My argument is you have no evidence and the fact that you haven’t cited a single example supports my argument. “Go look for it” is not convincing, at least to competent-thinking people.
-
-
Replying to @Hedgology @aoirann and
Lol, dude, it's literally up in the threat and I've reposted it for you.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VoxPop2018 @aoirann and
Youve shown me irrelevant information that fails to answer the question, which is, “WHO violated YouTube’s TOS and experienced different treatment from YouTube.” Why is it so difficult for you to name a single example?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @HereForTheNews0 @Hedgology and
Did you read the original thread? Crowder motivated a mob to atrack Maza, a violation of the TOS, yet he wasn't suspended.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VoxPop2018 @HereForTheNews0 and
That, to, is merely another claim; one that has been refuted by YouTube itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Hedgology @HereForTheNews0 and
Lol, no, it's been denied by YouTube, not refuted. Look at Crowders stuff and tell me it's not a TOS violation.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @VoxPop2018 @HereForTheNews0 and
Most normal thinking people can always see that it doesn’t violate TOS.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I guess we’ll just have to exclude you from that category then...
-
-
Replying to @Hedgology @HereForTheNews0 and
"Always see" That's a lot of certainly. How about you give, say, three examples that seemed like TOS violations but a reasonable person was able to see they weren't.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.