YouTube community standards status bar (courtesy youtube.com)

YouTube’s jihad against videos with bump fire stocks has taken a new turn. The world’s second largest internet search engine is busy deleting bump fire stock videos and giving channels with said videos one “strike” per deleted video. Just like baseball, three of those and you’re out. Permanently out. But that’s not all. Tim Harmsen of the Military Arms Channel reports . . .

YouTube pink screen (courtesy youtube.com)

that YouTube deleted one of his bump fire videos, gave him a strike and removed his ability to live stream. Mr. Harmsen has reclassified all his remaining bump fire videos as “private.” He’s contacting his YouTube rep to appeal the decision. “How can they punish me for a four-year-old video that wasn’t a problem when it was first published?”

Search result for "bump fire stock" (courtesy youtube.com)

Not to mention the fact that there was no prior notice, bump fire stocks are, at the moment, a legal product, and YouTube allows videos with machine guns to remain public and unmolested. At least for now . . .

YouTube’s censors seem to be working their way through firearms-related video producers by the number of subscribers. We can confirm that 22Plinkster shared MAC’s fate, as well as BigShooterist. TTAG has removed three bump fire videos and dodged the ban hammer’s first strike.

They say foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. But there’s no consistency here. Slide Fire’s promotional video is still up. As is the CBS report on bump fire stocks which includes our Jeremy S firing a bump fire-equipped AR.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

177 COMMENTS

  1. Way to fight the “Do the right thing” company by removing the videos before they could find them.

    Oh wait, you didn’t fight… My bad.

    • With all respect, I agree. Why not stand on principle and take the strike; appeal, send a call to action etc. Blinking in not a strategy.

      • As a public utility, What are you smoking? Seriously? They’re an internet advertising company, public utility. That’s just silly talk.

        It’s 100% their right as a private company. Choose to not do business with them, or not, there are other options, not good ones, but others. Vimeo, Bing, DuckDuckGo….

        • You are incorrect. The social media folks generally try to wrap themselves in common carrier law to exempt themselves from being responsible for the content they carry from a legal perspective.

          Like a trucking company, they just carry the freight so to speak.

          However, the instant they edit or restrict content, they are responsible for all content on their system…

          Youtube is stepping into very dangerous ground with this decision. If they actively manage content then they are responsible. SO when someone puts a call to jihad video on youtube, youtube can be named in a lawsuit when someone gets killed. It isnt very smart…

      • Generally I would disagree, but if a baker can be branded a public utility and be fined for refusing a potential customer, it eould make an interesting turn arou d.

        • The baker won the supreme court ruling. So, no, not public utility, just snowflakes hoping to get their safe space. Google’s free to delete youtube video’s, ban people, whatever. Not a public anything, private space for their private use, they’ll let you use it as long as they get paid.

          They give less than 2 craps about your freedom of speech, because they don’t have to.

        • I know, so what. Are you saying we’re supposed to say true things on the internet. Dude, where you been.

      • More like; “As a free people, we have the right to speech free from stifling restriction or manipulation of the sort commonly associated with tyrannical regimes, be they government (explicit signatories to the Constitution) or entities that rise to claim the same kinds of power (monopolies).” There is no need for Google to be nationalized as a utility; that’s unnecessary pinko shit. But their incestuous relationship with federal regulators tasked with ensuring they are not abusing their market position is grounds for one or both to be disrupted by a more disinterested third party (“broken up,” but not by Google’s bribed feds)

        • No, no, no, no. Good lord, why would you think YouTube has to let you have free speech, they’re not the Gubmnt.

        • Yeah, what’s with all the snowflakes on TTAG lately. Please make the world a safe space for MY thing, waahh!!

        • B-Rad, we’re never going to win if we’re not willing to play by their rules. The game has changed. Sure, it’s snowflake’ish, but you can’t win on defense. They’re willing to weaponize gov’t bureaucracy and the courts against their opponents. Turn about is fair play. If we keep playing by the old rules we’ve already lost.

        • I was being silly but not ironic. Liberalism has utterly failed. The Right must impose their collective will on the government and their proxies like Google or national treasures like the 2nd amendment will be stolen from us.

        • Modern-day liberalism (“collectivism”, more accurately) will always fail; it can do nothing else. And “conservative” politicians have consistently failed to capitalize on that failure in any meaningful capacity. The Trump administration included from where I’m sitting, unfortunately. The net effect is that conservative members of the general public get the short end of the stick.

          Gadsden flags or no, y’all are going to continue getting stepped on and walked all over, just like you have been for for the last 50 years (…or more, really…), unless and until you people get a real firm grasp on a few key points: a) Liberals are, at all levels, quite happy to operate outside of the law and outside of basic ethics and morality if it will advance their agenda, b) it is not possible to win a fight with an enemy who fights dirty by screaming “YOU CAN’T DO THAT, IT’S IN THE RULES!” c) you have very little political capital (although this is, thankfully, changing) because “both sides” are made up of career politicians who have a vested interest in keeping the gravy train rolling, and d) you have an uphill battle in the way of pitching your agenda to the fence-sitters and the young and undecided for a host of reasons that really don’t need to be outlined here.

          I was born and raised in Silicon Valley. I know progressives. I know how they work, and I hate them in a way that most of you cannot even begin to understand. I am telling you (that’s a colloquial you, not directing any of this @ you specifically, CLarson, just replying because I agree with you) unequivocally that if the conservative movement doesn’t start taking some pages out of Alinsky’s playbook for yourselves, if you don’t adopt a similar “the end justifies the means” approach to returning America to its founding principles, your values, your ethics, your entire philosophy of life—indeed, the entirety of everything that defines the “Great American Experiment,” as it were—will be systematically erased from history.

          And it won’t be the government that does it. Not directly. They won’t need to. Schools won’t teach it, it will become less and less socially acceptable to discuss, and as it does so, Google, Facebook, Bing, Facebook, Twitter, and the like will memory-hole it, one piece at a time. And half of you nits will be cheering them on while they do it, judging by the comments here, because “YEAH PROPERTY RIGHTS! YOU SHOW ‘EM, HUGE MULTINATIONAL CORPORATION WITH A PUBLICLY STATED GLOBALIST AGENDA! GO TEAM!” Talk about an own-goal.

        • Conservative politicians? Seriously? Ain’t no such thing. They’re all collectivists, they all just lie about their particular flavor of collectivism to get conservatives to vote for them. The moment they get the chance, they s***w you in their own self interest.

        • Oh, they very well can apply their ToS evenly. They just won’t. You, pwrserge, and I know damn well why.

    • If Youtube is not a monopoly, or indistinguishably from one due to their overwhelming market dominance, why are their private policies so newsworthy? It seems obvious by the controversy that the public views them as a monopoly and monopolies are subject to anti-trust regulation so it’s not “their sandbox.”

    • Obvious shill detected.

      Funny how leftist scum like this always love the idea of a corporation going after things they don’t like but will scream bloody murder if you try to regulate something they like.

    • I’m with ‘serge. YouTube is essentially a monopoly. When you see that YouTube can change their own rules in the middle of the game, but a Christian baker cannot, it’s easy to see that the Lefties are weaponizing the rules against gun owners and advocates.

      I make the distinction because TTAG has many gun owners and few advocates. As a gun owner, you could vote for Obama, support slide fire bans, support YouTube’s Gestapo anti-gun tactics, be fine with Antifa shutting down conservatives at college campuses, etc.

      Gun right advocates see the blatant hypocrisy and anti-trust violations that YouTube is committing. We saw Obama being anti-gun years away. We oppose banning slide fire stocks, particularly since the Left is offering nothing in return. We see the difference between Democrats, who are always anti-gun, and Republicans, who are sometimes pro gun. We see the culture war and vilification of gun owners on YouTube, emoticons, mass media, public schools, and college campuses as the very real threat that it is.

      Go ahead and villainize Poweresege. You can think I’m the bad guy, too. At least we stand for gun rights. You Tube is far too big too be considered entirely private.

      • I agree.

        As I see it, the internet is the modern equivalent of the ‘town square’, so to speak. It’s the venue you use to communicate your ideas to the rest of the world.

        Unlike an actual, physical, public space, as a practical matter, you can’t just get on the internet and start talking. To communicate effectively, you need somebody to host your content (whether it’s a hosting service on your own website or a 3rd party like youtube, facebook, twitter, etc.), and you need search engines to index it so people can find it.

        The companies that provide those services are effectively ‘gatekeepers’ for this public space; if they decide they don’t like your content, nobody is going to see it. The “conservative” solution of ‘find a company that’s willing to do business with you, then’ isn’t a viable option here; how many people will see your post if you have to put it on myspace because facebook won’t allow it? Denying access to the most commonly-used tools and services is itself a form of censorship.

        Furthermore, what happens when you have something to say that the majority find so distasteful that you end up in a situation where nobody will host your content?

        Ars Technica reported some weeks back on some neo-nazi site losing their hosting and being driven onto TOR because nobody would host them following the incident in Charlottesville. I don’t support their cause, I’m sure most people reading this don’t, either. I also don’t support censorship. The unfettered exchange of ideas—no matter how distasteful—is a cornerstone of a free society.

        In the 1700s and 1800s, simply banning the government from regulating speech was sufficient to address this; even if none of the local newspaper publishers would run your crazy ideas, you could grab your soapbox and stand in the middle of town and shout at people.

        With sites like youtube and facebook effectively supplanting the physical “public square,” that course of action is no longer sufficient. Either these service providers need to be forced to host all content and treat it equally, or the government needs to get into the site and content hosting and search engine businesses. I know which one of those options I’d rather have.

        • That may well be true in practice in today’s world. But we’re still governed by the constitution in the US, and under current interpretation, specifically under the Robert’s court, but also with stare decisis, that’s not how its defined. Until the law changes, it’s 100% google’s right to censor.

        • Rick,

          We have violations of the Constitution to high heaven, even if you don’t count what NJ, N.Y., and CA are doing to the 2nd Amendment. Ruled by the Constitution?! The US isn’t even close. Sometimes case law sets precedent, and other times it just blows with the wind.

        • But that is states, or localities, working the margins under federal laws, whether inside or outside the margins, so big g Government.

          Private companies are NOT Government, and their margins on constitutional restrictions are different. The 1st and 5th amendments govern free speech and property rights. With Citizens United and Hobby Lobby, company and personal rights are effectively equal.

        • Rick,

          I don’t disagree; strictly as a legal matter, as the law sits now, Google gets to decide what content it allows on Youtube and what it doesn’t.

          I’m arguing that the law, as currently written and interpreted, is insufficient to address issues created by the widespread adoption of the internet as the primary method for communication and dissemination of information for the entire civilized world.

          This is a unique opportunity in humanity’s history; at no point have so many people, irrespective of socioeconomic status, nationality, education, etc., had free access to so much information, or the ability to freely exchange ideas with people from all over the world. And for most of the internet’s history, that process has been allowed to take place almost completely unimpeded.

          The increasing trend in the past few years to ban and boycott and “use a different website if you don’t like it” threatens the most basic principles of this ecosystem. And in doing so, it threatens to drag humanity back to a point where the only information the average person had access to was what the government and/or corporations (depending on the era and country in question) felt they should have access to, and the only audience he had to discuss his ideas was his circle of friends.

          As a species, this is something that we cannot allow to play out the way Google, Facebook and Twitter would like it to, no matter the cost or the consequences.

          So yes, you’re absolutely correct; as it stands now, Google has the right to do what they’re doing. And continuing to grant them that right is logically indefensible and ethically abhorrent.

        • I guess I agree with that. There’s this weird dichotomy between old school property rights and the reality of today. There’s an increasing need for internet access as an almost civil requirement, notice I didn’t say civil right. If you don’t have access then how do you function today, that’s a real question, I don’t know.

        • whaaaa!!

          “The companies that provide those services are effectively ‘gatekeepers’ for this public space; if they decide they don’t like your content, nobody is going to see it. The “conservative” solution of ‘find a company that’s willing to do business with you, then’ isn’t a viable option here; how many people will see your post if you have to put it on myspace because facebook won’t allow it? Denying access to the most commonly-used tools and services is itself a form of censorship.”

          The conservative solution, you mean the law. It’s not like their sandbox, it is their frickin sandbox, or bakery shop, they don’t want it, piss off somewhere else. Not their job to give you a safe space.

        • Shut the fuck up Leroy. It’s not equivalent and you damn well know it. Unless your argument is that the power company can cut service to you because “it’s their sandbox” you don’t have a logical leg to stand on. Like it or not, many aspects of the internet these days are just as vital as having power in your house.

        • First attempt got marked as spam, if this double posts, apologies.

          Leroy,
          If you’d read my posts a little more carefully you might have seen that I acknowledged that what Google is doing is legal, and that I presented an argument for why it should not be. I believe that privately-owned companies (such as mom and pop bakeries) should have carte blanche to do almost anything they like with their employees and their customers. And I also believe that a publicly traded corporation should forfeit most of that freedom, particularly in the case of a company that is the providing what is, for all intents and purposes, a public space explicitly for the purpose of discussion, socialization, and dissimination of information.

          Google’s search engine, Youtube, Twitter, Facebook, and a small handful of other sites are the venue for public discourse in the 21st century. This is the first time in human history that privately owned organizations have exercised a functional oligopoly on spaces to exchange ideas and information.
          Sure, you can go elsewhere; let’s say Google et. al. decide collectively to memory hole all firearm posts entirely. So you take your videos and you put them on dailymotion.

          In your mind, I’m sure that’s fine. After all, your video is still up.

          Do note, though, that Google et. al. have taken your audience away. You are screaming into the void. Nobody uses dailymotion. Most people haven’t even heard of it, and even fewer can navigate to it. Google et. al. are now free to use their platforms to ram specious arguments for gun control down the throats of an unsuspecting public, functionally without opposition or accountability.

          This is essentially what’s taking place now, over bump stocks; it’s just a hop, skip, and a leap to firearms videos entirely.

          The scope of reach for this handful of companies is wide enough that they can censor speech as effectively (indeed, more effectively) than any government in human history. It should be obvious to you how this violates the intent of the First Amendment.

          I’m not interested in what the law currently is; everybody commenting here is on the same page there. I’m telling you that the rights of a corporation that controls access to a societally significant public space to dictate the terms of use of that space are necessarily subservient to the right of individuals to have unfettered access to that space to exercise their right to speak freely.

          This is not the 1800s anymore. You can’t go stand in the town square and orate your ideas to an audience if you expect to communicate effectively; effective communication to a large audience necessarily takes place on the internet. And in 2017, Google owns the internet’s town square..

    • I mean this in the least disrespectful way possible, but most of you guys are flatly wrong about the current state of case law concerning free speech, how YouTube would be categorized therein, and how free speech works generally. I’m genuinely not trying to be a jerk, but it’s like listening to a bunch of virgins talk about sex.

      A few of you get it. The rest of you are just spreading confusion.

    • Siorus, take everything you just said and replace “right to share ideas” with “right to healthcare” (or any other left-leaning sacred cow) and the problem with your theory should become apparent. Don’t get me wrong, what you said was well-explained, well-thought-out, and reflects a noble desire to see information essentially democratized. But just like all of the liberal schemes to accomplish something that is ostensibly good, the end doesn’t justify the means. As conservatives (I’m painting in broad strokes, so forgive me if you consider yourself some other flavor of not-leftist) we see the problems in America and say, “Of course the poor shouldn’t starve to death, sick people should get the healthcare they need, and no one should be denied a promotion based on their race or gender. We just don’t think the best answer is violating the rights of others to accomplish these goals.” The same holds true for your position.

      I hope that doesn’t sound like I’m attacking you or implying that you’re foolish. Again, I think it’s noble to want to promote the open sharing of ideas, and you’re right to be leery of concentrated power, be it in the hands of a corporation or a government. But what must be sacrificed in order to achieve your goal appears to me to be too high a cost.

      • Yes… because clearly, allowing a handful of gatekeepers to control the sum of human communication is a much better option. When companies rival the power of governments, they get slapped with the same restrictions as governments.

        • No pwrserge, it’s just more butthurt for you. Your starting to like it now, you rough boy.

      • Cory,

        No offense taken. I’ve got no problem discussing this issue, and I understand your concern. I feel that you are creating a false equivalency in your comparison to healthcare.

        Mandating universal healthcare necessarily infringes on the rights of individuals; specifically, it forcibly appropriates money from some people for the care of others, without their consent. Other social safety nets have the same issue.

        It is my contention that that is not the case here, mainly because I do not believe that corporations can, do, or should have rights. Individuals, yes; even as business owners. A corporation, with shareholders, particularly one that is publicly traded? No.

        You said yourself that concentrating power in the hands of either government or corporations is concerning; it is. Corporations like Google are at best passively feckless; at worst they can be (and in Google’s case specifically, often are) actively malicious. No different than the government. Difference being the government has the constitution to keep it in shackles (sort of; we all know how well that works/doesn’t work); corporations have no such impediments in a lot of cases. And when they get to Google’s size, they need them. For the same reasons.

        The fact of the matter is that for all practical purposes, for the vast majority of people, the internet is their primary source of information, and the reality of the situation is that for most of those people, their ISP, their search engine of choice, and the hosting companies for the sites they visit have, between them, absolute control over what information they have access to.

        I mentioned what happened to that skinhead site; the article is titled “Unable to get a domain, racist Daily Stormer retreats to the Dark Web” and it’s on ars technica if you wish to read it. What happens if TTAG is next, because no hosting company will touch a gun website after some huge terrorist attack?

        “Oh it’s ok, we’ll just use the TOR browser” isn’t a solution here; I can do that. I’ve been in the IT business for my entire adult life and then some. A lot of this site’s readership couldn’t manage to download TOR much less install it, and it would absolutely effectively block any significant number of new readers from finding the website.

        So the net effect of hosting providers declining to host controversial websites, of Google and Bing choosing not to index it, or of Youtube banning content it doesn’t like, is that you have functionally ceded control of your only effective means of communicating your message to the general public. Permanently.

        For a lot of people, if it’s not on youtube or the first page of Google’s search results, that information might as well not exist. You have allowed companies with a stated, explicit, activist left-wing agenda complete and unfettered control over all of the information the average individual sees.

        Basically what you’re telling me is that a huge, publicly traded organization, which provides a service that is utilized by the majority of the population, for which there is no viable alternative, which has an openly political agenda, being able to silence viewpoints that it doesn’t like—and in doing so, effectively remove those viewpoints from the discussion in their entirety—is more important than the right of the people to have access to the tools and information necessary to reach their own informed conclusions. Which is, I’d remind you, the intent of the first amendment.

        I understand your concerns; indeed, I share them. I lived in California for the first 30 years of my life; within walking distance of some of these companies, no less, I know how they operate better than anyone else on this forum. And what I’m trying to tell you is that by taking the position you are taking, you are playing right into these clowns’ hands. You are giving them exactly what they want. Keep defending their right to use their platforms as bully pulpits for their agenda. Give them 20 years and they’re going to erase all of your ideas, your beliefs, and everything you hold dear from history completely. Watch it happen. Granting Google, Facebook, et. al. the right to control the content on their own networks is exactly what will lead us into Orwell’s 1984.

        Lastly, I would remind you that the internet is the only medium that has ever existed, at any point in human history, that made it impossible for either governments or corporations to control the information the average citizen has access to. Do you understand, I mean really, truly understand, how critical that is to the preservation of the American experiment? Do you realize that Trump would not have won if it wasn’t for the internet and the consequential relative inability of the government and the msm to control the message during the election? Do you further recognize how big of a step backwards, in the direction of only being able to see what “they” want you to see, legitimizing Google’s censorship is? For everybody’s sake, I sure hope you do.

  3. Just wait until YouTube starts applying this policy towards other things they don’t like. But that’s ok Google/Tube can virtue signal their way to oblivion as competitors arise.

    • They already have. They’ve been ban hammering conservative creators for months. It’s time to nationalize YouTube and charge the entire staff with material support of terrorism.

      • They’ve been hammering ALL content creators for most of this year. It’s not a new thing, and has hit mommy vlogs, gamer channels, boat channels, and gun channels. Their APM charges took a dive and they’ve passed that on by marking nearly everything as de-monitized, until you appeal. That doesn’t keep them from running ads on your content, just sharing revenue. Major advertisers were boycotting Youtube, so YT passed on the loss to the people creating their content.

        It’s a total dick move, but its got nothing to do with politics.

      • You don’t really understand how capitalism and private industry works do you?

        Vote with your dollars by using other video sites.

        • When the ecosystem has a finite number of gatekeepers that’s not an argument. It’s the same reason electric companies are under strict regulation. You don’t really have much choice in using their service. Similarly, if you want to publish video content with a chance at significant reach, you have no real choice but to use YouTube.

        • Does YouTube spool a wire out to your house? The electric company also gets a guaranteed profit margin, for their restricted market access, because they have to “recoup” their infrastructure spend.

          Dumb analogy.

        • Bullshit Leroy. Google controls the overwhelming majority of internet traffic and you fucking know it. They are the power company of the internet. That power comes with strings. Sorry bro, but your libertard bullshit doesn’t fly in the real world where a corporate board is just as capable of abusing absolute power as any government.

          • Bullshit, pwrserge. Google does not control a majority of the internet traffic and you damn well fucking know that. They aren’t the power company of the internet and you have yet to substantiate literally any-fucking-thing you’ve claimed so far. Sorry, but your statist fascitard bullshit doesn’t fly out there in the real world — where you clearly do NOT fucking live — where a corporate board ONLY has as much power as a state body so long as there is a state body to begin with.

            Giving more power to the government, like you suggest, simultaneously gives at least that much power and probably much, much more to the very corporations that you’re intentionally mislabeling. THAT is also something that you damn well fucking know, too.

        • A corporation can’t force me to do anything. I never knew you were an ANCOM, is your antifa membership up for renewal?

        • I’m an individualist. I think that individual civil rights, like free speech, trump group rights, like those of a corporation to censor its customers.

          But in any case, when a corporation has power that infringes on the civil rights of tens of millions of Americans, the corporation loses. It’s a simple balancing test always going back to INDIVIDUAL rights.

        • Earlier, you reasoning was, “they can’t censor because they’re a monopoly”, then, “They can’t censor because of 1st amendment” then “They can’t censor because of the public square” then “They can’t censor because of the Civil Rights Act”

          Since you’ve been wrong, every time, maybe instead of trying shoehorn your preferred result into the facts, just accept the facts.

        • I’m an individualist. WTF does that even mean, do laws not apply to you? I’m a bunny rabbit, no I’m a rock star, Ima…Ima…Ima, real boy.

        • At no point did I cite the 1st amendment in my argument. Just because the 1st amendment prevents congress from infringing on free speech does not grant a random corporate board that power. Keep stuffing your straw men libertard. I’m sure that in ancapistan the richest man will not immediately set up a feudal dictatorship.

          • You cited free speech rights and the Civil Rights Act, pwrserge. Both of those of things are in fact predicated explicitly on the First Amendment, which you DO want the federal government — which, need I remind you, is in bed with these corporations — to apply to private entities that have not (yet) achieved monopoly status. Keep stuffing YOUR straw men, fascitard. I’m sure that in pwrsergistan, the government won’t just use the power that YOU’VE just handed them to allow their corporate donor whores to censor you even more.

        • Look, butthurt snowflake calling people names. Oh pwr your such a big and powerfull boy, do you want to SURGE all over me. XOXOXO

      • If they were living up to “Google is crap”. Then why would anyone care, they dominate because they are, in fact, the best. The problem is google is not a search engine, they are an advertising company. They use search to sell ads, so to maximize advertising CPM, so if there is anything that may impact those rates, their going to address it.

        Now, I absolutely think they’re anti-competitive, specifically when they use bundling to use a dominance in search to minimize competitors in video, flights, maps… But notice, none of that has anything to do with editorial content. They aren’t the government, they can censor all they want, but they’re anti-competitive.

        Monopolies have nothing to do with free speech, it is a commercial competitive concept, period. Public companies have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, and this has been completely driven by the focus on shareholder value, especially short term, and even more so in Tech. There was a time where companies had a focus on civic nationalism, but that ended in the 70’s. Businesses are completely self interested to ensure their assets are the most advantaged, and censorship is unimportant, if it doesn’t advantage them. See the great firewall of China, built by Americans.

    • Well, they already changed their motto from “Don’t be evil” to “Do the right thing”. When you’re a bunch of leftish the “right thing” is flexible since the ends always justify the means.

  5. Similar to banning/burning certain books and other publications.

    Why am I not shocked or surprised.

  6. Soon the Republicans will ban them in real life too. Youtube feels bold because if the GOP wants to ban them (as they don’t believe in the 2nd amendment) then who could object. Ultimately it’s their property so whatever.

    • Nice try. The democrats have been very active during the Obama administration burning books. The bible is number one on their list.
      Look up the Obama administration ordering the burning of bibles in Afghanistan.

    • Sorry, but no. When you’re a monopoly, you don’t have a right to discriminate on any basis. Not unless you want Marines kicking down your door and your board going up against the wall.

      • They are NOT a monopoly.

        A monopoly (from Greek μόνος mónos [“alone” or “single”] and πωλεῖν pōleîn [“to sell”]) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity. This contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity’s control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly which consists of a few sellers dominating a market).

        Having a dominant market position doesn’t make a monopoly. I hate how little our education teaches people. Just because you FEEL like they’re a monopoly, doesn’t make it so.

        • Rick, I am sorry but you are misusing these business terms thus confusing the debate. Please refer to Investopedia or college business books.

          A “Monopsony” is … “a buyer’s monopoly, is a market condition similar to a monopoly except that a large buyer, not a seller, controls a large proportion of the market and drives prices down. A monopsony occurs when a single firm has market power in employing its factors of production.” The Pentagon is a clear Monopsony that is the dominant buyer of military aircraft from Boeing and others. Youtube is NOT this.

          An “Oligopoly” is …”a market structure in which a small number of firms has the large majority of market share. An oligopoly is similar to a monopoly, except that rather than one firm, two or more firms dominate the market.” A perfect example of this is our airlines with United/American/Delta flying 85% of all USA passenger traffic. Youtube has virtually zero competition. Youtube is NOT this.

          Youtube is a clear Monopoly much like Standard Oil, AT&T, GM/1960’s, Microsoft, and others. Monopolies do form and unless screwing up on their own (GM) they can/should be taken apart at some point. Youtube is clearly a 99% video Monopoly. They were untouchable as long as they kept an “open for all” platform but that is eroding quickly from their own internal political subversion. They are further opening themselves to lawsuits since they are harming posters form lost income exposing themselves to million dollar claims and possible huge class action suits. They are playing political beliefs over currently legal products (bump stocks) and are placing themselves in a worse position than the Oregon bakers refusing the gay cakes based upon religious grounds.

        • First, I literally provided the definition of monopoly. https://www.britannica.com/topic/monopoly-economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

          No one confused Standard Oil with the government, they were a commercial monopoly in the United States, acting in collusion illegally, as defined by the Sherman Act. Google isn’t a monopoly as defined by the law of the United States.

          You are confusing Google as a pseudo government with The British East India Company, an actual pseudo government. Google is not the Wallace Corporation or Weyland-Yutani, at least not yet.

          Once again, there is a difference between you feeling like they’re a monopoly, or your opinion they’re a monopoly. Even if that were true, its not, breaking it up would have zero effect on them censoring speech. After you broke them into components, a la Standard Oil and its 34 spinoffs, they still have zero responsibility to censor, or not, if its not advantageous to their business, it could be 34 different companies censoring results.

          That’s just how the real world works, you’re free to not use google, other options exist, and have some market share, tiny though it may be, its easy to change personally, but you like google for the other 99% of what you use search for. Use bing, duckduckgo, or vimeo, but don’t be surprised if they are not doing the same thing.

          I FEEL as though they shouldn’t use their ability for adverse selection, in many ways, but I recognize it’s 100% their right under American law. In other countries, China, that isn’t the case.

      • I bet you wouldn’t have been in favor of the federal government nationalizing you tube 2 years ago, you dolt. Idiots think that giving the government the power to censor is a good idea when their guy is in charge because the reigns of government will never be handed over to the other team. Idiot.

        • Please tell me more about how preventing corporate censorship is equivalent to government censorship.

        • They are not equivalent dumbass. That’s the whole point. Corporations are free to censor as they like because they are not government. The 1st amendment applies to the government. You know the opening clause of the 1st amendment is, Congress shall make no law.

          corporations are just groups of people. If you advocate using the coercive power of government to abridge the speech of groups of people, then you might be statist scum.

        • If you support the authority of a “group of people” to decide to violate the civil rights of millions just because they are “a private company”, you might just be retarded. The state exists for a reason. What you’re advocating is feudalism.

        • Actually Citizens United v FEC says exactly that.

          The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010 that freedom of speech prohibits the government from restricting independent political expenditures by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

          They inherently have the same rights to freedom of speech, and censorship, as any other.

        • Nobody has a “right” to censorship. My right to free speech trumps their alleged right to censor.

        • No, the government can’t restrict your free speech, within limits, as free speech isn’t unlimited.

          But if you walk into my house, or my private business, and start spouting things I think are offensive, I can ask you to leave. Then have you arrested and prosecuted, if you don’t leave.

          It’s google’s living room, or store, that’s defined by both the 1st and 5th amendments of the constitution. That’s how we as a nation of laws define private vs public property rights. Google is a private entity.

        • Except that YouTube is not equivalent to your living room. It only exists by acting as a modern public square. You’re equating things that are not equivalent. My civil rights apply even inside your home. When you invite me in and make money off of my presence, you lose the right to ignore my constitutional protections. Individual rights always trump group rights.

        • Dude, YouTube isn’t HIS living your, it’s Google’s living room. And if he invites you in, he can’t kick your ass out, who told you that? That’s stupid, do you know how analogies work? You know your not, like a vampire, once the human invites me in I can do whatever I want. What are you an inlaw?

          Now you know, bing, bang bong…whoosh.

      • When your a monopoly…free speech. WTF are you talking about. When your a football….bacon is good…petunias are stinky. Word salad.

  7. And, why on earth are you inserting links to videos on YouTube in the very story bemoaning their behavior? The plan is to reward them with more hits and advertising revenue?

  8. Don’t worry the three L’s Libertarians Liberals and the Left, agree with You Tube. As a private business they can ban anything at any time. They can change the rules of the “house” and don’t have to tell you.

    Next up banning every class three weapons video. I predict this happen within a year. Maybe they will delete war movies as well.
    But you can still play with video game machine guns on You Yube.

    • Which is why the three Ls are the most disgusting people on earth. They don’t mind tyranny, they just disagree on the best method.

        • Having a corporation act as a tyrannical government is no different than an actual government doing the same thing.

      • Libertarians do mind tyranny. Otherwise, they’d be Repugnicants or DemoKKKrats, full stop.

        Stop spreading lies.

        • The fact that they defend clear corporate tyranny with “it’s their sandbox” bullshit indicates otherwise. A multi-billion dollar multi-national is not a mom and pop grocery store. I’d bet they’d be just fine with the East India Company. After all, they did all their jackbooting with private troops and private warships.

        • The British east India company was backed by the force of the British government. They were far from a private entity. Do you even history bro?

          And what the fuck is corporate tyranny? Is there someone forcing you to use a corporations products and services?

        • Clearly you know jack shit about British history. The East India Company had their own ground troops and their own fucking navy. They were a government in all but name. … and yes, YouTube’s monopoly more or less forces me to use their product.

        • Care to elaborate on how YouTube is forcing you to use their service? If you want to post your own videos, there are literally dozens of other places you can do that. Do you have a medical condition that requires you to watch cat videos and morons unboxing their new iPhones? If there’s some content you want to see that’s only available on YouTube, you always have the option of just not watching it. Somehow humans managed to scrape by for thousands of years without internet video, you’d probably survive.

          I don’t like Twitter or Facebook’s politics, so I don’t use their services. I don’t buy from Amazon. I don’t shop at stores and restaurants that post “no guns” signs. Somehow the free market always manages to provide me with alternatives to giving shitty companies my money.

        • … and I’m pretty sure that Standard Oil wasn’t forcing anybody to use their products… How did that work out?

        • @pwrserge — The fact that they actually don’t defend clear corporate tyranny, at all, indiciates that you are as a matter fact wrong. Again. Still. More. A multi-billion dollar, multi-national is still not the government. I can guarantee you that they wouldn’t be fine with the East India Trading Company, either, being that it was actually backed by the force of the British government. YouTube is not. (At least not yet, anyway…) After all, they did all their jackbooting only with the government’s blessing.

          So clearly, you’re every bit as willfully pig ignorant about British history as you like to think kurt is. They weren’t a government unto themselves and YouTube does NOT force you to use their product. Period. Oh, and speaking of someone who can’t analogize properly, YouTube =/= Standard Oil, either. And THAT’S the end of that particular discussion, too.

    • Libertarians actually don’t agree with YouTube’s decisions, only with their right to make them.

      Stop spreading lies.

      • Therein lies the problem. When a company gets big enough to become a defacto government for large chunks of public life, they lose the protections granted to groups that have actual competition. Google needs to be broken up into dozens of companies. They do not have the right you claim they do.

        • Even after they were broken up, they have no responsibility to provide you a platform for free speech. They operate under the laws of the United States.

          You don’t like it, petition the government for redress, have the 1st amendment changed, or vote with your feet and go to…I don’t know where, but the freedom place I guess.

          I guess I just don’t understand your point. You want the government to ensure that private industry does what? Manage Google’s algorithm? You state your problem, then define what success looks like. So what result do you want. I get the censoring of content is your problem, but what does success look like. Google to be broken up, OK, still wouldn’t solve your problem.

          I guess reality is coloring my view of your feelings.

        • Also, what’s the deal with always calling people communists? Seriously?

          I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

        • Simple, apply the same discrimination statutes you apply to other civil right. Add political opinion as a protected category. The protection of free speech is not limited to the first amendment.

        • Yes, exactly. You want to change the legal interpretation of the 1st and 5th amendment. Cool, go for it, but until then, it is in fact the law.

        • “Also, what’s the deal with always calling people communists? Seriously?

          I don’t think that word means what you think it means.”

          *Snort*

          Rick, Serge grew up in the Soviet Union while it was under communist control.

          He’s *fully* qualified to comment on the practical application of a communist-totalitarian system on a society…

        • Actually, it would fall under the civil rights act, no redefinition of either amendment is necessary. If the civil rights act can be used to force a bakery to provide a service, it can be used to prevent YouTube censorship.

        • Not sure I get the point. Unlike in the Soviet system, the state owned the means of production, in this analogy I guess that’s Google. But in our system, Google is a private company that has their rights guaranteed as well as individuals. It’s not one OR the other, its both in our system. That’s one of the many differences between the Soviet system and ours.

          In our system you’re not mandated to use Google, now 20 years in they may be on the only “practical” choice, but they were one of many search engines, and there are still lots of, tiny, options today. They used the capitalist system to succeed get right, buy YouTube and and build that into another dominant option in that market.

          It’s awesome that pwr got to immigrate here, here is great. Here is not there, so knowing how here works, not how here doesn’t work is way more important than how there, that isn’t there anymore, didn’t work.

        • The Civil Rights Act has zero precedent here, literally nothing. It outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. How is Google, MAC, Bump Stocks, Guns, Video Games, Porn related.

        • Sure, now religion in the Civil Rights Act can be expanded to include freedom of speech from the 1st amendment. Ok…and free hookers and blow every other Thursday. Cool,cool, thanks pwr for your truly unique logic. I will treasure your insights forever.

        • @pwrserge — Therein actually lies no problems, as yet. Google has not yet grown anywhere close to big enough to become a government unto itself. Unless and until you can actually point to an instance of it sending jackboots to jackboot a competitor, it is not what you claim it is. Full stop, end of. Discussion done.

    • Perfect place for your young daughter to peruse videos about her hobby; brilliant!

      I bet porn sights will host as well, for the right price…

      • The irony there is… Interesting.

        Offended by porn, want to avoid a platform that censors guns but does censor porn.

  10. I suppose all the non-stock bumpfiring videos will be next?
    As a side Thingiverse has marked all bumb device files for review are no longer available to download. They’re still up on Grab-a-cad though.

  12. They’re removing the videos to ensure people are uninformed. Especially since comparing a video of someone firing a bump fire rifle shows that the sound is completely different from the sound in Vegas, which sounded like a belt fed machine gun.

    • Please, remove the tinfoil hat and join the rest of us in reality land.
      There were no machine guns (belt fed or otherwise) used by this sicko.
      Trust me on this: if there were, we’d all know about it. Just like we’d know if he was an NRA member, a registered Republican voter, or a member of an “alt-right” group.

      • That’s not anywhere near “tinfoil hat”, buddy. “Tinfoil hat” is literally “the government is controlling my mind with microwaves.” This is just looking at primary sources and questioning the ways in which they don’t square with the “official” story. Everyone should do that.

        As far as this case goes, he’s right. I dunno about “belt fed MG” necessarily, but some of the bursts (like the first one) are 100% not bump fire. You can never get strings that evenly spaced or slow just from the (bio/)mechanics of a slide stock. There was a real machine gun in play, and if the official report is that they didn’t find one they’re either lying or there was a second shooter that got away.

        • The cadence of the shooting is like a perfectly timed clock. I don’t think the best bumpfirer in the world could accomplish that for a sustained duration.
          Unless this guy practiced everyday all day or he was Captain Autismo with special powers of special ed this was definitely not bumpfire.

        • It’s still too early to attempt to compare “primary sources” with the “official story.”
          Even the officials haven’t finished their investigations, and far too many “primary sources” are hoaxers looking to make fools out of those who are too willing to believe anything bad about the government.
          And that includes the tinfoil hat brigade.

