Anyone Know if Youtube is indeed shutting off Gun Sites

#2
Wow, Not good news in general. In one way it is a big deal as it certainly takes away something valuable to many of us, the ability to share our stories and experiences.
 
#3
I am nobody so take this for what it is worth but here is my understanding. They can't possible know what every video on YouTube contains. So It will take a Snowflake to flag your videos. At that point YouTube may look at your entire channel.

Same as any other social media, (twitter for example). Offend someone and watch out. I personally think that this is a direct result from when there is a shooting the Snow Flakes go fucking crazy and attack anything gun related.

As I stated in another thread. This is "letting the fox run the hen house".

YouTube is algorithm run. For example, the other day I watched "johnny get your gun" full length movie. To get around the YouTube copyright algorithm the person who posted it did 2 things. First they put the ending credits at the start and they sped the movie up about 5%. I watch a lot of copyrighted stuff that is sped up just a bit to not match the original/algorithm.
 
#4
Yes. There was an article in our local newspaper about two local companies having their You Tube content removed already. One was Spikes Tactical, which you may be aware of from the ruckus about one of their video ads.

In both of these cases, they were notified by mail one day and their accounts and videos deleted the next day.

And yes, obviously the work of snowflakes complaining.
 
#5
Random reloading/high capacity/bump fire videos can sneak by, but this will be a huge problem for channels that have a following or want to build a following.

I bet they have been documenting channels and videos to ban for some time. They have all the back end data on who watches what and cross subscribed to known gun channels, so they could just mass flag every "gun" video and have it taken down regardless of policy violation. Not sure what recourse there really is if they flag videos that are legit. They seem bent on removing gun related content.
 
#6
Just like that Vile David the Hogg guy getting his army to try to harass and shut down the advertising revenue for anybody that criticizes him and his vile plans. Laura Ingram made the mistake of saying sorry... NEVER apologize to these progressive filth.

This whole thing is going to be a bit of a pain in the short term but excellent in the long term. Eventually anyone conservative, patriotic and decent will need to be giving out their information on a site not run by progressives and not reliant on "advertising" money, but rather getting directly supported by subscribers or dedicated companies that share their values specifically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik H
#7
If you have a few gun vids on your channel it's no big deal. If your ENTIRE channel is gun related vids kiss it goodbye. Google owns YouTube and is very anti-gun and pro-SJW. Had a video where I called SJWs the faggots of the world and it got taken down.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bender
#9
So how do you go about starting something like YOUtube. Does it take a lot of money or just a lot of computer savy. How a bout a site called 'Guntube'?
 
#10
Maggot said:
Does it take a lot of money or just a lot of computer savy.
Click to expand...
Yes to both. It takes money and cluefulness. Transit capacity is not cheap, especially when the peering bandwidth is not symmetric (you send them more than they send you). It's the same problem Netflix has/had, their situation is the main driver behind 'net neutrality'. They want free peering with ISPs. ISPs say that because they're sending 75% of the traffic, they should be paying. ISPs often peer for free when the transmit and receive are mostly equal. Netflix says the customers are already paying for delivery, via their access fees to the ISP.

It's especially complicated if it takes off and you didn't plan accordingly. Hosting HD/4K streaming content, while making sure you have the storage and delivery capacity, is not cheap or easy. And you'll likely need to leverage a CDN if it gets big. And then you've got to find a way to make money when your users want everything for free, and they install ad blockers ... which hinders ad revenue.

It'd be a little easier to build it if you put it 'in the cloud', but that'd be a bit short-sighted considering why we're at this point in the first place.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SilentStalkr
#11
If they follow thru with this shit I say we flood youtube with homemade gun videos for spite . Every conceivable topic and phrase search from Sponge Bob to how to swaddle your new born .
Sponge Bob .300 blackout pants .
How to swaddle your baby SPR .
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1J04
#12
Ironic how so many TV programs have murders, killing, violence.. some it by guns, some by other means... but yet non of the anti guns do marches, protests or rallies fighting
what content anyone who can turn on a TV can readily see.

I wonder why it is so perfectly fine for gun violence to be stuffed in lots of movies, TV etc,
but yet they seem fine with watching it.

And people wonder why the world is a chaotic mess. It is OK to see it on TV.

Freedom of Speech, yes. Im aware

Apparently YouTube is not
 
  • Like
Reactions: deltawiskey, Barneybdb, SilentStalkr and 1 other person
#15
2ndamendfan said:
I am nobody so take this for what it is worth but here is my understanding. They can't possible know what every video on YouTube contains.
...
Click to expand...

They do know what's said in every video. Ever seen the auto transcript feature?

They really rolled out the auto censor feature (aka demonetize your new videos) last year after advertisers pulled out big time.

Ytube might as well SJW-clean house at the same time, amirite? You go, Gail Wynand.

Ytube is Dick's CNNing themselves right now. But it's a small segment of society to pin yellow stars on, so they'll be OK until their SJWs eat them whole.
 
