User Controls
YouTube to ban thousands of users.
-
2019-06-07 at 6:58 PM UTC
-
2019-06-07 at 7:44 PM UTC
-
2019-06-08 at 5:16 PM UTC
-
2019-06-08 at 10:46 PM UTCThe only reason this is happening, besides the jewish influence, is because they're trying to shape YT to be the next "television" platform.
It's embedded in practically everything now from tvs to smart devices.
So I'm not surprised at all and everyone should have seen this coming back in the early 10s.
The only thing that worries me is that there isn't a real alternative and no bitchute does not count. -
2019-06-09 at 8:16 AM UTC
Originally posted by HikikomoriYume0 The only reason this is happening, besides the jewish influence, is because they're trying to shape YT to be the next "television" platform.
It's embedded in practically everything now from tvs to smart devices.
So I'm not surprised at all and everyone should have seen this coming back in the early 10s.
The only thing that worries me is that there isn't a real alternative and no bitchute does not count.
You should work on trying to create a new alternative -
2019-06-09 at 8:25 AM UTCThe problem is the money it would take to build the infrastructure plus I don't want to attract attention from intelligecne agencies
-
2019-06-09 at 1:13 PM UTC
-
2019-06-09 at 1:21 PM UTCYoutube actually is kinda a money pit, but google hides this fact in order to serve up content at a loss for their own ambitions. It's actually quite expensive to serve up multi-gigabyte video files (about 1 to 9 cents per GB, but that adds up).
That's why if you want to hurt google don't abandon youtube, just use an adblocker.
What big tech does is what the WTO would call dumping product on the market in order to suppress competition, and that's a big deal when China or Russia does it, but apparently no one cares when it's amazon or google doing it. -
2019-06-09 at 3:58 PM UTC
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Youtube actually is kinda a money pit, but google hides this fact in order to serve up content at a loss for their own ambitions. It's actually quite expensive to serve up multi-gigabyte video files (about 1 to 9 cents per GB, but that adds up).
who gave you this info ? did you get this number from google internal sources ?That's why if you want to hurt google don't abandon youtube, just use an adblocker.
What big tech does is what the WTO would call dumping product on the market in order to suppress competition, and that's a big deal when China or Russia does it, but apparently no one cares when it's amazon or google doing it.
adblocker might be hiding ads but clicking them in the background without you knowing. -
2019-06-09 at 4 PM UTClol. Guess im gone.
-
2019-06-09 at 4:03 PM UTCThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-06-09 at 4:05 PM UTC
-
2019-06-09 at 4:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Youtube actually is kinda a money pit, but google hides this fact in order to serve up content at a loss for their own ambitions. It's actually quite expensive to serve up multi-gigabyte video files (about 1 to 9 cents per GB, but that adds up).
That's why if you want to hurt google don't abandon youtube, just use an adblocker.
What big tech does is what the WTO would call dumping product on the market in order to suppress competition, and that's a big deal when China or Russia does it, but apparently no one cares when it's amazon or google doing it.
Google does it because it is an invaluable Google service. For example Huawei phones will now not be able to get any YouTube app without sideloading. That will be a major ding for those phones. You can still use YouTube in the browser but to have a full experience you will need to sideload. It basically cripples them on the entertainment end in 2019 and moving forward. YouTube is not directly making an operational profit but it is priceless on a brand, service, userbase, community and content generation mechanism. It is the future of entertainment. If you want to be big in internet video, you gotta get big on YouTube. -
2019-06-09 at 4:13 PM UTCYou can either have freedom of speech or not. Not freedom of speech and so called "hate speech" laws. The two are fundamentally contradictory.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2019-06-09 at 4:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie You can either have freedom of speech or not. Not freedom of speech and so called "hate speech" laws. The two are fundamentally contradictory.
See this is what I'm talking about you stupid motherfucker.
Would you agree there should be a penalty for someone who falsely shouts fire in a crowded movie theatre? -
2019-06-09 at 4:23 PM UTC
-
2019-06-09 at 4:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator See this is what I'm talking about you stupid motherfucker.
Would you agree there should be a penalty for someone who falsely shouts fire in a crowded movie theatre?
No criminal penalty. A civil court might decide the venue or the people affected are owed damages. Oh and fuck you too. -
2019-06-09 at 4:29 PM UTC
Originally posted by Common De-mominator See this is what I'm talking about you stupid motherfucker.
Would you agree there should be a penalty for someone who falsely shouts fire in a crowded movie theatre?
You are ignorant on the supreme court ruling you are trying to reference. The right to freedom of speech means you are free to say anything you wish unless it is a call to action which can cause harm to others or an actionable threat. In other words you are free to say anything you wish provided what you say doesn't physically harm another, cause another to be harmed, or infringe on the constitutional rights of others.
Simply put you can't say, "I'll pay anyone $500 who kills "insert name here". That is a both a call to action and an actionable threat. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a call to action that can cause harm to others and infringe on many of their guaranteed rights. No one who supports hate speech laws would argue that calling a black person a nigger is not hate speech. Calling a black person a nigger is neither a call to action nor an actionable threat. So if you pass a law that criminalizes calling a black person a nigger you have in fact violated the first amendment rights of everyone in America.
So who is the stupid motherfucker again?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2019-06-09 at 4:32 PM UTC
-
2019-06-09 at 4:47 PM UTC
