I can’t compel Breitbart to let me publish editorials on their site. That doesn’t mean my speech is prohibited, just unwelcome on their platform.
9 Likes
Youtube is all about user content though. I can put up my editorials on their site.
Except the majority of people here, at least, have done nothing of the sort. The argument has been whether YouTube has the right to do so, which they unequivocally DO.
Funny, how easy it is to knock down the strawmen you lined up yourself, isn’t it?
3 Likes
When I was a kid, everyone knew that there was a weird kid down the block who had actual porn tapes !! and a copy of FACES OF DEATH, and that he’d let you go watch videos of boobs but also made you watch his tape with people getting killed. I never took the challenge, personally, but young people will always be fascinated by forbidden things. Making them even more forbidden is how you make them sexier and more desirable.
4 Likes
There goes the neighborhood.
2 Likes
Only the ones that don’t violate their standards for prohibited content. You can’t use their platform for hate speech even if said speech is legal, for example.
8 Likes
If you put up a bulletin board (the old-school, physical type) on your property, you have every right to post what you like, and remove what you like (assuming you don’t invoke others to sedition, or other obvious not-kosher-by-law content). I’m no great fan of megacorporations but why should this change for electronic communications on private property?
Correlation: There is no Constitutional right to remain untroubled.
4 Likes
Exactly. They aren’t censoring guns in general, people who like guns, movies about guns, or advocacy for guns. This seems to be centered on restricting information related to construction and modification of guns. In other words, content that would help people make their guns more dangerous or bypass restrictions. That’s hardly unreasonable.
There’s a difference between “We won’t serve you because you’re a minority” and “We won’t serve you because you’re trying to host content that could get people killed.”
5 Likes
Or, perhaps, “We don’t want to be sued because we enabled your incitements to violence, illegal gun mods, or what-have-you.” If they don’t at least attempt do something, it’s not terribly difficult to draw such an inference.
5 Likes
Right, and there are plenty of legal things that I think it is appropriate for them to say can’t be posted. But, when a company becomes so dominant that their name* is synonymous with finding stuff out, having them flex that muscle, even if you agree with it, is a reminder that they have that muscle.
*“Let me Alphabet that for you.” Sigh.
1 Like
your story is so much worse 
anyway, I agree, make the gun reviews accessible and boring; they are already on average pretty boring! Boobs can stay secret and sexy, not much harm in that.
Where’s the shaming part?
4 Likes
Or, really, we won’t serve you because you are part of a protected class, and we won’t serve you because we don’t like your ideas.
The first is illegal, the second is legally a-ok. Perfectly legal to say you won’t make cakes for communists…
1 Like
Censorship is bad. Let us know how you feel when it comes for you.
Oh that;s right you will have been silenced.
-
Link to new policy?
-
“You wanna show folks how to build a gun? Take it outside”
Does this include basic things like disassembly and reassembly videos? How the hell am I supposed to figure out how to put back together a Ruger Mark I, II, or III series with out visual aids? (Anyone who has done this knows what I am talking about.) Or install trigger parts? Lots of basic how-tos out there.
I will have to read the full new rules before I can really comment. But the demonizing of a sport and a hobby where 99.9+% of the users hurt no one, is just silly. If it is a few specific things like sales (does this mean advertising? I don’t understand exactly, as you can’t buy anything on youtube), and semi to full auto conversion (which is illegal to do with out the proper licensees, but the knowledge isn’t illegal.) I can see their point. If it is overly broad, then no.
Though I agree that that as a private entity, they can make up what ever rules they want. Though if they are hypocritical and BS, others can call them out on that.
5 Likes
That Is a fair criticism, and if you can convince US taxpayers there should be a “govtube”, it would have very specific censorship rules indeed I’m sure. However, I doubt any advertiser would go near it with a 500-ft pole, so the question becomes, is the freedom to post the sorts of videos that have to resort to a service like govtube would attract the sort of thing you’d want to subsidize with your tax dollars?
4 Likes
Making knowledge forbidden is one of the best ways to make it spread. What don’t they want you to see? etc.
Granted, YouTube is a private service and they’re well within their rights to limit content to whatever they choose, be it no guns allowed or left-handed, red-head uploads only. That doesn’t make it smart, though.
Right. If our taxes are going to fund degenerate content, I’d rather it be museums. 
2 Likes
NRA is a tax free American terrorist organization, add that to Webster’s Dictionary.
4 Likes
Oh brother do I ever know what you mean about those Ruger .22 pistols.
2 Likes
