Discussion
BBC News; David Icke's channel deleted by YouTube
Given he's a nut-job, but when is censorship appropriate?
Now I want see these videos to see what the fuss is about. Pretty sure it wouldn't sway me into becoming a fellow nut-job just by hearing his views.
Given he's a nut-job, but when is censorship appropriate?
Now I want see these videos to see what the fuss is about. Pretty sure it wouldn't sway me into becoming a fellow nut-job just by hearing his views.
How is he censored? He can have his own website and put his nut-job stuff on there. Youtube and other social media platforms are under serious pressure from advertisers (and governments) that earn them money not to be associated with his ilk.
There's 'freedom of the press' but they wouldn't publish any of his theories.
There's 'freedom of the press' but they wouldn't publish any of his theories.
I'm not sure being removed from a commercial platform is censorship I think it simply means YouTube don't want his message on their platform.
There are gullible people and there are stupid people and when you have people burning down what they think are 5G phone masts because of the crap he comes out with I'm fine with them removing him.
There is of course a consistency issue which is why they will show videos of all sorts of other stuff that arguably promotes violence or injecting disinfectant.
It's tricky to be consistent when you've the reach of YouTube and FaceBook and Twitter.
There are gullible people and there are stupid people and when you have people burning down what they think are 5G phone masts because of the crap he comes out with I'm fine with them removing him.
There is of course a consistency issue which is why they will show videos of all sorts of other stuff that arguably promotes violence or injecting disinfectant.
It's tricky to be consistent when you've the reach of YouTube and FaceBook and Twitter.
His forum is interesting.
General feel is this is all a hoax, it’s not a real virus and deaths are being inappropriately assigned. Not sure how you square away the excess death numbers. Global plan for New World Order etc.
They have a thread for medical staff to report on the misinformation, but it hasn’t really taken off.
They’re now concerned that the us is deliberately destroying crops and livestock to create a food shortage crisis.
It’s interesting reading as some interesting alternative papers and non mainstream media stuff is posted. But it’s pretty end of days biased and a lot of absolute drivel
Some people obsessed with numbers and the symbolism in them. So great lengths gone to in order to find 11s and 33s.
General feel is this is all a hoax, it’s not a real virus and deaths are being inappropriately assigned. Not sure how you square away the excess death numbers. Global plan for New World Order etc.
They have a thread for medical staff to report on the misinformation, but it hasn’t really taken off.
They’re now concerned that the us is deliberately destroying crops and livestock to create a food shortage crisis.
It’s interesting reading as some interesting alternative papers and non mainstream media stuff is posted. But it’s pretty end of days biased and a lot of absolute drivel
Some people obsessed with numbers and the symbolism in them. So great lengths gone to in order to find 11s and 33s.
This sort of thing is quite interesting and was debated on the 5G/Coronavirus/Tinfoil hat thread.
My view is that anyone spouting the sort of nonsense that David Icke does, should probably be removed from all major platforms such as Facebook/YouTube once they start causing a risk to life or property.
By that I mean if they ever stray into the ‘vaccines’ or ‘burning down 5G masts’ territory they clearly present a danger to the public in general.
By all means let them talk absolutely retarded nonsense about aliens, moon landings, and the 9/11 twin towers attacks, but they shouldn’t be allowed to encourage or suggest things that can lead to disorder or public health issues.
You cannot allow the rights of one individual to trump the safety of the population as a whole.
As discussed on the other thread, before the internet, people like Icke would be that one weird bloke in the pub spouting gibberish who everyone laughed at.
But thanks to the internet, that one village idiot can now easily have a global audience and influence millions into being as daft and gullible as they are.
The only good news in all of this is that commercially, nut jobs, racists, right wing zealots, and other whackos now seem bad for business and are being removed without governments having to do much.
My view is that anyone spouting the sort of nonsense that David Icke does, should probably be removed from all major platforms such as Facebook/YouTube once they start causing a risk to life or property.
By that I mean if they ever stray into the ‘vaccines’ or ‘burning down 5G masts’ territory they clearly present a danger to the public in general.
By all means let them talk absolutely retarded nonsense about aliens, moon landings, and the 9/11 twin towers attacks, but they shouldn’t be allowed to encourage or suggest things that can lead to disorder or public health issues.
You cannot allow the rights of one individual to trump the safety of the population as a whole.
