YouTube banned a vegan dude who rescued pigeons and produced carefully worded content specifically designed not to violate their TOS. No reason given.
Ludicrous and proof of flagrant partisan censorship of conservatives.
RT if you think @TeamYouTube should restore his account.
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @PrisonPlanet @TeamYouTube
Why can't YouTube have whatever rules they want? They're a private company... can't see "censorship" on that
24 replies 3 retweets 152 likes -
My understanding is that they shouldn’t enjoy the legal benefits of being a neutral platform while enjoying the freedom to be a publisher with editorial control. Pick one, operate as one.
3 replies 5 retweets 61 likes -
Replying to @midnightchow @Fernando45Faria and
The real issue is that YouTube profits off of hosting content that others create. Content creators invest a lot of time and resources into content and building a following in expectation of a profit from monitazation. Platforms can choose which content to host & profit from.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @benjspencer @midnightchow and
Content creators who can't trust current platforms should just start from scratch and find platforms they can trust right? But the audience they worked so hard to build has been lost and this severely injures content creators ability to continue creating content.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benjspencer @midnightchow and
What if there were a conservative platform that censored pro-LGBT, pro-Jihad, and pro-abortion content? A lot of people might actually like a platform like that. There should be a right for those spaces to exist, just like the leftists... Wait I don't believe that at all...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benjspencer @midnightchow and
LGBT content is harmful to the public square, abortion is murder, and Jihadis should not be allowed to spread genecide war rhetoric on any platform. These should indecencies be censored.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @benjspencer @midnightchow and
Publicly available Social Platforms should be regulated by the FCC and required to protect non-profain (PG), first amendment rights. It is not reasonable to expect conservatives to resort to obscure platforms to find audience while first-class citizens are free to use any.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
This is a pretty good example. Do you think Mercedes is a nazi company or they were just trying to sell more cars?pic.twitter.com/Vvgm9gsyQU
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.