#16
ballistic1 said:
Ironic how so many TV programs have murders, killing, violence.. some it by guns, some by other means... but yet non of the anti guns do marches, protests or rallies fighting
what content anyone who can turn on a TV can readily see.

I wonder why it is so perfectly fine for gun violence to be stuffed in lots of movies, TV etc,
but yet they seem fine with watching it.

And people wonder why the world is a chaotic mess. It is OK to see it on TV.

Freedom of Speech, yes. Im aware

Apparently YouTube is not
Click to expand...

That’s because everything in TV Land is make believe, where the left-wing liberal cuck can vicariously live out his base male instincts without fear of incurring the wrath of his minority handlers………but everything on YouTube is REAL God damn it!

Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the CHILDREN!!!!
 
#17
Last I heard they were but with that being said, everyone I have ever watched on YouTube are still available and running without any kind of message or warning about the content and such. So, I’m wondering if this wasn’t just some kind of political stunt to appease a group temporarily while actually still allowing the content long term. Hmmmmm...interesting for sure.

I say forget them and we all do our own thing. I would much rather spend my money and time on a conservative gun friendly site anyways. I’m not married to
YouTube. YouTube just happened to be the biggest player on the field which is why everyone ran to them. There is no reason the gun community couldn’t do the same. In fact, I like this idea better anyways because you could control who gets the content. I don’t like the idea of snowflakes having access to info that many of us know and are willing to share with certain people.
 
Last edited:
#19
oK5r1EL.jpg
 
#20
They have stated that YouTube will be partnering with the southern poverty law center and others like them to go through videos.
If this does indeed happen anything firearm related is fucked.
 
#22
SilentStalkr said:
Last I heard they were but with that being said, everyone I have ever watched on YouTube are still available and running without any kind of message or warning about the content and such. So, I’m wondering if this wasn’t just some kind of political stunt to appease a group temporarily while actually still allowing the content long term. Hmmmmm...interesting for sure.

I say forget them and we all do our own thing. I would much rather spend my money and time on a conservative gun friendly site anyways. I’m not married to
YouTube. YouTube just happened to be the biggest player on the field which is why everyone ran to them. There is no reason the gun community couldn’t do the same. In fact, I like this idea better anyways because you could control who gets the content. I don’t like the idea of snowflakes having access to info that many of us know and are willing to share with certain people.
Click to expand...
Oh, it's real. See my post above. Try and find a Spike'sTactical vid on YouTube now. They were pulled by DuhTube with only one day's notice. It made the newspaper.
 
#27
I wonder if we could sue them for limiting freedom of speech or... I don't see how Christian bakers can be sued for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage but YouTube can stifle our gun porn. I'm sure most of it has to do with the liberal trash we have for judges but seems like we could attack financially instead of letting them win.
I like Youtube for "how to" vids and use it all the time however I can't abide them taking away my free speech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deltawiskey and SilentStalkr
#30
Fig said:
It’s a private company. Do you let SJWs on your lawn shouting at your house? They can do as they like. I have 100% confidence in the free market.
YouTube bans porn. I guess you can’t find porn on the internet...:unsure:
Click to expand...

YouTube is not private. It is a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. (GOOG) and has been since 2006. You may buy shares whenever you like.

YouTube is considered not only part of the news press, but one of its most important outlets (1). The issue is censorship. Even if they were private that is not an argument for censorship, especially for a firm that self describes at the preeminent Internet Information Provider. The NYT, also a public company, continually speaks out against censorship and have umpteen news and opinion pieces railing against internet censorship. Of course they heavily censor anyways.

Google/YouTube and the other large media outlets are all about the bottom line and delivering their content to a user that has an increasingly high switching cost. To counter the censoring of MMM this thread talks about a sort of media insurgency. The smashing of net neutrality was a step in the wrong direction for such an effort. And this is an effort I wholeheartedly support. As for YouTube, et al, "They have all the leverage they need to make sure their content gets delivered as best it can be." (2). About all YouTube, and the NYT, has to say for censorship complaints is, fuck off.

(1) http://www.journalism.org/2012/07/16/youtube-news/
(2) https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/12/netflix-google-net-neutrality/548768/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: SilentStalkr
#33
1: Youtube claims they cannot be held accountable for the content of the videos they host as they are merely an “impartial provider”.

2: Youtube removes content it does not agree with as it breaches their liberal beliefs in the form of their self-imposed “community guidelines”.

Pick one, as both together are in direct contradiction of each other. You are either a free and open host or you are an active editor of the content you host and as such bare some responsibility for it.

I believe this is the angle of attack from which they are most vulnerable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kansas and Terry H
#36
GM795 said:
1: Youtube claims they cannot be held accountable for the content of the videos they host as they are merely an “impartial provider”.

2: Youtube removes content it does not agree with as it breaches their liberal beliefs in the form of their self-imposed “community guidelines”.