As discussed on the other thread, before the internet, people like Icke would be that one weird bloke in the pub spouting gibberish who everyone laughed at.
But thanks to the internet, that one village idiot can now easily have a global audience and influence millions into being as daft and gullible as they are.
The only good news in all of this is that commercially, nut jobs, racists, right wing zealots, and other whackos now seem bad for business and are being removed without governments having to do much.
Prager U have just had this fight with Youtube (and lost)
It is deemed a private platform and can choose what it it publishes.
Now the only problem I can foresee with this, is that it is now a publisher and therefore must be responsible to some extent for the content on its site
(However, when someone previously sued for what was published they claimed to be a platform and not a publisher)
It is deemed a private platform and can choose what it it publishes.
Now the only problem I can foresee with this, is that it is now a publisher and therefore must be responsible to some extent for the content on its site
(However, when someone previously sued for what was published they claimed to be a platform and not a publisher)
Danny Baker on Twitter has it right.
"He was the Hereford goalkeeper, why anyone would be dozy enough to think he somehow has access to a higher knowledge or special insight is hilarious. He's not the messiah, he's a f
king nuisance, and as far as I am aware, couldn't even organise a wall against Rochdale."
"He was the Hereford goalkeeper, why anyone would be dozy enough to think he somehow has access to a higher knowledge or special insight is hilarious. He's not the messiah, he's a f
king nuisance, and as far as I am aware, couldn't even organise a wall against Rochdale." garagewidow said:
They are playing into his hands by censoring him.
As said, he's not being censored. A privately owned platform don't want him as a customer. If you don't want me round your house, you don't have to have me. That's not censorship, it's you saying "fk of Twig, you're a tt."Eric Mc said:
People don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "censorship". Icke or any other headcase is still free to spout ste if they want to. He just can't use that particular platform.
I see nothing wrong with that.
Whist I kind of agree about your dictionary-defintion of censorship, if you are banned from twitter, youtube and facebook you are effectively being removed from communication tools 99% of the (Western) world uses - comes awfully close to censorship.te if they want to. He just can't use that particular platform.I see nothing wrong with that.
eldar said:
garagewidow said:
They are playing into his hands by censoring him.
Yeah, YouTube needs more fascists, racists and loonies. You obviously miss them.loony maybe yes.
I watched some of his stuff a few years ago when off ill and found it quite entertaining,that was it though.
Haven't seen any of his recent stuff so I can't comment on that.
garagewidow said:
They are playing into his hands by censoring him.
Yes, he can claim it's proof of 'the world order' or whatever he rambles on about censoring him, but who is he going to do so to? Existing converts who'll go out their way to visit his site? They don't need any more 'evidence'. FB and YT present the greatest opportunities for new audiences and that has been removed. I understand he's still on Twitter for now.
Look at Tommy Robinson since he got removed. I'm sure people in one of his threads on here said banning him from FB would play into his hands.
garagewidow said:
I don't think he's a fascist or racist is he?
loony maybe yes.
I watched some of his stuff a few years ago when off ill and found it quite entertaining,that was it though.
Haven't seen any of his recent stuff so I can't comment on that.
You didn’t notice it’s all a conspiracy by the Jews? loony maybe yes.
I watched some of his stuff a few years ago when off ill and found it quite entertaining,that was it though.
Haven't seen any of his recent stuff so I can't comment on that.
If you’d read the comments on his YouTube stuff you’d realise he is a nasty bigot, with many nazi followers.
He’s fine running his own website, as long as it keeps him away from mainstream and in his own private swamp.
He was fine when it was just the illuminati, just harmless eccentricity. Hes moved to dangerous extremes.
ReallyReallyGood said:
Eric Mc said:
People don't seem to understand the meaning of the word "censorship". Icke or any other headcase is still free to spout ste if they want to. He just can't use that particular platform.
I see nothing wrong with that.
Whist I kind of agree about your dictionary-defintion of censorship, if you are banned from twitter, youtube and facebook you are effectively being removed from communication tools 99% of the (Western) world uses - comes awfully close to censorship.te if they want to. He just can't use that particular platform.I see nothing wrong with that.
If David Icke wants to start a discussion around media monopolies, he can do so. I doubt he will though, because that would be a normal sensible discussion, and that's not his style.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff