Far-right activists banned from entering Britain

YouTube bans videos promoting Nazi ideology

Quote:

Content promoting fascism, supremacism or Holocaust denial will no longer be hosted
[...]
The company confirmed it would no longer host videos that glorified fascist views or material that denied the existence of the Holocaust, following years of criticism over its role in spreading far-right hate and conspiracy theories
... ... ...

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

You are fond of censorship. That, in itself, is Nazt-like. Guess you can't win.

2 Replies

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

You are fond of censorship. That, in itself, is Nazt-like. Guess you can't win.

I doubt that you have the slightest idea of what I'm fond of.

I quoted a report about facebook.
I don't own facebook nor have I any connection besides an unused account to it.

To say, I'm Nazi-like in itself because of that is more than just one of your usual libels.

0 Replies

@coldjoint,

coldjoint wrote:

You are fond of censorship. That, in itself, is Nazt-like. Guess you can't win.

Quote:

The announcement cited as an example videos that “promote or glorify Nazi ideology, which is inherently discriminatory.”

The announcement also said that YouTube “will remove content denying that well-documented violent events, like the Holocaust or the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, took place.”

Source: Arutz Sheva - Israel National News

youtube announcement on the official blog

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

The problem with fetishizing freedom of speech is that it denigrates it. Freedom of speech is supposed to allow the weak to speak out against the practices of the strong.

It's supposed to empower, set the scales a bit more level. What they're doing is saying there's no difference between the truth and lies, that somehow they're morally equivalent because of some twisted perverse view of freedom of speech.

It's a dangerous, nasty evil little lie, Holocaust denial is the first step to rehabilitating the Nazis, rewriting Nazi fiction with the Aryan people as the victims and the evil Jews as the villains, only this time they're joined by Muslims. Then it can all go round again.

It's disgusting.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Freedom of speech is supposed to allow the weak to speak

It is to allow anyone to speak, not just the weak. I know you are an expert on weakness but that is not what it is about.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Source: Arutz Sheva - Israel National News

I do not care who reported it or who does it. It is still Nazi-like. Anything else?

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

The problem with fetishizing freedom of speech is that it denigrates it.

People saying things that you personally don't like isn't "fetishizing". You're just the type of person who wants to be able to control what other people say.

Quote:

Freedom of speech is supposed to allow the weak to speak out against the practices of the strong.

Yes, you're right. But that is not the extent of what freedom of speech is about. Free speech protects ALL speech, including the things you don't like.

And think about it like this, if there's some idiot out there talking about how great Hitler is, and he still gets to speak, well then you definitely know that if his speech is protected, yours is too and you get to speak out against him. And you can use your speech to point out what an idiot that guy is and how he's wrong.

The problem is (as we've seen with the de-personing of Alex Jones on social media and all the bannings of others that happened just today on youtube), that once you start defining one thing as 'hate speech', the net gets wider and wider until no one is able to speak up.

People who speak the truth don't want anyone silenced for 'hate speech'. The only people who want to silence others are the people who know that if others speak up, it will poke holes in their bullshit.

Free speech allows bad ideas to be criticized and good ideas to spread. The people that want to stifle that are the people who know that if others are allowed to speak up they'll be called on their bullshit.

But you're a Brit. You really don't have a good understanding of the 1st amendment anyway, and based on your posts you have no respect for the concept of freedom of speech itself.

1 Reply

@FreedomEyeLove,

FreedomEyeLove wrote:

Quote:
The problem with fetishizing freedom of speech is that it denigrates it.

People saying things that you personally don't like isn't "fetishizing". You're just the type of person who wants to be able to control what other people say.

Quote:
Freedom of speech is supposed to allow the weak to speak out against the practices of the strong.

Yes, you're right. But that is not the extent of what freedom of speech is about. Free speech protects ALL speech, including the things you don't like.

And think about it like this, if there's some idiot out there talking about how great Hitler is, and he still gets to speak, well then you definitely know that if his speech is protected, yours is too and you get to speak out against him. And you can use your speech to point out what an idiot that guy is and how he's wrong.

The problem is (as we've seen with the de-personing of Alex Jones on social media and all the bannings of others that happened just today on youtube), that once you start defining one thing as 'hate speech', the net gets wider and wider until no one is able to speak up.

People who speak the truth don't want anyone silenced for 'hate speech'. The only people who want to silence others are the people who know that if others speak up, it will poke holes in their bullshit.

Free speech allows bad ideas to be criticized and good ideas to spread. The people that want to stifle that are the people who know that if others are allowed to speak up they'll be called on their bullshit.

But you're a Brit. You really don't have a good understanding of the 1st amendment anyway, and based on your posts you have no respect for the concept of freedom of speech itself.

LOL the protection that the US constitution provide is from government interfere not private firms refusing to carry hate or others nonsense on their repeat on their networks.

Nor do we gain anything by allowing nuts to make up complete nonsense as the Sandy Hook shootings was stage or that Hillary and company was selling children out of the back of a DC Pizza shop. Such had result in an arm nut showing up at the pizza shop and families who loss children at Sandy Hook being threaten.

Hell children are getting sick and some are likely dying and the public health on the whole is being put at risk by the allowing of nonsense that vaccinations are harmful to the point that it is better to have children not protected.

If you put out known nonsense that cause harm then the harm you cause is not something you should be protected from either civilly or criminally.

2 Replies

Quote:

If you put out known nonsense that cause harm then the harm you cause is not something you should be protected from either civilly or criminally.

Who is to say what is nonsense? That is the point, words have to be spoken and heard so the individual can make up their minds, not have them made up for them. I think you need a safe space where different opinions cannot get you.

0 Replies

Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party have failed to secure their first parliamentary seat in the Peterborough by-election.

Labour’s Lisa Forbes was elected with a majority of 683 in the closely-fought contest for the seat vacated by Fiona Onasanya, who was sacked by her constituents in the first successful recall petition.

Certainly an unexpected blow to Nigel Farage’s ambitions, another sign sign that the right-wing politics of division will not triumph.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Peterborough voted for the Brexit party during the Euro elections, so the turds thought it would be a shoo in.

Common sense prevailed and they voted for someone who can do the job instead of a racist twat.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Since Peterborough's voters backed Leave by 61 percent to 39 percent in the 2016 Brexit referendum, it had been viewed as an area where the Brexit Party could gain support ... and easily win the seat.

2 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

That was back when they were told it would mean an extra £350 million per week to the NHS.

Now they know it reality it means selling it to American ambulance chasers.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

LOL the protection that the US constitution provide is from government interfere not private firms refusing to carry hate or others nonsense on their repeat on their networks.]

Companies like youtube, facebook, twitter, these are the modern public square, obviously. Congress has acknowledged them as such. Section 230 of the communications decency act gives tech companies special immunity from being sued for defamation or fraud.

You can read it here. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

The purpose of that provision, is supposed to be to provide "True diversity of political discourse." The effect however, is immunity for these companies. Becuase when these companies are viewed under the eyes of the law as 'platforms', they aren't liable for the dis-information that they disseminate. But by definition, when companies like that allow only certain ideas to be disseminated and not others, they are in fact acting as publishers. Publishers can be held responsible for the information they distribute, so why aren't these companies facing harsher scrutiny for their actions?

The immunity these companies have is worth tens of billions of dollars to them. Controling the flow of information is very profitable as it turns out. It's the reason the owners of facebook and google are so rich. The taxpayers granted that immunity to them without even knowing it by electing crooked, leftist politicians that lied to them. The tech companies and leftist politicians scratch each other's backs.

What do the taxpayers get in return for granting these companies these special privileges? These companies turn around and violate the agreement that they were supposed to be upholding again and again. These platforms aren't open forums. They're ongoing exercises in controling the 'little people' and censorship.

0 Replies

https://www.dailydrone.co.uk/_Media/pocket-banx_med_hr.png

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Since Peterborough's voters backed Leave by 61 percent to 39 percent in the 2016 Brexit referendum, it had been viewed as an area where the Brexit Party could gain support ... and easily win the seat.

Even in this by-election, pro-leave parties still pooled 53% of the vote.. Which was actually 1-2% more than they got in the constituency in the European election. But it was divided 6 different ways.

1 Reply

@nimh,

nimh wrote:

Even in this by-election, pro-leave parties still pooled 53% of the vote..

35% of people in Peterborough voting in EU-election, 70.8% of those for leave-parties [url0https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/peterborough-european-election-results-brexit-16336221]according to the regional paper[/url].

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

1. Results given there are for the Peterborough local council area, which is quite a bit bigger than the Peterborough parliamentary constituency

2. They are including Labour as Leave party in that calculation... A striking choice. (I did not include it.)

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

I have no idea why comment was edited except the fact I referred to a hobby. You are still denigrating your greatest generation that saved your entitled ass. Gratitude and respect are foreign to some people.

0 Replies

Far-right activists banned from entering Britain

Quick Links

My Account

able2know