Omega Supreme Holopsicon
Member
You do know hitler, wasn't making comedy or clickbait. Those were meant to represent real people and advocate real violence against actual people.You do understand that the cartoons Hitler used to depict jews and homosexuals weren't real people, right?
Context my friend.
Is this guy advocating or inciting violence against feminists?
IF I put a video saying look how I dispose of this annoying bartender in RDR2. AM I INCITING VIOLENCE AGAINST REAL WORLD BARTENDERS?
He is not inciting violence, and it seems there are enough regulatory barriers against payment mechanisms, hosting, domain registration, etc. blocking alternatives from emerging easily.And to add to your post.....why are we acting as if people have a Constitutional right to post YouTube videos? At a minimum, this dude is inciting violence on specific groups. Take your videos to another platform if that's what you want to do?
Youtube alternative Bitchute is being demonetized from what I hear. These companies take competition seriously and it appears they collude to cut competitors when they're starting to take root.
This is a republic not a democracy, and we have a constitutional right of free speech. Right now the problem is we have excess regulations, apparently, impeding new competitors from arising naturally to provide pro free speech alternatives, competitors.The law courts, jury system and democracy is setup to enact the will of the people.
If youtube and facebook censor based on public expectations, the are doing the exact same thing.
If people think videos about killing feministics, christians or muslims should be censored then that community expectation will be set and enacted by facebook, youtube, the courts and democracy.
Cut the BS. ISIS advocates actual harm against actual americans and terrorist acts.Any comments about this being left or right wing agenda is a diversion .. does the right wing think we should stop banning ISIS videos on youtube because it dosent want white racists banned? Of course they dont. Its just politics.
There is a difference between a video of shooting up a police station as T800 terminator or a gangster or saying how you killed X annoying person, versus advocating for the death of actual people.
You know incitement to violence is very different from depictions of fictional violence.
Punch a nazi, when you mean everyone you disagree with is a nazi, that is incitement to violence. Calling for white genocide, that is incitement to violence.
BTW enemy soldiers, russians, germans, etc. Rival gangsters, etc. These people are also actual humans deserving of rights. But fictional violence is not incitement to violence against them.
Which is the path to fascism, check. The founding fathers knew the importance of free speech.i actually believe in limited free speech ..
At one time, women's right to vote was offensive, abolitionist speech regards ending slavery was offensive, limited free speech, is no free speech at all and leads to stagnation.
Last edited: