost.

Blogger Cedric March 04, 2018 11:26 AM  

Stefan has proven himself to have an excellent understanding of this kind of long-term planning. He has had the files for the podcasts on his site for as long as I can remember listening to him. He mentions the link to his site in his youtube videos as well, which is good insurance that his listeners will be able to easily find his own platform should youtube remove him. He has always directed funding through his own site as well. He may be taking a few more steps forward now, but he's clearly been planning for this for a long time and should be resilient when youtube inevitably removes him.

Blogger Rabid Ratel March 04, 2018 11:29 AM  

All my favorite Youtubers are now on Bitchute, so I am leaving Youtube behind. Thanks Vox and Stefan.

Blogger FUBARwest March 04, 2018 11:36 AM  

@Vox Got it.

@Josh "fighting for free speech" doesn't end at YouTube. But I got my answer.

Blogger James March 04, 2018 11:40 AM  

So......how much money would it cost to build your own platform?

Blogger buzzardist March 04, 2018 11:44 AM  

The reason why many conservatives do not switch over to alternative platforms is reach. YouTube gains them a much bigger audience. They are, as Vox puts it, media whores. They will beg, borrow, and steal to be on whatever is the biggest platform.

The sadder reality is also that many of these so-called conservatives actually desire acceptance and approval from the left-leaning audiences on these platforms. It's not just that they want big audiences, but that they deeply desire recognition from the very people that they nominally oppose. Jumping to an alternative platform would feel, to them, like exclusion. It would be no less painful for them than YouTube deleting their accounts.

Blogger James Dixon March 04, 2018 11:54 AM  

> I would argue this is an extremely counter productive move for the left. Alex Jones is a huge help to them.

It tells you how far things have shifted that they feel the need to shut him down now.

Blogger buzzardist March 04, 2018 11:57 AM  

Vox,

I'd love to hear more for the case that free speech as a concept is anti-Christian Enlightenment propaganda. You've tossed around this claim more than once recently. It's definitely a rhetorical hammer that gets people riled up, but how does the dialectic behind it stand up? If you've got time to put together thoughts, I'm open ears.

I've read plenty from the religious wars of the pre-Enlightenment period, and there were numerous people advocating not only freedom of conscience by also freedom of speech during the Renaissance and Reformation. I'll grant that free speech became imbued with Enlightenment ideals after that, but I can see roots going earlier. Free speech proponents were, as a rule, decidedly anti-Catholic and, by the 1600s, increasingly anti-Church of England. More than a few (a notable exception being Milton) turned anti-free speech as soon as they were in power, so one has to take their blasts in favor of free speech with a grain of salt. But at what point and in what ways did this issue of conscience and speech that was important to Protestant dissidents warp into an anti-Christian stance? On the whole, free speech as a public idea is undeniably anti-Christian as deployed in America today, so what went wrong?

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 11:58 AM  

So......how much money would it cost to build your own platform?

Depends upon what the platform is. YouTube is difficult because it's expensive and hard to monetize, and Google props it up financially.

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 11:59 AM  

I'd love to hear more for the case that free speech as a concept is anti-Christian Enlightenment propaganda. You've tossed around this claim more than once recently. It's definitely a rhetorical hammer that gets people riled up, but how does the dialectic behind it stand up? If you've got time to put together thoughts, I'm open ears.

It's not rhetoric. Read The History of the Freedom of Thought by JB Bury.

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 12:00 PM  

The sadder reality is also that many of these so-called conservatives actually desire acceptance and approval from the left-leaning audiences on these platforms. It's not just that they want big audiences, but that they deeply desire recognition from the very people that they nominally oppose.

To paraphrase a certain Castalia House author who is not me, it's Sad Puppy Syndrome.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 04, 2018 12:03 PM  

VD: "And they also need to stop "fighting for free speech". Free speech is little more than anti-Christian Enlightenment propaganda, which very few of its self-appointed defenders seem to know."

Vox, would you oppose first amendment-like protections of free speech in a fully nationalist and rehabilitated United States (or whatever replaces it after the coming conflagration)?

Or do you merely oppose respecting the first amendment now, as a practical matter of political warfare against the Left?





Blogger Lazarus March 04, 2018 12:04 PM  

An Italian Internet Bill of Rights was written as a framework law in 2015, but I can find no mention of it after that.

Trump supposedly intends to put internet under FTC where anti-trust rules can be enforced. Whether it can be done before the midterms, who knows?

Blogger Man of the Atom March 04, 2018 12:08 PM  

James wrote:So......how much money would it cost to build your own platform?

Domain registration is as little as $5 if you watch for sales. Hosting can be $5/month or lower for low traffic sites.

Blogging software or Forum software is cheap or free.

There are auto-backup solutions for under $100 to ensure hackers don't destroy what you built.

There are domain protection companies that you can step up to if you get big enough to be a target.

Blogger FUBARwest March 04, 2018 12:15 PM  

It costs a lot of money to host video on the internet. We don't know how much it is but I don't think there is a company that has managed to break even much less make a profit hosting videos yet.

YouTube is propped up by Google as was mentioned already but it was losing money before being bought out by Google. Vidme closed shop because they lost money for too long and couldn't continue.

Part of the issue maybe there isn't a way to monetize a video hosting site in an efficient enough way that still maintains what people are looking for in a site like Youtube.

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 12:24 PM  

Vox, would you oppose first amendment-like protections of free speech in a fully nationalist and rehabilitated United States (or whatever replaces it after the coming conflagration?

I don't know. I don't have any position on free speech while riding winged unicorns either. Why do some of you always focus on totally irrelevant questions about imaginary situations?

Or do you merely oppose respecting the first amendment now, as a practical matter of political warfare against the Left?

I don't believe in respecting the nonexistent. It observably does not exist.

Blogger Akulkis March 04, 2018 12:25 PM  

In the long run, block chain systems will be able to host material in a way which can not be deleted. Deleting even one block from a block chain corrupts ALL of the chain from the removed block to the current end of chain. Destroying other people's entries to satisfy one censor (or even all censors) will make a block chain unreliable for ideological friends and foes alike, and therefore make censorship impractical. The trade off is large storage requirements even for users.

Blogger Bobiojimbo March 04, 2018 12:30 PM  

On the topic of creating new platforms, the gun guys on YouTube have already done this. See: https://www.full30.com/

Mark Levine has done it as well: https://get.crtv.com/signup/

There are more people who have created their own platforms, whom I'm forgetting. Milo comes to mind. I see no reason why AJ can't do it.

Blogger Dave March 04, 2018 12:39 PM  

Vox, I see Cernovich is putting his periscopes on Bitchute; something to keep in mind if you resume regular periscoping again.

Antifa Terrorist Facing 15 Years in Prison | Mike Cernovich Periscope https://www.bitchute.com/video/f62fPtG0ues/

Also, might I suggest creating a channel to showcase the comics being released at Arkhaven and DLC. You've already got the Alt★Hero vid (perhaps remove the Freestartr link to avoid confusion). Use your video production team to create short promos announcing the release of new comics as they occur, both digital and print editions.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine March 04, 2018 12:51 PM  

"Free speech is little more than anti-Christian Enlightenment propaganda, which very few of its self-appointed defenders seem to know."

Ding!

I'll take everything submitted to God over "freedom" any day.

And anyone who plays the atheist-Japanese shtick of "but God is determinism/fatalism!" can flip right off. Who's seriously making the argument that there's only one good and righteous option in any given situation? Atheists.

I think this is one of Satan's lines of attack. Make people think that there is no freedom under the law, no free will or choice within righteousness. Precisely the opposite of the truth. Quelle surprise!

Blogger CM March 04, 2018 12:57 PM  

I just checked out minds, the social network site Stefan mentioned. It looks nice... nicer than Gab.

Anyone else using it?

Blogger TM Lutas March 04, 2018 12:58 PM  

No platform is a critical platform unless it is your primary platform and you don't have control over your community and can't get to them except through hostile controlled communications methods.

So:
1. get control over your community so besides YouTube, Facebook, et al having a list of your community, you have one too and you get buy in to contact them in case of censorship.
2. By all means publish on your primary platform that will not censor your speech.
3. Do *not* withdraw from SJW converged platforms but use them to advertise your primary platform and leach away their users to your preferred platform. Eventually they'll stop you from doing that but it's a great opportunity to demonstrate why they aren't worth patronizing and a pretty cheap way to get the job done too because they're going to violate the principles they say they have in doing it and that never looks good to the normal neutrals.

I'm not sure whether I disagree with Vox on point number three or I misunderstood him. In either case, number three's a nice to have, not a core issue.

Blogger CM March 04, 2018 1:04 PM  

Part of the issue maybe there isn't a way to monetize a video hosting site in an efficient enough way that still maintains what people are looking for in a site like Youtube.

It may need donor support until it gains enough traction to appeal to advertisers. Any company willing to advertise on alt tech could have some loyal consumers, though I don't really know how alts respond to that opposed to conservatives. I know conservatives support companies that advertise on their favorite platforms.

Blogger Akulkis March 04, 2018 1:05 PM  

@FUBARwest

The 2nd Amandment is necessary (but not sufficient by itself) to defend ALL other rights?

Blogger Robert What? March 04, 2018 1:21 PM  

I use YouTube to host a bunch of instructional videos for my company. I have disabled ads on the channel so they they don't make any money from me. But I still hate the idea of using YouTube for it. What is the best business friendly alternative?

Blogger Lovekraft March 04, 2018 1:24 PM  

@ 34: no, don't use minds. Opened a bitchute account recently and subscribed to my usual ytubers. I think once Molyneux gives the signal, youtube is history (for me at least). I was hoping gab's Torba and VD would come to some sort of detente, but I think that ship's sailed, so pass on gab.

Will remind people of G Lucas's vision of mass media in the future. THX 1138 had the protagonist come home from hard day at work, sits down with a cold one and flip through each of the three available channels:

1. two anonymous cops beating someone.
2. well-endowed nubian dancer
3. two mumbling intellectuals engaging in mental masturbation.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 04, 2018 1:34 PM  

"I don't know. I don't have any position on free speech while riding winged unicorns either. Why do some of you always focus on totally irrelevant questions about imaginary situations?"

What sort of society is likely to follow from the coming crisis is neither irrelevant, nor merely imaginary. For one thing, to think these things through has practical implications for the kinds of people you make alliances with.

For instance, you yourself refuse to consider certain people allies because they are "fake Right." You reject them on the ground that the society they want is too Left wing for you, even though you share common enemies with them, and many of them are as enthusiastic about Trump as you are.

In renouncing any alliance with the "fake Right," are you "focusing on totally irrelevant questions about imaginary situations"?

"I don't believe in respecting the nonexistent. It observably does not exist."

The first amendment has not been nullified quite yet. The AIPAC-sponsored state laws that criminalize calling for a boycott of Israel are blatantly unconstitutional, and would not likely survive a legal challenge before the Supreme Court.

I agree that the first amendment is seriously under threat right now. But only after a law like that wins a Supreme Court case will you be in a position seriously to claim that the first amendment "observably does not exist."



Blogger lowell houser March 04, 2018 1:35 PM  

Josh (the sexiest thing here) wrote:Isn't Alex Jones controlled opposition?

Who cares? Jones is a loud mouth Texan. He's probably a blind squirrel that tripped and fell into someone else's acorn stash. But Infowars is bigger in terms of viewcount than ALL OF THE MSM. His guests actually have useful information quite often, as well, assuming you can endure AJ.

Blogger Mad Italian March 04, 2018 1:38 PM  

@38 and a machine jerks him off.

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 1:45 PM  

What sort of society is likely to follow from the coming crisis is neither irrelevant, nor merely imaginary.

Regardless, you're not getting an answer from me about it. The 1st Amendment is already de facto dead, so there is no point in allowing it to tie one's hands anymore.

Blogger David The Good March 04, 2018 1:57 PM  

YouTube is decent income if you have a good-sized channel. Plus, it's the second largest search engine in the world. If part of your work is media, at this point you cannot afford to leave YouTube. It's fine to complain about media whores and all that, but jumping to some third-rate platform doesn't bring in the money or the views. I was on Vidme and YouTube at the same time, posting the same videos. On YouTube I'd make $50 or more per month on some videos, with thousands of views. On Vidme, I might have five views and make nothing. It's income for some of us so we don't jump off. It would be like building spec houses in the middle of an undeveloped area without roads or people. No ROI. Location, location, location.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener March 04, 2018 2:13 PM  

This looks like a classic anticompetitive maneuver on the part of CNN, threatening companies advertising with their competition (Infowars) with negative press coverage if they continue using market alternatives to advertising with CNN and other major media networks. This is the sort of thing GEOTUS and Sessions should investigate and prosecute - it's a felony under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. Depending on the underlying facts, Google may also have culpability here.

And before anyone starts with MUH FREE SPEECH, there have been laws against this sort of anticompetitive behavior for well over a hundred years.

Blogger James March 04, 2018 2:21 PM  

VD wrote:So......how much money would it cost to build your own platform?

Depends upon what the platform is. YouTube is difficult because it's expensive and hard to monetize, and Google props it up financially.


I guess I should have been more specific. "How much would a platform that could compete with YouTube and handle the kind of bandwidth necessary for that cost in money and time?" I'm thinking millions and years.

Blogger artensoll March 04, 2018 2:21 PM  

Anonymous Conservative has an interesting theory about the purge:
https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/alex-joness-bureau-chief-banned-at-youtube/


Blogger Nate73 March 04, 2018 2:28 PM  

Does anybody understand how Webtorrent technology (the tech behind bitchute) works without a centralized server? I.e. if a meteor hit bitchute tomorrow would the service still be operable? I know torrents use DHT's, or distributed hash tables, to continue functioning when the trackers go down, so I wonder if bitchute has the same feature.

Blogger Shimshon March 04, 2018 2:29 PM  

"Regardless, you're not getting an answer from me about it. The 1st Amendment is already de facto dead, so there is no point in allowing it to tie one's hands anymore."

Exactly. We're already in all-out war, mostly but not entirely behind the scenes. All those "suicides" and "robberies" and "crazed lone gunmen school shootings" and bizarre aircraft crashes are casualties. I doubt anyone of the West likes heavy-handed speech restrictions, but it is a powerful weapon against an implacable enemy that hits them at a very vulnerable point. Outlaw the ACLU. The SPLC. Even AIPAC (they have to come home). At some point, ban tax deductibility of corporate donations to NGOs. Come on, this is fun.

Blogger Shimshon March 04, 2018 2:32 PM  

I almost forgot the undiagnosed rare medical complication leading to sudden and conveniently young age of death.

Blogger paranoid March 04, 2018 2:49 PM  

The high-profile men and women of the Right absolutely need to stop thinking about maximizing their short-term benefit and start looking to support the platforms that are not going to a) silence them, b) sell them out, or, c) leave them completely exposed to their enemies.
---
That's the way. Like Jacek Kuroń once said: "Don't burn the comitees. Create your own"

And they also need to stop "fighting for free speech". Free speech is little more than anti-Christian Enlightenment propaganda, which very few of its self-appointed defenders seem to know."
----
It used to be such case. And it is still sometimes used with such intent However its much harder to do that cause of who is in power ie. Free speech generally subverts the case of those who are status quo conservatives(at present left). So why not?


In case you haven't noticed, it is utterly useless to appeal to the ideological purists who run these Big Social platforms. No amount of reason is going to sway them. So stop relying upon them!
---
Of course it is useless. Why would they be interested in something that limits their power? And they seem to be very interested in accumulation of it.
Appeal to the masses as fighters of the freedom would make more sense - 1. It takes away from the left this rebel persona who speak sense to the power(and fight for poor people) that they absolutely love.
2. To take moral high ground over your enemies(assuming of course that electorate actually supports free speech)

Blogger Uncle John's Band March 04, 2018 3:02 PM  

Build your own platforms. Create. Success may not be guaranteed, but anyone can do this. I'm pretty much the opposite of public-facing, but posts and discussions here inspired me to start blogging about postmodernism. My main goal at this point is to learn the ecosystem - I spent years chasing academic ephemera and this is new to me. I'd be happy if anything else came of it, but the more broadly appealing project is in the wings.

I'm not trying to blow my horn; my "accomplishments" at this point are largely potential. It is just that if someone as detached as myself can start posting stuff, anyone can. Get enough people doing it and cream starts to rise.

Blogger tz March 04, 2018 3:13 PM  

You could demonitize Google - whose only real revenue comes from ads - by installing ad blockers everywhere (my router has a blacklist; also stops malware). I find people playing video but having to skip ads that I never see (AdClear for Android when I'm mobile). And complaining about popups. uBlock, or even AdBlock if you disable "allow some nonintrusive ads".

It would break a lot of business models, but that is merely being early. Google (and Twitter, Facebook, etc.) are making money when you go there or browse.

If every Trump supporter blocked Ads, Google would likely be bankrupt before Trump's second term.

Blogger James Dixon March 04, 2018 3:56 PM  

> You could demonitize Google - whose only real revenue comes from ads - by installing ad blockers everywhere

You're preaching to the choir.

Blogger Rick March 04, 2018 4:16 PM  

VD, would it be allowed if you ran a short 10 second trailer for your program on YouTube with a link below to the full video hosted on bitchute? So you would draw new viewers to bitchute from youtube. If everyone did that...Alex Jones too... =
Free advertising on YouTube for content on bitchute. Local news does this, eg. “tune in at 11 for the rest of the story..”
Would YouTube allow that? The trailer could describe the program without using the naughty words..

Anonymous Anonymous March 04, 2018 4:29 PM  

@45. James
Youtube lost about 500 million in 2009. That means billions today. And it will be even more once Internet Service Providers decide to go after streaming services.

Blogger Karl March 04, 2018 5:02 PM  

It's not just Alex Jones, Natural News says their channel was deleted. They say they are building an alternative to Youtube as well.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-03-03-youtube-deletes-entire-health-ranger-video-channel-deletes-over-1700-videos-in-latest-politically-motivated-censorship-purge.html

Blogger Looking Glass March 04, 2018 6:17 PM  

YouTube has been the recipient of at least $10 billion USD in illegal cross subsidization. In the last 2 years, it's possible that in some accountanting methods that YouTube is profitable, but it's unlikely if they were a separate company. There are a bunch of groups attempting to make alternative platforms, but they'll all look different. As mentioned up thread, YouTube is also the 2nd largest search engine.

As a result, I do hope 2019 is the "Year of Trust Busting" in Silicon Valley. SV is both a serious threat to National Security & Civil Rights, while at the same time being a massive drag on the economy.

Blogger Looking Glass March 04, 2018 6:19 PM  

It should also be noted that if YouTube wasn't managed by idiots, it's also be quite profitable. The complete inability to manage a Whitelist properly either means the Management is amazingly stupid or they have no actual objective to make the company profitable. Though I would favor a view that YT acts as the spot in Google that they send the people they can't get rid of, which is why it went full SJW the fastest.

In the mix of incompetence & convergence, it allows the Deep State players to run their operations & data collections.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales March 04, 2018 6:20 PM  

@33

It's also hilarious considering the number of atheists/Japanese who are totally determinists themselves and/or don't realize that all they've done is substitute theistic determinism for materialistic determinism.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf March 04, 2018 6:23 PM  

It's such a shame what is happening to Google. If you're a woke Google employee I imagine that the convergence happening all around you is excruciating. To have worked so hard to produce an exceptional product, service, only to watch it slip away into the waters like a beautiful sand castle at high tide.

How sad.

The Left is beyong eating its own tail and is currently struggling to choke down its lower ribcage.

I love YouTube. But it's clear that the political audience has out grown the platform.

Which brings us to: money. Is anyone here using bitchute? I'm curious to see what it's about.

Blogger buzzardist March 04, 2018 6:28 PM  

@43 I get it. Google has all the money because of AdSense. Google has used that cash to buy and create a lot of services that attract a lot of users and viewers, who then generate more AdSense revenue. One of Google's investments to attract more viewers at YouTube is monetizing videos. Google pays more than any other platform, and this keeps content creators on YouTube. Google bribes you to be there, and so you stay, and so that's where all the viewers remain.

It's back to the chicken-and-egg argument. You stay with YouTube because it's the only place that generates revenue. Viewers stay with YouTube because it's the only place that has decent content. Creators would leave if viewers (and the potential revenue they offer) were elsewhere. Viewers would leave if the content they like shriveled and sprouted elsewhere. Google, meanwhile, profits from this situation.

The argument that "I can't afford to go elsewhere" is weak. If (when) Google de-platforms you, you can't afford not to have built an alternative platform. The very fact that "David the Good" is published by Castalia House may well be sufficient reason to eventually kill the YouTube account of the same name. If Google's only concern were money, one could feel safer with Google. But Google is willing to sacrifice money to wield power. But the people using Google generate the traffic that gives Google both money and power. Granting money and power to a company that hates you because that company throws a few crumbs your way right now is short-term smart and long-term dumb.

Blogger Emmanuel Mateo-Morales March 04, 2018 6:30 PM  

@9

Look, Nate, just because you hate someone for having a different view than you does not make them a net benefit to you're actually ideological opponents, because if it did, Trump would never have gone as far as he did. Vox would never be planning on releasing all the dirt he has on Shapiro like he most likely is. I mean, for fuck's sake, Alex, warts and all, lets Cernovich on his show constantly and Jerome Corsi. At worst, he's like Crowder because he think Ben Shapiro is anything.

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 7:13 PM  

They say they are building an alternative to Youtube as well.

You have to love the right-wing. Imagine if all these proud independent types simply cooperated the way the Ilk do.

Blogger VD March 04, 2018 7:15 PM  

VD, would it be allowed if you ran a short 10 second trailer for your program on YouTube with a link below to the full video hosted on bitchute?

Good idea.

Blogger Jack Amok March 04, 2018 7:23 PM  

I agree that the first amendment is seriously under threat right now. But only after a law like that wins a Supreme Court case will you be in a position seriously to claim that the first amendment "observably does not exist."

You're oblivious to reality. The problem we have is that the Left is entirely without honor and the ability to engage in reciprocal tolerance. I don't agree with Vox that the 1st Amendment is just used to attack Christianity, but it certainly is used for that. And the same people who sue to remove nativity scenes from public view push to have public schools talk about Islam. The same people who claim the very sight of a cross is offensive want to declare any criticism of Jews or Muslims to be a hate crime, punishable by fines, jail time, and loss of income. Liberal judges think it's perfectly okay to claim that Trump cannot use an Executive Order to undo an Executive Order from Obama.

These people are fundamentally untrustworthy as partners in governance. I'm far beyond taking the 1st Amendment away from them. I think we need to prohibit any participation in public life by people incapable of tempering their lust for power. No voting, no free speech, no unfettered access to the court system, they're not fit to share power because they're unwilling to share it.

Blogger Uncle John's Band March 04, 2018 7:50 PM  

@ 65

They can take the pathological guilt/self-loathers too. The power-hungry love taping into that virulent anti-patriotism in the American left.

Blogger Lovekraft March 04, 2018 8:18 PM  

I think the alt-right web presence is mainly by guys in their 40s and up, with the odd 30-something guy thrown in. The boomers have probably given up or never really had any skin in the game to begin with.

The up and comers are getting the fullcourt SJW press constantly. You can feel it in the air. Loyalty tests in public schools and collages, with the odd riot to remind them of their place.

I predict a cooling/dark period as the alt-right gains traction in Europe, and expect the above-noted youths to rebel hard when given the opportunity (the groundwork for which we are laying).

Also, the Kamala Harrises and Ellisons are ensuring the future democrats are hardcore ethnic supremacists. They'll alienate a lot of latte-drinking liberals.

Blogger James Dixon March 04, 2018 8:45 PM  

> VD, would it be allowed if you ran a short 10 second trailer for your program on YouTube with a link below to the full video hosted on bitchute?

An excellent idea, but it's a stop gap measure. They'll start banning them too. If they have to they'll change the rules the way Medium did to allow considering "off-platform actions.

Blogger WS4E March 04, 2018 9:05 PM  

There is already a potential alternative.

There already is one that is growing quite a bit, called d.tube which uses the distributed STEEM protocol.

Because of the decentralized nature of IPFS and the STEEM blockchain, D.Tube is not able to censor videos, nor enforce guidelines. Only the users can censor it, through the power of their upvotes and downvotes. Sort of like the reddit of videos.

https://d.tube/

Blogger Rick March 04, 2018 9:41 PM  

It’s a stop gap solution. In other words, it’s only designed to work for the short time you need it to. To get people off YouTube and on to x platform. Then hopefully x platform has taken off. There also has to be a reason for best content providers to be there. Is there paid advertising there?
D.tube may be the best platform in the world, but if no one knows about it... why would I want to buy something other than Kleenex? It already solved my nose blowing problem. People are lazy, often for perfectly valid reasons.
Truepundit on Twitter does something similar. He tweets a provocative headline, you click on it for the story and it takes you to his website (which is chock full of ads).
In other words, he gets you to leave Twitter for a while. Problem is, his content is often kinda not that great.
The trailers could be mildly reverse psychology. In other words, almost indistinguishable from good think or anti-Vox Day.

Blogger TM Lutas March 04, 2018 9:41 PM  

@68 Medium and the People's Republic of China, perfect together. It has a certain ring to it. When they're forced to actually install rules that mimic the PRC's social control mechanisms, that's actually progress. They want everybody to self censor and for voices that they don't want to hear to leave without having to actually be banned.

Blogger LP999-16 March 04, 2018 9:46 PM  

I hope that others listen to Vox's latest peri RE; 1A and 2A.

Blogger Daniel March 04, 2018 10:11 PM  

I 'd like to see yt stats WITHOUT the music videos. Most people i know includind myslef use yt as a radio. Thanks to brave, publicity free

Blogger dfordoom March 04, 2018 10:26 PM  

@21. buzzards

More than a few (a notable exception being Milton) turned anti-free speech as soon as they were in power, so one has to take their blasts in favour of free speech with a grain of salt.

The funny thing is that just about every free speech advocate turns anti-free speech as soon as they attain power. Free speech is a tactic, not a principle. Nobody actually believes in it.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf March 04, 2018 10:50 PM  

Apologies if this is an idiotic question:

Is it possible to make a video-sharing platform that generates cypto-currency to represent the value inherent in the videos (entertainment) as well as the watching of videos (subjective experiences)? Suppose ads are an option and turning them on allows them to play on the video in a manner like YouTube. The watcher agrees to ads being played as part of a chance with being rewarded with a coin. If they skip the ad, they do not get a coin. Or if a coin is generated, they have a zero chance of it going to them as opposed to the content creator. When coins are stochastically generated the value of the watcher's subjective experiences could be recorded (for example, ticking a box to play a video) so that this information can be sold to producers of goods and services - who are then better informed making their production more efficient. Maybe the content creator has a higher chance of being rewarded with a stochastic coin generation as well as a portion of the ad revenue, but the watcher also shares in the value by having a chance at obtaining a coin too.

I'd be very happy to begin uploading videos to a platform where coins are being generated that have some amount of value so that in time the coin generation pays for content creators to make videos. And it would be nice if that was shared with the audience.

* Coin-cidentally, I'm feeling a sense of cryptomnesia (déjà vu). Was this discussed previously?

Blogger Jack Amok March 05, 2018 12:00 AM  

Meng, that's something similar to what Brave is doing. Check them out if you haven't.

Blogger Meng Greenleaf March 05, 2018 12:47 AM  

Jack Amok wrote:Meng, that's something similar to what Brave is doing. Check them out if you haven't.
Okay thanks, I'll download it and check it out this weekend.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 2:13 AM  

First amendment starts with "Congress shall make no law..."

In any scenarios that don't involve Congress making a law, the first amendment is entirely irrelevant. Censor all you want.

Laws mean what they actually say. No more, no less. Anything else is "living constitution" crap. It's a weapon of the left.

Blogger SciVo March 05, 2018 2:55 AM  

Nate wrote:I would argue this is an extremely counter productive move for the left. Alex Jones is a huge help to them.

Well, they had the genius idea to have the social media giants censor the right. So of course Silicon Valley immediately outsourced it to Trust & Safety committees, who immediately outsourced it to SPLC interns and the like.

We're not dealing with rocket surgeons here. That's what makes the manifold failures of the establishment right all the more galling: either they wanted cross-dressing men in girls' locker rooms, or they're even more retarded than the left...or "embrace the healing power of 'and'."

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 5:57 AM  

@74 Free speech is a tactic, not a principle. Nobody actually believes in it.

Damn right, dfordoom. Folks need to open up their eyes:

"Free Speech: Neither Real, Nor Your Right"
http://forge-and-anvil.com/2017/11/19/free-speech-neither-real-nor-your-right/

"Free Speech: A Weaponized Myth Used Successfully By The Left"
http://forge-and-anvil.com/2017/11/29/free-speech-a-weaponized-myth-used-successfully-by-the-left/

"Free Speech: Democracy’s Tool"
http://forge-and-anvil.com/2017/12/09/free-speech-democracys-tool/

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 9:03 AM  

"The funny thing is that just about every free speech advocate turns anti-free speech as soon as they attain power. Free speech is a tactic, not a principle. Nobody actually believes in it."

I believe in it.

Free speech is bound up with freedom of conscience. People have a metaphysical right to both.

Any government that censors substantive speech is morally and metaphysically illegitimate. I would never accept the authority of such a government, and would fight to overthrow it.

There are millions of people like me.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 9:10 AM  

What are you currently doing to overthrow THIS government?

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 9:11 AM  

I'm guessing, the exact same thing you'd do to overthrow THAT government. Not one thing.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 9:11 AM  

"What are you currently doing to overthrow THIS government?"

Nothing I would say online, my friend.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 9:18 AM  

To be more clear about the principle at stake: the government itself has not yet officially limited free speech. The First Amendment remains intact for now.

The attacks on free speech are all coming from institutions--e.g., universities, media outlets, businesses, online platforms--in crypto-collaboration with antifa-types on the street.

It is still morally and pragmatically possible to defeat these enemies without having to overthrow the government itself.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 9:39 AM  

"Free speech" on paper. Punished "bad think" in practice.


Any government that censors substantive speech is morally and metaphysically illegitimate. I would never accept the authority of such a government, and would fight to overthrow it.

There are millions of people like me.


And a fine job you all are doing.

The Left is merely carrying out John Locke's "Strange Doctrine." The man who justifies this "free speech" you love completely gives the Left the right to crush you. You adore and proclaim you'll fight for a right that contradicts and defeats itself. Which is why we are where we are now, and our future looks even darker than it is now.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 10:05 AM  

"The Left is merely carrying out John Locke's "Strange Doctrine." The man who justifies this "free speech" you love completely gives the Left the right to crush you. You adore and proclaim you'll fight for a right that contradicts and defeats itself. Which is why we are where we are now, and our future looks even darker than it is now."

Are you sure that it contradicts and defeats itself? The Left's assault on Free Speech in the US--outside of the Universities--has really only just begun. Most of the public recoils from these repressive excesses.

At present, the Right has the considerable political virtue of being pro-free speech. That is a powerful moral and political weapon against the Left. It is an important reason why the ranks of the Right are growing.

But if you try to fight fire with fire by arguing that since the Left does censors speech, we should do it, too, then you have sacrificed the moral high ground in the eyes of the broad public. The Right will then be no better on this defining issue than the Left, and will have given up one of the main reasons why fast growing numbers of people prefer the Right to the Left.

If the Right becomes hostile to free speech, then it will drastically weaken its moral standing in the eyes of the broad public, thereby diminishing its political appeal.

It is your position that contradicts and defeats itself, not mine.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 10:51 AM  

When we consider how Locke reorients natural law into a brand new doctrine of rights, we can conclude that absolutely nothing should prevent man from saying whatever he wants. When reading Two Treatises, we are to believe that man is born with “a title to perfect Freedom, and an uncontrolled enjoyment of all the Rights and Privileges of the Law of Nature.” For Locke, this is a state of perfect equality and freedom that is exposed constantly to the invasion of others. A state of war is thus inaugurated from the moment of our birth, and there is always “the right to the innocent party to destroy the other whenever he can, until the aggressor offers peace.”

For Locke, we are in perpetual battle, and due to his conception of natural law, we have a natural right to preserve our free speech by any means necessary. “Every man hath a right to punish the Offender, and be Executioner of the Law of Nature.” He admits that this is a strange sounding idea, and he calls this his “strange Doctrine.”

It can certainly be said that the Left in American society happily and completely embraces the “strange Doctrine” of John Locke. Without hesitation, they become the judge, jury, and executioner, doing whatever they can to uphold the Aleister Crowley axiom “Do what thou wilt.” In terms of speech, the Left would reword it: “Say what thou wilt.” And to preserve their natural right to expression–whether it’s pornography, vulgarity, blatant or tongue-in-cheek anti-Christian propaganda–the Left has enacted the Strange Doctrine, happily bludgeoning their enemies on the Right, and this has been going on for quite some time

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:27 AM  

"In terms of speech, the Left would reword it: “Say what thou wilt.” And to preserve their natural right to expression–whether it’s pornography, vulgarity, blatant or tongue-in-cheek anti-Christian propaganda–the Left has enacted the Strange Doctrine, happily bludgeoning their enemies on the Right, and this has been going on for quite some time."

Hey, let's just censor them, then. Why the hell not?

It's only going to make the Right much less popular, because it will needlessly sacrifice one of the main positive values that increasingly differentiates the Right from the Left in the public mind.

But when you have people out there who are saying whatever they want--including many mean things about the Right, and even about Christians--it's obviously far more important to shut them down than it is to prevail politically over the long term.

Let's just do to them what they do to us, without any consideration of the strategic consequences at all.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 11:38 AM  

"Hey, let's just censor them, then. Why the hell not?"

#1. Yes. Censor them. We should have liberty, not licence.
#2. You assume the Right will EVER get the power to be able to censor the Left. "Conservative" Republicrats can't even piss without the Demoncrats giving them permission.

Rest easy, Jack. This myth that we have and should have free speech will continue on for quite a while. Enjoy, Hannity.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 11:46 AM  

"#1. Yes. Censor them. We should have liberty, not license."

As I said, let's do it.

It's only going to make the Right much less popular, and much more likely to lose much of the political ground that it has recently gained.

But let's go ahead and argue for censoring our political enemies, anyway. Why not? It feels good to demand that the licentious speech of the Left be criminalized.

It's gonna make us lose, of course. But fuck it. It feel too good.

Let's do it.

Blogger Were-Puppy March 05, 2018 12:04 PM  

@34 CM
I just checked out minds, the social network site Stefan mentioned. It looks nice... nicer than Gab.

Anyone else using it?
---

I'm using it, it has a nice layout and look. I'm still mostly on Gab and the twithole at this point.

Bitchute also seems really nice.

I've attempted to check out steemit, but there is something boned with their registration so it keeps screwing up trying to send me a code saying the phone number already been used. DTube is apparently part of steemit.

FYI, the Health Ranger is also going through a process to set up a video hosting capability. https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-02-27-health-ranger-to-launch-youtube-alternative-that-protects-free-speech.html

I like AJ and Infowars. I've noted that they have now gotten setup streaming live on bitchute, GabTV, and probably others.

I'm hoping this will ultimately be a good thing that happened as it is forcing people to face the persecution instead of sitting there like a frog in boiling water.

Blogger Were-Puppy March 05, 2018 12:13 PM  

AJ and Infowars is these days the first stop for people who get a taste of red pills.

Youtube shutting down the extremely mild mannered Jerome Corsi has sent a massive flood of people and Qsters to Gab. I'm sure they are flooding other alt-platforms too.

This is close to the normies finally figuring out something is wrong - which would be epic to see.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 1:04 PM  

@91 "It's gonna make us lose, of course. But fuck it. It feel too good. Let's do it."

This has nothing to do with "it feels good." The West has been subverted. And the benevolent rules of John Locke have been used by anti-intellectual enemies to destroy it.

You want the unbridled liscense of Locke's "Strange Doctrine." And you have it in action every day with platforms that censor the Right. So enjoy that.

Blogger Jack Burroughs March 05, 2018 1:36 PM  

"This has nothing to do with "it feels good." The West has been subverted. And the benevolent rules of John Locke have been used by anti-intellectual enemies to destroy it. "

It has everything to do with feeling good to you. I have pointed out several times that arguing for the censorship of the Left would sacrifice a major political strength of the Right.

You haven't once addressed that point. You haven't said, "no, it won't sacrifice a political strength, and here's why"; and you haven't said, "yes, it will sacrifice a political strength, but taking the long view it will gain an even greater political strength, and here's why."

All you've done is assert over and over that the Left deserves to be censored because of Locke's "Strange Doctrine," and so the Right should argue for censoring them.

In other words, you have repeatedly dodged my strategic point for the sake of making an exclusively moral argument. You have shown no concern at all for whether making this moral argument will work for the Right in the contemporary political climate.

That's because it feels good to you. It has everything to do with the pleasure of feeling right, and nothing to do with any serious concern for what will actually work in the real world.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch March 05, 2018 2:17 PM  

Vox's latest post is a good start of a rebuttal to you.

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/03/hes-no-jack-ward.html

And yet, even more than this can be said. I will continue discussing there if I do at all.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 2:20 PM  

The strategic point is that the Right has been doing what you advocate (and what I used to) for decades on end, and only lost, and lost, and lost, and lost. Then finally, we changed tactics. It started with Duck Dynasty, and has now evolved into Trumpism. And for the first time in generations, we're gaining ground. There comes a time to abandon the theories you know and love, because actual results disprove them.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 2:33 PM  

Do I regret supporting the strategy? No. I honestly thought it would work. It's what _I_ would have liked. But the historical results are in. Turns out it's the worst strategy ever.

Blogger Markku March 05, 2018 2:37 PM  

Do I understand the impulse to support a strategy you like as opposed to the strategy that works? Yes, I do. It's fun to be a martyr. But they are killing babies.

Let me repeat that: They. Are. Killing. Babies.

Blogger SirHamster March 05, 2018 4:03 PM  

Markku wrote:Let me repeat that: They. Are. Killing. Babies.

It's For the Children.

So put on your butcher's apron and pay the bill.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd March 05, 2018 7:41 PM  

Jack Burroughs wrote:It's only going to make the Right much less popular, and much more likely to lose much of the political ground that it has recently gained.

Do you have data to back that up? The only way to be sure is to try it. We can always stop if it backfires, but it's working so well for the Left that we would be insane not to give it a shot.

Blogger Zeroh Tollrants March 05, 2018 11:11 PM  

You don't win by appealing to people's morality and virtue, you nitwit. You win when you crush their skulls underneath your boot.
This reads like some kind of lofty nihilistic Sargon of Whitedad fa&&otry.
I'd never put you in charge of so much as a hamster.

Blogger Dirk Manly March 06, 2018 3:05 AM  

If Jack Burroughs were put charge of enemy dead, he would be taking funds from our side so as to set up and run a chapter of The United Appeal for the Dead.

https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=39f_1440404924&comments=1

Blogger Jeff March 07, 2018 10:12 AM  

The problem is that the entire internet is owned by the enemy. I expect Infowars will eventually get the same treatment as the Daily Stormer.

Blogger Cato March 09, 2018 5:47 AM  


There are millions of people who would agree with the statement the second amendment exists to support the first.

This prinaiple has power and gravity of its own ignore it at your peril.

I Agree with Jack.

The Truth will fight for itself set it Free with freedom of speech and let it work its magic.


As in Lord of the Rings You cannot fight Sauron by putting on the Ring nor can you use his weapons against him

- it is inherently evil and WILL corrupt you.

Using the lefts own tactics may prove effective In the short term BUT the cost will be your soul and in truth you will be a shadow of the monster you fought.


“You don't win by appealing to people's morality and virtue, you nitwit. You win when you crush their skulls underneath your boot.
This reads like some kind of lofty nihilistic Sargon of Whitedad fa&&otry.
I'd never put you in charge of so much as a hamster.”

Wrong to quote Sun Tsu: “To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”

You win by breaking their resistance their will, in this instance with YOUR principles.

What do you actually stand for?

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts