[Crimson Dynamo]

Shocking

[bots]

Trump does the same every day of the week

[Crimson Dynamo]

The new policy could see the return of FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino, White House
counterterrorism chief Sebastian Gorka, and “War Room” podcast host Steve Bannon, all
of whom were permanently banned from YouTube for COVID-19 or election related
content, according to FOX News.

[Crimson Dynamo]

In August 2021, YouTube suspended Sen. Rand Paul for a week after he appeared in a
video discussing two peer-reviewed studies that found cloth masks do not
prevent the spread of viruses. The company had instituted a “three strikes”
policy against users who repeatedly posted prohibited content. Mr. Paul, who
pushed back against COVID-19 policies, was on his second strike, resulting in
the weeklong ban.

[Crimson Dynamo]

In June 2023, YouTube removed a video of popular podcast host Jordan
Peterson interviewing Mr. Kennedy, who was then a presidential candidate.
YouTube representatives said at the time that they removed the video “for
violating YouTube’s general vaccine misinformation policy, which prohibits
content that alleges that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare
side effects that are recognized by health authorities.”

Mr. Bongino was permanently banned from YouTube in January 2022 after
posting two videos that cast doubt on mask-wearing to prevent the spread of
COVID-19.

[bots]

There is so much crap on X etc that for fairness it needs to equalise at the lowest possible denominator. Personally, i think there is enough crap already on youtube, but hey ho

[Crimson Dynamo]

Rand Paul
@RandPaul
·
16h
Back in the early days of COVID, YouTube suspended me for stating what we know to be
fact: masks don't prevent the transmission of COVID-19.

I'm glad to see YouTube is finally taking some accountability for its role in silencing
those of us who questioned the official government narrative.

[BBXX]

You have been advocating for private companies making business decisions for their own benefit for the last week (because you refuse to acknowledge the governments interference with cancelling Jimmy Kimmel).

How is this different to what you've been supporting? How is this censorship but what happened to JImmy Kimmel isn't even though one is simply at the hands of a private company (Google) and the other at the hands of the Government-led FCC.

[Crimson Dynamo]

*Disney suspends Kimmel*

The left: CENSORSHIP! WHY WOULD TRUMP DO THIS! END OF DEMOCRACY! WAR!

Google and YouTube: we censored and removed American conservatives en masse at the behest of Biden

The left: *cricket noises*

[The Slim Reaper]

You will never find bigger victims than right wingers holding all the power in the world at the moment, pretending to be the most marginalised.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

You will never find bigger victims than right wingers holding all the power in the world at the moment, pretending to be the most marginalised.

LOL It's exhausting. It's giving snowflake behaviour.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

*Disney suspends Kimmel*

The left: CENSORSHIP! WHY WOULD TRUMP DO THIS! END OF DEMOCRACY! WAR!

Google and YouTube: we censored and removed American conservatives en masse at the behest of Biden

The left: *cricket noises*

No, no. You're completely ignoring the governments involvement in JK's suspension because it fits your narrative and so I was simply using your own logic against you for this.

This situation is EXACTLY the same as JKs. Government overreach leading to censorship. Both are terrible and both should be criticised.

As always you're having a really dishonest conversation because you refuse to admit the Trump administration had anything to do with pressuring a private company to suspend JK.

Meh, pointless continuing the conversation.

[Crimson Dynamo]

This isn't apples to oranges; it's broadcast law versus backchannel bullying.
Trump's approach targeted over-the-air broadcasters, who hold scarce federal
spectrum licenses and must, by statute, operate in the public interest, free
from deliberate falsehoods that erode trust. Kimmel's barbs, while sharp,
crossed into territory regulators have policed before. Think FCC fines for
indecency or misinformation in the Fairness Doctrine era. Biden's machine, by
contrast, leaned on private platforms outside FCC jurisdiction, using informal
threats to erase dissent without transparency or recourse.

https://x.com/JosephFordCotto/status...68134605693188

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

This isn't apples to oranges; it's broadcast law versus backchannel bullying.
Trump's approach targeted over-the-air broadcasters, who hold scarce federal
spectrum licenses and must, by statute, operate in the public interest, free
from deliberate falsehoods that erode trust. Kimmel's barbs, while sharp,
crossed into territory regulators have policed before. Think FCC fines for
indecency or misinformation in the Fairness Doctrine era. Biden's machine, by
contrast, leaned on private platforms outside FCC jurisdiction, using informal
threats to erase dissent without transparency or recourse.

https://x.com/JosephFordCotto/status...68134605693188

Which would hold water if JK was suspended for misinformation and not for poking fun at a thin-skinned, snowflake of a Prez. All JK did was give is opinion, which doesn't go against FCC guidelines. He didn't pass anything off as fact or make a false statement.

Glad to see you finally admit the FCC acted on behalf of Trump because of what JK said and not because of bad ratings though.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Which would hold water if JK was suspended for misinformation and not for poking fun at a thin-skinned, snowflake of a Prez. All JK did was give is opinion, which doesn't go against FCC guidelines. He didn't pass anything off as fact or make a false statement.

Glad to see you finally admit the FCC acted on behalf of Trump because of what JK said and not because of bad ratings though.

Knock yourself out with your imagined scenarios if it makes you feel better

Sinclair stated Kimmel's remarks were "inappropriate and deeply insensitive at
a critical moment for our country." The company also called for Kimmel to issue
a direct apology to Kirk's family and to make a personal donation both to the
family and Kirk's conservative organization, Turning Point USA.

However I will remind you that this thread is about the corrupt Biden administration/YouTube and not about the failing now disgraced autocue reader Kimmel

[BBXX]

Cool so it wasn't about ratings like you have been saying for the last week.

Kimmel didn't say anything negative about Kirk at all, if you're wanting to talk about imaginary scenarios.

[Glenn.]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Cool so it wasn't about ratings like you have been saying for the last week.

Kimmel didn't say anything negative about Kirk at all, if you're wanting to talk about imaginary scenarios.

He showed more emotion in his opening last night than I’ve seen from Kirk’s wife. Seen a lot of people say the same.

[Glenn.]

This MAGA lot need to send us postcards the next time they trip themselves up like this.

[Maru]

We already knew govt were pressuring tech, it was just a matter of time before it came out. The federal govt is no angel.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Maru

We already knew govt were pressuring tech, it was just a matter of time before it came out. The federal govt is no angel.

Hence the reason many do not want to give up their firearms

who could blame them?

[The Slim Reaper]

RIP to any American/group of Americans that think they can take on the most advanced military in the world, but folks already know this and instead play dumb to try and illicit reactions on a forum

[Maru]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Hence the reason many do not want to give up their firearms

who could blame them?

There's a reason they have all taken to doing things by Executive Orders instead of passing—oh, I don't know—actual laws. When they're inevitably knocked down, it makes everything look extra broken and they get to blame the other side for it. Double the win.

There's a consensus to do something with Section 230, but why do that when govt can just pressure companies instead and let them be responsible for burning it all down?