  15. YouTube is just catering to its advertisers, who are by and large big city liberal leftists in NYC and LA.

    The way to go after YouTube is to boycott products from its biggest advertisers.

        • Do you actually know what a jackboot refers too. I think you might actually be calling me a mercantilist, not a communist, but since you have zero clues, who knows.

        • Yes, because the British East India company was totally never a thing. It’s not like they had their own private armies and a fucking navy… It’s not like they ran India like their own personal country…

        • Guy, yes the East India Company, West India Company, etc… were, in fact things. Did in fact have their own armies and navies, a commercial extension of the British Empire, also backed by the Empire

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company

          When you say things like this, it doesn’t help your message. I’m pretty sure there is definitely no tanks, destroyers, or generally any other military force backing up google.

        • I absolutely agree that information is the most important strategic differentiator today.

          Again, your confusing practical town square, practical private company conduct, and the potential power of that, with the constitutional limitation of governments ability to regulate the actual reality that those exist in private companies hands. There is zero legal basis in that, none. We can want it to be different, we can effort changing that, but it exists, denying it exists isn’t helpful, repeating nonsense about it being a civil right over and over still doesn’t make it so, is tedious, and boring.

          At this point I just hope your being a troll, because being this vociferous over fantasies isn’t healthy. Google is not a nation, Google was founded in the United States of America, until they move to Canada, which they’re free to do, and then your “Civil Rights” argument is even more asymptotic to reality.

          It seems that what you want is a state owned internet, state owned media, enforcing the states belief over the state owned population. Google is an American company, owned by individual citizens who have a constitutionally granted right over their private property, delegating their management the rights on their property they want, limited by the ACTUAL Civil Rights Act, which doesn’t address free speech in any way. You, apparently now a citizen of the United States of America, are free to vote with your wallet, your browser, or your feet; you’re entitled to your own feelings and opinion, but the rest of us don’t have to let you get away with asinine fantasy. TTAG could shut us out, kick us off, ban us, and you know what, that is 100% their right too, as the private owner of this website. They’re nice enough to ALLOW you and I here to argue, they don’t have to, they can delete, modify, edit, any article and post one this site. And you know what, that’s cool, because America.

        • Rick that’s a retarded argument and you know it. There are internet services that are critical to modern society. Like it or not, YouTube and Google are two of those services. Please quit stuffing straw men with your ancap bullshit. All anybody is actually arguing for is preventing Google from doing something that is inherently destructive to the structure of our society. If you allow a tiny handful of companies to, in effect, control all public speech, you don’t have a democracy anymore and the CotUS isn’t worth jack shit.

          • pwrserge, that’s an equally and actually retarded (non)argument and you know THAT. YouTube and Google are not critical to modern society, whether you happen to like THAT or not. So, please take your own advice — for once — and stop stuffing Straw Men with your own fascitard bullshit. All you are actually arguing for is to hand power to the government which you damn well KNOW is just going to be handed right to Google, and the exact polar opposite than what YOU want done with it WILL be done with it. There isn’t jack shit that you can ever — even unto the heat death of the fucking universe — think, say, or do to change that, either. You KNOW why. No, a tiny handful of companies do not effectively control all public speech, nor do you or anyone else alive for that matter have any proof of this. Not one iota whatsoever, and THAT’S something else you damn well know, too.

      • Which civil right did they violate?

        Lefty here doesn’t know what rights are. imagine that.

        • Whatever you say commie scum. Free speech is a civil right. And no, the fact that it is “their sandbox” is irrelevant. Or would you be ok with the power company cutting service to your house because they don’t like your politics?

        • yell me about your right use a private company’s platform to voice your opinion. I’m assuming you’re in agreement with the “Bake that cake bitch” crowd. my god, statists are stupid.

        • I’m in agreement that nobody has the right to violate the free speech rights of others just because they don’t like the content. It’s not rocket science. The 1st amendment is not the end all, be all of free speech protections.

        • In that case, I’ll be heading over to pwrsurge’s house to lecture him on the difference between positive rights and negative rights. It will all be okay because pwrsurge thinks that there is a civil right to use people’s private platforms to speak however they want.

          like I said, statists are stupid.

        • Except that YouTube cannot exist as a private platform. By its very nature, it’s a de-facto town square. But please keep your libertardian bullshit to a minimum. This is why nobody can stand ancap retards.

        • You tube does exist as a private entity. YouTube does exist as a private entity. Youtube does exist as a private entity.

          You’re pretty stupid if you can’t understand that.

          Also, Libertarians wrote the constitution. The 2A exists because of libertarians.

        • Oh really? When was the last time YouTube produced content anybody was interested in watching? YouTube is a platform. When said platform become basal to how our society works, limits need to be applied on how the owner of said platform can use it. Power companies are a great example. Unless you’re ok with them cutting power to your house because they don’t like your politics, you’re a hypocrite. If you do think so, you’re just insane.

    • Incorrect. When a company reaches monopoly status, it ceases to be “their sandbox”. Even then, civil rights still apply.

  17. Meh…I rarely look at YouTube. Of greater concern to ME is google censorship so one never knows what’s been BURIED…BREAKING: Terrorism in jolly old England😡

  18. My comment from the bump-fire video removal post last night:

    What is interesting to me is not so much the deletion, but the applied “strike” against MAC (and others).

    That’s akin to the state lowering the speed limit from 50 to 30 and then issuing you a warning because the speed camera caught you doing 45 last month.

    If you had 10 bump-fire videos and they took them all down, could you conceivably get 10 strikes and get your account deleted?

  20. If the top 250 of gunvideoproducers would move all their gunvideos to say Full30 and delete their account on Youtube, their subscribers would simple follow them to Full30. Once it is known that there’s no gunstuff on Youtube anymore but there is on Full30, problem over. Fvck YT. Vote with your feet, producers and viewers.

  21. What an unjust and arbitrary action. More important is the effect of behavior modification. Then next time this kind of thing happens (Vegas), are content creators now going to think “maybe I should take down my video or make it private”? Youtube cannot think that it cares about a free exchange of ideas if it engages in behavior like this.

  22. Don’t even bother reading the comments on these videos. All the little children have taken it upon themselves to declare these products horrible. Like they have nothing better to do than to go and run their fucking mouths about something that they didn’t know existed until now. Why didn’t they direct their collective outrage towards car videos when a terrorist ran over 80+ people in Nice, France.

  23. OK, I’m getting a bit into a pedantic argument about the rights of Google, vs doing the right thing. So…

    1. It’s Google’s right as a private company in the US to censor as they wish based on current US law.

    2. It’s a complete dick move to actually act in the way they have. Unless they change their policies, gun video’s aren’t “offensive” specifically according to their published rules. Debatable on adult, they do restrict drinking vids, and vids with cursing, but even if its restricted, that’s not a licensing violation or offensive.

    3. Google, Youtube, etc. are not the content creator, so screwing creators out of ad revenue that they’re still running ads on is even more of a dick move.

    4. They’re anti-competitive, potentially bordering on monopolistic, but no way the Justice Dept is going after them. The dems are philosophically more likely to entertain the thought, but that sweet, sweet cash, says no. And the republican party is philosophically against going after them. So either would go against their interests in doing something. So we’re all hostage to this reality.

    So, Google, don’t be evil, or whatever, fine. But your being an asshole, completely your right, but an asshole none the less.

    • For all practical purposes, Google-YouTube are monopolies.

      A strong case can be made to support that, and perhaps it should, and will be made.

      There is no doubt it will be entertaining to watch if-when it goes down…

      • Look at how hard it was to go after Microsoft in a democratic administration. Now add in Google, plus I’m sure every other company in Tech, in a Sessions Justice department, and there is zero chance. Tech companies have more than half a trillion in cash on hand, north of $300 billion just at Apple, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon.

        There is a massive difference between a practical monopoly, a provable monopoly; you have to actually prove harm. There is even more difference between a monopoly business and a Nation. Like I’ve said before, split up Google into 50 companies, and it still doesn’t make them any more likely into no censoring some things.

        I don’t think we’re into Blade Runner territory, new movie was awesome, but you can definitely see it from here. Imagine continued cash stockpiles into tech companies of today, the data that is accessible about each individual, the manor in which people can be subtly conditioned, today, its amazing. I’m a 48 year old data scientist, my first job was at LexisNexis, second at Yahoo, now I run data analytics for an insurance company, and the stuff we’re doing with predictive analysis is eerily accurate, and compared to retail and Facebook (twitter is technically unimportant) were neophytes, it frightens me. Just Google, Amazon, and Facebook, I frankly can’t comprehend what they may be able to do, or I can, but don’t really want to. I’m not worried about the NSA, frankly my guys are better, but I can’t compete with those three for pay on the best and brightest, and they have nearly unlimited budgets in the type of intelligence that can rule the world. Not military, spy, Government but telling you what you want to eat, watch, think.

        Do they want a Star Trek utopia, a Blade Runner dystopia, or Idiocracy, I don’t know, but I can see all 3 from here.

        So, I’m greatly afeared of how things are going, but our constitution has been pretty good so far, so I’m still going to side with private business over government fiat, but I’m still worried that the hated slippery slope is coming.

        • “Do they want a Star Trek utopia, a Blade Runner dystopia, or Idiocracy, I don’t know, but I can see all 3 from here.”

          Yup.

          I’m convinced they are becoming aware that they can impact societal opinions as a whole, and that they will use their ability to ‘mold’ opinion to the outcome they desire, in the ballot box. If you haven’t figured it out yet (I’m confident you have) their version of the society they want has a decidedly Leftist flavor to it. Google the corporaion *especially* is forthright with their ‘Progressive’ ideals, to anyone who actually pays attention to what Mark Zuckerberg says.

          As anyone with two or more functional neurons is aware, America is heading for a hard split. In the past we had differences but we could agree we were Americans first and foremost.

          No longer. They want nothing to do with us, and us with them. Look at the vile things some have said about the Vegas victims. They meant what they said. I have had similar thoughts about Progressives. This country really needs to start having serious conversations concerning a national divorce.

          Before it gets really ugly…

        • God, I wish you were wrong, but the split is real, I remember in the early oughts everybody talking about how social networking was going to be this wonderful panacea, lowering the boundaries between people and group. Then reality set in, and its the worst thing to happen to society in, maybe ever. Now, each pod of belief is totally self fulfilling. The expansion of the wack-a-do’s was a direct output.

          I always thought twitter was stupid with its “followers” and public posting of text messages of drunk eats, and toilet boredom; but Facebook, and the algorithm tweaking of Google, and the death of competition in the space, has nearly ruined people’s ability to even be polite.

          I have no belief in the Russia stole the election BS, but there’s no doubt they had some impact, so if a group of non english speaking trolls, can just buy some adds and create a chaos storm, what if a truly nefarious and competent group decided to do it, 4 years from now, with better tech? And what if Facebook just flat decided to do it themselves? Just Facebook, a single company, with massive data on more than a billion people, Zuck may be the most powerful human on the planet, forget the president.

          On those pleasant thoughts, off to bed.

  24. You don’t have to go to the other side of the globe for the East India Company and a private military. All you have to do is look into America about 135 years ago and you’ll find steel companies railroads and coal mining companies all employed their own heavily armed private armies.The Pinkerton detective agency, is one example.

    And coal mining companies even employed a private Air Force to bomb their own employees in the 1920s.

    Sometimes these private militaries were deployed against the commercial competition as well.

    • Thank you Chris. The point is that giving free reign to private corporations is just as retarded as giving free reign to governments. More so, since you don’t get to vote on who runs Google. When said companies violate the basic principles of a free and open society, they need to get beaten back into line by any means available. If it means that companies lose some “property rights”, so be it.

      In reality, we balance freedoms. The freedom of speech that is vital to our democracy trumps your hand wringing about “property rights”. And no, “free speech” doesn’t just refer to the 1st amendment any more than the right to keep and bear arms just refers to the second. Both prevent government interference in pre-existing rights. If a corporation has the power to seriously infringe on those rights, it needs to be brought back into line.

  26. Fuck Youtube and all other Nazi’s scum. There are other hosting sites. How do you think people stream movies just out at the theater.

  27. All gun channels need to move to LBRY.IO. It’s a decentralized and uncensorable media platform. It’s still in early beta but this tech offers a way out of Google’s tyranny.

  28. You all do realize that is why lots of folks were shitting themselves about the death of Net Neutrality, right? Now the corporate pipelines to the actual access can be clamped down, slowed down, or stopped altogether. Read up on it.
    In other words, you can create content, such as about bump stocks, and post it somewhere else (i.e. not on youtube) and it doesn’t mean shit for difference if AT&T decides people don’t need to view it. The end of net neutrality = the death of free speech in my opinion. They don’t have to censor the platform if they can just control your access to it.

Comments are closed.