Pick one, as both together are in direct contradiction of each other. You are either a free and open host or you are an active editor of the content you host and as such bare some responsibility for it.

I believe this is the angle of attack from which they are most vulnerable.
Click to expand...

And this was the core of the Supreme Court case Cubby v. Compuserve. You can be an impartial provider, akin to a library. Which does not monitor or judge content. You just host it. What is on there... is not your corporate responsibility.

Or you can control content. In which case, you are subject to regulation like a news outlet or a broadcaster.

That said, everyone has been loath to start content control on the Internet. Where do you start? Or stop? Do we want an FCC that decides what standards are? Should Google and Facebook and Apple, the three giants, be regulated as utilities? Well.... perhaps. But electricity and dial-tone don't involve speech content. They're just electrons.

It's a sticky wicket... But controlling content by a corporate entity is a tough legal/political argument.

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
  • Like
Reactions: Terry H
#37
Fig said:
It’s a private company. Do you let SJWs on your lawn shouting at your house? They can do as they like. I have 100% confidence in the free market.
YouTube bans porn. I guess you can’t find porn on the internet...:unsure:
Click to expand...

True, but the Christian bakers referenced were private companies as well and I’m sure the gay couple could have easily found someone else to bake their cake to, but they didn’t. Said baker was then persecuted, fined and ran out of business. Seems the lefties want to pick and choose laws only when it benefits their cause. It can’t be like that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steel+Killer, kansas, Terry H and 1 other person
#39
SilentStalkr said:
True, but the Christian bakers referenced were private companies as well and I’m sure the gay couple could have easily found someone else to bake their cake to, but they didn’t. Said baker was then persecuted, fined and ran out of business. Seems the lefties want to pick and choose laws only when it benefits their cause. It can’t be like that.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. That was/is a travesty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sean the Nailer
#40
So why don't we Denizens of SH all get dolled up in our best F-U tactical gear, go find a couple of fags running a bakery... and politely request that they bake us a Second Amendment Sniper Cake? Or maybe an Anita Bryant cake? (Look it up.) I bet if 10 or 12 folks all go in together, it wouldn't even be intimidating? We can use the lawsuit settlement to buy Frank his own video site?

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
  • Like
Reactions: SilentStalkr, Terry H and Fig
#42
SilentStalkr said:
True, but the Christian bakers referenced were private companies as well and I’m sure the gay couple could have easily found someone else to bake their cake to, but they didn’t. Said baker was then persecuted, fined and ran out of business. Seems the lefties want to pick and choose laws only when it benefits their cause. It can’t be like that.
Click to expand...
The reason this tactic worked is they had the brunt of the media behind their efforts.
If I've learned anything about "lefties" they'll contradict themselves depending on the most recent trend.

R
 
#44
1522593196683.png


Classic... just take her picture in and ask them to do the 'printing thing' on a cake. Don't tell them who it is. Just give them a photograph to scan and say it's for your mother's 70th Birthday or something and this is a great snapshot from when she was young.

Then when you get your cake... go outside the gay bakery and take lots of Facebook and meme pictures with your Anita Bryant cake showing the sign and the phone number of the bakery! Would be the greatest prank ever!

Cheers,

Sirhr
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yasherka, WATERWALKER, Sean the Nailer and 2 others
#47
Lowlight said:
I have not received a notice yet but heard today there is a 30-day notice to remove your content or at least back it up as it will be shut down

No big deal, as I mentioned have my own hosting platform, but want to get ahead of it
Click to expand...


I was going to ask you if you heard anything about that from them. I subsribed to your channel and watch your videos, so if you do move them to another host please provide a link to it, I enjoy them and it would suck if they were lost there is alot of great info in them and really like the fact you don't smack talk a brand even if it isn't your cup of tea because it very well might be what someone can use and afford.
 
#49
I don't understand the narrow focus of alternative sites. If you support free speech, then support it not just on the Second Amendment, but on all levels and on all topics. Youtube won't be toppled by segmented and disjointed upstarts with narrow focus. Preachers and choirs don't win wars.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lash and Clearlight
#50
Tucker301 said:
I don't understand the narrow focus of alternative sites. If you support free speech, then support it not just on the Second Amendment, but on all levels and on all topics. Youtube won't be toppled by segmented and disjointed upstarts with narrow focus. Preachers and choirs don't win wars.
Click to expand...
I don't think you realize how the economy works...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Post death of family member questions
Replies
33
Views
881
502Chevelle
5
Lowlight
Some of you guys are in for a surprise
Replies
736
Views
28K
DarnYankeeUSMC
DarnYankeeUSMC
LuckyDuck
Maybe you had to be there- otherwise (now) funny stories you were able to witness
Replies
47
Views
1K
LuckyDuck
LuckyDuck
A
Radical Defense LS3 Ti on gas guns
Replies
2
Views
368
Ape_Factory
A
A
Seeking advice for pharmaceuticals in off-grid/wilderness med kit
Replies
41
Views
2K
alpine44
A
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts