132 1 min 5 yrs

I put up a video on Youtube two weeks ago. It got 70,000 views. Youtube have now removed it and threatened me. So, here is the video!

 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

132 thoughts on “BANNED BY YOUTUBE

  1. I’m surprised it took so long, DV. Google and Facebook are all out to censor, hide and delete anything conservative and patriotic, so you’re in good company.

  2. “In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.

    George Orwell

  3. These African stoneage mobs had absolutely no respect for their own countries, they are hardly likely to care that much about their host country.

    Diversity is not our strength, it will ultimately be our downfall.

  4. Did youtube give a reason

    I think David explains in the Video.

    YouTube believes it’s racist.

  5. Just one reason of many I bailed O-U-T of a country bound for violent self destruction in the very near future. These “African” invaders get a pass, but if you’re a white Irish citizen found with an airsoft pistol (shoots plastic bb sized pellets) you’ll likely get a few years in the Mountjoy Hotel.

  6. As we all know, it is not ‘[insert any word you like here]ist’ to tell the truth. If the truth happens to be uncomfortable then it has, in part, done its job. But to admit to what is going on in Europe and other, predominantly white, countries is now taboo. All we need is a band to help us march through the gates.

    Of course the site Kapo will shout you down here.

  7. Google and Facebook are all out to censor, hide and delete anything conservative and patriotic,

    I doubt that it will end with them

    I fear you may see a great firewall evolve in our lands, as you see in China, with governments and internet providers as administrators.

  8. Diversity has consequences, very serious negative consequences for peaceful societies to Function, we are in fact, going backwards at breakneck speed.

    A clash of culture’s is now inevitable.

    Diversity, along with multiculturalism, has utterly failed.

  9. Getting kicked off you tube,”Because facts are not racists”, gives you quite a bit of conservative street credibility DV!! Well done.

  10. DV is heading to the ‘alt’. That’s what happens when you discover that somebody has decided what you’re not allowed to say

  11. In the video, I expressed the views of IRISH people who are concerned about what is happening in places like Balbriggan. They worry about violent African gangs. As an aside, because the video did so well, I got lots of abuse from Africans living in Ireland unhappy because I raised opinions THEY don’t like! Tough – the Irish people deserve a voice and I tried to lend them mine. Since Youtube banned it earlier I have had thousands of views on Bitchute. So suck it up, Youtube.

  12. There are only about 3 or 4 comments to the video, but even that few give a good overview of right-world confusion. One blames it all on the EU, another on “globalism”, while for the third it’s all because “violence is inherently prominent in Blacks in general”.

  13. It’s pretty much a vlog monologue rehash of this:

    UNDERSTANDING IRELAND.

    David, this would have given a much more rounded opinion of immigation on the streets of Dublin rather than those specific out of context quotes and CD covers :

  14. Paul — I love the Brits in that video saying things like, ‘yeah, I don’t them’. Eh, you’re one yourself lad!

    White = expat
    Black/brown = immigrant

  15. The video is ignorant and racist. It lacks proportionality; did this guy ever hear of the Black Panthers in the US. The assumption that the one million additional immigrants will be violent Africans is plainly wrong. The new immigrants will be from all over the world and probably well educated with many working in high tech. The “Ireland for the Irish” chant will not be recited by many people. Generally the Irish are welcoming to newcomers. Immigrants also helps break down the narrowness of mind of in certain segments of the population. Finally, the use of “indigenous” when all people in Ireland ultimately come from somewhere else. If people complained, I think they had grounds for doing so.

  16. Once one gets past the irony of your concern for the indigenous Irish from the dangers of an influx of outsiders (David Vance, Republican Voice), I didn’t hear anything in the video that warranted a boot from Youtube.

  17. Dublin is awash with gangs of natives and swarms of gurriers. The Blacks are a minor problem compared to the likes of Kinahan, Hutch and others. Thus the lack of proportionality and label of racism which is a legitimate reason for removal from YouTube.

  18. And as predicted, the Kapo pile in from 10:07PM. Usual tricks of strawman arguments and deriding of people and their views, rather than answer the central question posed by this article.

  19. //The Blacks are a minor problem compared to the likes of Kinahan, Hutch and others.//

    Very true. Dublin is maybe unique in Europe in that the native population is disproportionately responsible for violence and crime.

  20. Listen, as parts of Dublin descend into third world sh*tholes, don’t come whingeing to me when the Irish become a minority in Ireland. 65000 seemed to quite like what I said. Oh, and overnight my video got thousands more views on Bitchute. I won’t be silenced.

  21. Being knocked off Youtube (which is their right to decide what is improper by their terms) isn’t being silenced, and number of views is not the measure of value.

  22. If his internet provider decided ( because it was a “private company” ) that it did not want that video to be allowed to be transmitted over it, would you be so quick to justify the ban?

    I regard Internet service providers to be de facto utilities, And that they should be regulated as such

    If they start banning people, or their ideas – and you know that someone is thinking about just that- Then people/ideas can truly silenced. Unless guys like David would be asked to start their own Internet service, etc.

  23. Don’t come whingeing to me when the Irish become a minority in Ireland

    The Irish aren’t and have absolutely no chance of becoming ‘a minority in Ireland’

    65000 seemed to quite like what I said.

    They can like away. When there’s an international audience of some 187 million 65000 is a drop in the ocean.

  24. I regard Internet service providers to be de facto utilities, And that they should be regulated as such

    Regardless of what you regard them as the reality is that you are advocating external regulation of a private enterprise?

  25. Reading is fundamental.
    I did not justify the ban in this instance, rather the right of YouTube to police it’s own site (at 300 hours of video posted per minute they do a fairly good job).
    Explain how the multi media DV has been silenced.

  26. //I regard Internet service providers to be de facto utilities, //

    What’s he difference between a service provider like YouTube and a TV company like CNN or Fox News?

    The only difference I can see is that one is interactive, which means the TV people can and do filter out the people and ideas they don’t like before they can be broadcast.

    Another difference is that YouTube operates according to a certain defined ethical standard; it broadcasts an infinitely wider range of views than the TV companies do.

  27. Yes. I have never been a corporatist fanatic.

    Utilities have -always- been regulated for the benefit of the public and properly so

    DV’s phone company can’t decide to ban calls from certain persons, Allan’s electric company can’t decide not to sell him electricity. That conduct is and always was illegal

    You may be a cheerleader for corporate censorship today, but the corporations in league with government could ban you tomorrow

    Beware

  28. YouTube is a platform and not primarily an ISP

    In many areas there are only one or two ISPs esp in the US

    If your ISP bans you, you’re truly silenced

  29. //YouTube is a platform and not primarily an ISP//

    YouTube isn’t a telecoms provider. Anyone with an Internet connection can use 100 types of “YouTubes”, or simply set up his own.

    //In many areas there are only one or two ISPs esp in the US//

    I don’t believe there is any part of the US where there is only one YouTube-type service available.

    Besides, the big difference is that utilities companies don’t broadcast. A phone call is not public and an electricity supply (eh??) has no content. You seem to forget that the broadcaster is legally responsible for the content it broadcasts, cf. the endless lawsuits taken against newspapers because of an article written by some journalist etc.

  30. I am not saying that YouTube is an ISP

    I am responding to Paul, who I think is not clear on the difference between an ISP and YouTube

    Would anyone here defend the so called right of an ISP to deny service to anyone based on political views

  31. I am responding to Paul, who I think is not clear on the difference between an ISP and YouTube

    ISPs like Google and Microsoft? I don’t think David has been ‘banned’ from these, (come to think of it, as his channel still exists on Youtube it’s obvious he hasn’t been ‘banned’ there either).

    Again, you are advocating external regulation of a private enterprises?

    In the interests of freedom of speech would it be okay for someone to make a video of how to construct an IED from fertilizer and claim it to be a chemistry exercise?

  32. DV (correctly) reserves the right to monitor ATW and ban or delete what he deems inappropriate. Why doesn’t YouTube have that right?
    I would support the right of an ISP to deny the use of its services for crimes or terrorist use.

  33. Paul you still don’t know the difference

    Microsoft as far as I know it’s not an internet service provider anywhere; and Google is not a major player in the business

  34. It’s my understanding that both are Phantom but let’s not get drawn off course.

    In the interests of freedom of speech would it be okay for someone to make a video of how to construct an IED from fertilizer and claim it to be a chemistry exercise?

  35. You are going down Patrick land then- You are a smart guy, you need to know what these terms mean if you’re going to discuss them

    ISP is a defined term. YouTube does not offer that service anywhere, nor does ATW

  36. Paul

    Again you insist on remaining confused

    Your link does not say that Microsoft is an Internet service provider

    An Internet service provider is the cable TV, phone company, satellite or other that provides you an Internet telecom capability, We have to have terms defined correctly if we’re going to discuss anything

  37. We have to have terms defined correctly if we’re going to discuss anything

    What an internet provider is isn’t the issue being discussed here though.

    Now, if you please:

    In the interests of freedom of speech would it be okay for someone to make a video of how to construct an IED from fertilizer and claim it to be a chemistry exercise?

  38. //you insist on remaining confused//

    Phantom, I think you’re responsible for at least some of the confusion by introducing “internet service providers” when we were talking about YouTube.

    //We have to have terms defined correctly //

    Who says you are defining them correctly?

    I would have thought that an “internet service provider” is some company that provides Internet services, and that would definitely include Google etc.

    Debating definitions of “ISP” etc is getting away from the subject; stick to meanings that are clear. We all know what YouTube is, so was YouTube entitled to ban David’s post?

  39. David has not produced such videos, nor will he ever produce them. How strawman of you.

    Do you think that David’s ISP ( which would be a cable, phone, satellite or other company providing communication capability over the internet )should be able to restrict the transmittal of the video in question or of any similar video?

    We have a real life video to discuss, no need to discuss others.

    DV have been banned by one gigantic private global corporation. Do all private corporations have the right to refuse to carry his message? Including ISPs.

  40. So was YouTube entitled to ban David’s post?

    Interesting that the video was dropped from YouTube yet David’s video channel itself it still braodcastable on the same platform Noel.

    That suggests to me that there was something in the video that viollated YouTube’s broadcasting policies in which case YouTube were perfectly within their rights to drop it.

  41. ISPs are incredibly relevant to the subject at hand here.

    You can’t discuss the matter without discussing platforms/sites ( youtube ) and ISPs. The same people that advocate bans on youtube are the same ones that want to have ISPs not carry the message to youtube.

    I well imagine that DV thinks that it is proper to bring ISPs into this.

    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060824/134615.shtml

  42. Do you think that David’s ISP ( which would be a cable, phone, satellite or other company providing communication capability over the internet )should be able to restrict the transmittal of the video in question or of any similar video?

    Phantom,

    In the interests of freedom of speech would it be okay for someone to make a video of how to construct an IED from fertilizer and claim it to be a chemistry exercise?

    Do you not want to answer that?

  43. ISPs are incredibly relevant to the subject at hand here.

    Oh FFS. Okay, let’s take your mistaken belief that Microsoft and Google are not ISPs.

    AOL are definitely an ISP, are you advocating the a private business concern like AOL be regulated by Government?

  44. In what geographic area does AOL provide ISP services?

    The fact that you have an website or platform does not make you an ISP.

    I am talking about the company that owns the wire that goes to David’s house and which connects him to the internet. That is an ISP. Think of an ISP as the phone company from two decades ago. A communications pipe, not the content.

  45. Your second link also agrees with my definition of ISP

    You may wish to read these links at some point.

  46. Yeah, you may also wish to check what a Teir 1 carrier is:

    This cascades multiple times until transmissions reach a Tier 1 carrier, which is an ISP capable of reaching every other network on the Internet without purchasing IP transit or paying settlements

    Now, if you wish to carry on with this evasive nonsense instead of discussing the substantive issue others can conlude your motivations for doing so.

    In the interests of freedom of speech would it be okay for someone to make a video of how to construct an IED from fertilizer and claim it to be a chemistry exercise?

  47. Hold the fort.

    Is anyone going to make the laughable claim that there is not an extremely wide range of political content and speech on Youtube? Even the ATW fringe lunatics cite to it here constantly.

  48. Paul

    Youtube is not an ISP by any definition.

    An ISP is a communications pipe.

    mahons

    East Germany wasn’t built in a day. We are speaking about whether it is OK for ” private companies ” to regulate the speech of their customers

    Some here are pom pom boys for corporate power here, since they think that their speech will never be affected. Which is a major error.

  49. Paul

    Do you think that all private companies should have the unfettered right to bar speech on their platforms or to refuse to carry those files to others.

    And I am speaking of the type of speech that David has shared with us

    Should there be any limits on this corporate power at all

  50. East Fucking Germany? You are playing with the full shilling today (plus East Germany was pretty much built in a day, October 7, 1949, but I digress).
    YouTube allows an extraordinary array of views and content and has a right to regulate both who and what goes on.

  51. I do not question YouTube’s right to do what they did

    I am asking if there should be any limits on this corporate power to ban speech

  52. Do you think that all private companies should have the unfettered right to bar speech on their platforms or to refuse to carry those files to others

    Like ATW I think they have standards and rules they abide by. As I said above.

    Interesting that the video was dropped from YouTube yet David’s video channel itself it still braodcastable on the same platform Noel.

    That suggests to me that there was something in the video that viollated YouTube’s broadcasting policies in which case YouTube were perfectly within their rights to drop it.

    Now that we’re back on the free speech track perhaps you’d like to answer the question that I’ve tried to get you to answer several times above?

  53. I don’t think that utilities ( ISPs, phone companies ) have an unfettered or general right to deny service or carriage of speech that they dislike

  54. Now that we’re back on the free speech track perhaps you’d like to answer the question that I’ve tried to get you to answer several times above?

    So, answers to question that haven’t been asked. I can see that this is going nowhere because of verbal gymnastics and stonewalling.

    I don’t think that utilities ( ISPs, phone companies ) have an unfettered or general right to deny service or carriage of speech that they dislike

    So sue them.

  55. Twitter and Youtube are communication platforms and should be treated the same way as ma bell.

  56. //I don’t think that utilities ( ISPs, phone companies ) have an unfettered or general right to deny service or carriage of speech that they dislike//

    Phantom, you’re tilting at windmills.

  57. Pat

    No

    There are many alternatives to them

    There often are few or no alternatives to your ISP

  58. scale is what counts Paul…. amount of users

    And Phantom NO there is no alternative to Google they are involved in everything and they are very political

  59. Personally I don’t use google as a search engine

    And DV has shown a practical alternative to YouTube

  60. I don’t deny that google/YouTube / Facebook have vast power, that they should be watched, and subject to rules.

    They are smarter than any government and stronger than many governments

    Most users and governments don’t understand these companies

  61. there is a fear, no doubt alongside immigration, but this “rivers of blood” speech, which was well presented has to meet the reality of the data. I don’t find the numbers and crime stats reflect an out-of-control problem. The fact is people do integrate and take on the norms of the host country and provide a contribution. The criminal justice system deals with those who want to cause trouble . ( is it cos I is black -Ali-G )

  62. Youtube should just come out and clearly say that they support and promote Progressive thought and they deride and censor Conservative thought when they think they can get away with it.

    Youtube should just come out and say that if they want to censor, they will, because they can.

    Like late night comedy, it’s time to stop pretending.

  63. “….they should be watched, and subject to rules.”

    you have the most totalitarian instincts, Phantom.

  64. It’s the pretense that gets me. At least CNN doesn’t pretend to be fair or neutral. 🙂

  65. Scale is what counts Paul…. amount of users

    Disagree Pat.

    A communication platform is a communication platform and after that it’s only a matter of degree. Regulation of one is the same principle as regulation of one million.

  66. Patty

    Patrick and I often sharply disagree but here we and maybe DV are the nuanced ones

    We see a need for regulation – in some cases—, while the fanatics think that all regulation is bad ( esp when the private companies act against political enemies

  67. I can’t get over the fact that you simply seem to love, love regulations.

    Do you see no downside?

  68. Phantom, on March 28th, 2018 at 4:15 PM Said:
    Personally I don’t use google as a search engine

    And DV has shown a practical alternative to YouTube

    It doesn’t matter Google controls all the advertising on the internet they have their fingers in everything. You accuse me on a regular basis of being blindly pro corporation Google has become the most powerful corporation in the world and you don’t question anything they do….

    Well they are “Progressives” so why would you.

  69. Consider for a moment the BBC. Now this is a well regulated platform. And just how fair and balanced is it? Despite best intention, the BBC is a very biased source for news; the BBC, like NPR, is bubble wrapped in its bias. It doesn’t even know it’s biased.

  70. Patty

    You like the idea of any corporation having the absolute right to shut anyone down from use of a platform? Do you support corporations banning certain people/ sites from accessing internet services?

  71. I don’t use Google – I use Duck Duck Go – they don’t track.

    Little by little, the Silicon Valley monopolies are going to be replaced by other option. I just hope that when the tech bubble bursts (in other words, the Silicon Valley biggies lose value – like Facebook, for example) I hope you aren’t holding a lot of stock!!

  72. This is a Free Speech issue.

    Something our brothers and sisters across the pond DON’T HAVE and don’t understand.

    Phantom has proven he does not understand anything.

  73. “You like the idea of any corporation having the absolute right to shut anyone down from use of a platform? Do you support corporations banning certain people/ sites from accessing internet services?”

    I like the idea of many options, not one monopoly controlling everything.

    I think the “free service” model of internet services will go the way of the Dodo bird. Data mining came about because of the need to monetize the services and they did this – not with subscription – but with advertising.

    I think subscription will replace the free service model and when this happens the banning or not banning of content will be irrelevant.

  74. Consider for a moment the BBC. Now this is a well regulated platform. And just how fair and balanced is it? Despite best intention, the BBC is a very biased source for news; the BBC, like NPR, is bubble wrapped in its bias. It doesn’t even know it’s biased.

    Oh it does, it just doesn’t care.

  75. No company should be allowed to shutdown someones speech unless it is a call to violence.

    Google deny’s sites access and adds revenue based on politics.

    Youtube and Twitter are offered to the public as communication platforms advertised as bastions of free speech yet they are silencing one side of the political agenda purely on politics.

  76. DuckDuckGo

    DuckDuckGo may not be as connected as Google and may not be as flashy as Bing, but there’s one thing it offers that is very attractive, and that’s anonymity. That’s something that is sometimes important, and we definitely lose that with Google and Bing. Every product of Google knows what you have done on all of its other products. Sometimes we just want to search without the search engine following us. However, without that, the results aren’t tailored specifically for you. Everyone gets the same search result

    Google vs. Bing vs. DuckDuckGo: Which Is Best?

  77. No company should be allowed to shutdown someones speech unless it is a call to violence

    Redstate Altnewsmedia and The Hill don’t carry anti American or pro jihad commentary. You seem to want to force them to carry such content.

  78. Lets skip jihad as that is violent.

    But should they be compelled to carry anti American, anti Israel and pro Iranian content

  79. Are you suggesting all the conservative/right wing articles and videos that have posted here for the last decade or so that have come from Google and/or Youtube are silencing one side?

  80. The Irish aren’t and have absolutely no chance of becoming ‘a minority in Ireland’

    Paul, you would have thought that for Texas, but white Texans are now an absolute majority at 49%. Birthrates and migration can fundamentally change things. We’re lucky that the Mexican migrant is usually hard working and law abiding.

  81. I partially agree with both Patty and Paul ( who think that corporations should do whatever the hell they want at any time ) in the case of youtube, but I agree with Patrick that ISPs should not have the right to ban the kind of content that David has made.

    This is the correct position.

  82. Is there anyone here suggesting that anti-Israel or Pro Israel posting are not available on Google or Youtube? (Or anti American or pro American, anti EU or pro EU)?

  83. Mahons, I knew that would hit a nerve, but aside from the Tigua Indian Tribe of El Paso, we don’t have a native people.

  84. That’s a good example, the Native American. Demographics do matter, and the native Irish are not immune.

  85. The Irish aren’t and have absolutely no chance of becoming ‘a minority in Ireland’

    I admire the optimisation, but when it comes to breeding, even Catholics are no match for Muslims or Africans.

    It’s only a matter of time.

    Which actually, and rather ironically, brings me neatly into this..

    20 years since it hit the shelves, the HSE spends €500,000 on Viagra for Irish men

    http://www.thejournal.ie/viagra-turns-20-3925129-Mar2018/

    It might be hard (pun absolutely intended) to believe, but facts are facts.

    😏

  86. YouTube and other social media type platforms are perfectly entitled to censor any content they wish. They make this quite clear in their terms and conditions.
    The ISP is a different issue. They provide access to the internet. They have no right to stop access because of what you say or do, as long as you aren’t breaking the law.

  87. I get the News i need on the weather report :

    Tom, get your plane right on time
    I know your part’ll go fine
    Fly down to Mexico
    Do-n-do-d-do-n-do and here I am,
    The only living boy in New York
    I get the news I need on the weather report
    I can gather all the news I need on the weather report
    Hey, I’ve got nothing to do today but smile
    Do-n-doh-d-doh-n-doh and here I am
    The only living boy in New York
    Half of the time we’re gone
    But we don’t know where,
    And we don’t know where
    Half of the time we’re gone
    But we don’t know where,
    And we don’t know where
    Tom, get your plane right on time
    I know you’ve been eager to fly now
    Hey let your honesty shine, shine, shine now
    Do-n-do-d-do-n-do
    Like it shines on me
    The only living boy in New York,
    The only living boy in New York

  88. jude, on March 28th, 2018 at 5:56 PM Said:

    I get the News i need on the weather report :

    Dave is our resident expert technologies on computers.

    I am looking up to Dave for answers.

    Listening to the BBC earlier, ( I’m allowed to, I pay the TV tax) apparently the Met office has a seriously powerful bank of super computers, which calculates 23,000 Trillion calculations per second. Seriously impressive, so how has come they can’t work out what the weather will be next Tuesday?.

  89. its paul simon Harri
    the weather algorithms are incredible , mind-blowing i saw a programme on BBC .. arrgh 😉

  90. weather algorithms and computer are inadequate and suffer a rate of failure.

    Now you want optimism these are the things that make me optimistic

  91. This is a Free Speech issue.

    Something our brothers and sisters across the pond DON’T HAVE and don’t understand.

    Okay Pat, same question to you that Tom ignored four or five times above:

    In the interests of freedom of speech would it be okay for someone to make a video of how to construct an IED from fertilizer and claim it to be a chemistry exercise?

    Paul, you would have thought that for Texas, but white Texans are now an absolute majority at 49%. Birthrates and migration can fundamentally change things. We’re lucky that the Mexican migrant is usually hard working and law abiding

    The big difference being of course Charles that Ireland wasn’t once part of Mexico like Texas was?

  92. Harri,

    Dave is our resident expert technologies on computers.

    I am looking up to Dave for answers.

    Thanks for the compliment Harri.

    …apparently the Met office has a seriously powerful bank of super computers, which calculates 23,000 Trillion calculations per second. Seriously impressive, so how has come they can’t work out what the weather will be next Tuesday?.

    Weather prediction calculations have millions of variables. Small changes can have huge effects on the outcome. It’s difficult, even for a supper computer to get right. Mind you, I’m sure I remember humans did a better job years ago.

  93. “In the interests of freedom of speech would it be okay for someone to make a video of how to construct an IED from fertilizer and claim it to be a chemistry exercise?”

    I think many people, myself included, might say you could make it but not distribute it to the general public because it is possible someone would learn something, make an IED and cause much harm. I don’t think claiming it as a “chemistry exercise” makes much difference.

    However, I doubt it is realistically possible to totally ban its distribution. Even if all ISPs in the world agreed to ban it there would be alternatives. Someone could have their own server and distribute its address with only a vague reference to what the content was. Or, somebody could make the video and do a mass emailing of it.

    That is the world we live in and have to deal with it. The good guys have to stay one step ahead of the bad guys and unfortunately that is not always the case.

  94. I think many people, myself included, might say you could make it but not distribute it to the general public because it is possible someone would learn something, make an IED and cause much harm. I don’t think claiming it as a “chemistry exercise” makes much difference

    That’s the point I’m making, when does freedom of speech become ‘unable to be distributed to the general public?’

    Is distributing information, (real or false), which could inspire or cause people to cause harm okay to be published?

    If I was to make a video saying ‘in my opinion someone should assasinate the POTUS’ and post it to YouTube should it be removed?

  95. There are no absolutes in this world.

    Giving the public instructions for the manufacturing of IEDs, or fertilizer bombs, or distributing child porn, etc. to me are by definition exceptionally grave criminal acts, never to be permissible.

    Incitement to crime, or here the enabling of it, in the case of the bombs, or in the case of the porn, is providing a market for the ruin of children.

    I would want harsh penalties to anyone who enables any of that.

    In the case of child porn, police now work with ISPs as well as Youtube / email companies / hosting companies to suppress the bad content and to track down and punish those who publish or trade in it. All entirely proper.

    Exactly none of this is in the same moral universe as David’s video. In this country, it would AFAIK violate no law. Some may be offended at it, or pretend to be offended, and it is their right to do so.

    Again, I’d be disappointed in Youtube for banning it, an act which makes me think less of Youtube and its owner Google, but I think that they are within their rights do do it. I don’t see a need for ” regulation of the internet ” here in order to preserve David’s right to post on this global platform of his choice.

    Republicans/right wingers until very recently were fairly vociferous in opposing any regulation of the internet, here, Patrick proposes an unprecedented regulation of an internet company, even though Youtube didn’t stop the video from being shown – its right here. I understand where he’s coming from, but I don’t see the need, today.

    That doesn’t mean that all of us, whatever our views, shouldn’t be concerned about google and facebook and the rest, and of their surveillance activities ( like facebook keeping a log of your android phone calls ? )and their market power, which is great, and which has come upon us very suddenly.

  96. It should not be distributed to the general public, in my opinion, if it would likely cause physical harm. I would limit it to physical harm. Others might take a more restrictive position such as causing moral harm but I would not.

    Whether anything can be stopped from distribution considering the capabilities of current technology is an important issue. I think it deserves public discussion. The last thing we want is our children watching videos of how to sneak a bomb into the cargo holds of aircraft, and other things that could cause massive harm.

  97. Freedom of Speech eh?.

    The purge has begun…

    Tommy Robinson has lost his Twitter ‘blue tick’ as social media giant strips verification from a string of controversial users

    On Wednesday Twitter went further, actively stripping a number of users of their blue tick status, saying it would remove verification from accounts that do not meet new guidelines.

    These include a ban on promoting hate or threatening people on the basis of “race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability or disease”.

    https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tommy-robinson-loses-twitter-verification-13910293

    I wonder what the time frame is, before sites like ATW are shutdown?.

  98. Harri, this is what a Twitter blue tick means:

    The tick mark next to any account signifies that that account is a verified account of a particular brand or celebrity and is not a fake profile of the same.

    Now it seems that Twitter have banned Robinson from twitter for breaching its hateful conduct poloicy:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43572168

    https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy

    It seems that this was after:

    The outgoing counter-terrorism police chief said on Tuesday said there was “no doubt” that far-right material posted online by Mr Robinson drove Osborne to target Muslims.

    “He had grown to hate Muslims largely due his consumption of large amounts of online far-right material including, as evidenced at court, statements from former EDL leader Tommy Robinson, Britain First and others,”

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/tommy-robinson-counter-terrorism-find-uk-islamophobia-racist-edl-a8231286.html

    I wonder what the time frame is, before sites like ATW are shutdown?.

    Unless they’re owned and bound by Twitter rules my guess is not in this lifetime.

  99. Harri

    I wonder what the time frame is, before sites like ATW are shutdown?.

    ATW, if I remember correctly Has fallen foul of its WordPress terms and conditions in the past. This is the only link I can find referencing it though.

    http://www.politics.ie/forum/northern-ireland/201925-tangled-web-temporarily-suspended-due-violation.html

    I think considering the amount of, (amongst other things), anti-semitism displayed on here, David’s hosts seem to be pretty tolerant. Much more tolerant than Facebook or YouTube would be.

    Personally I don’t think David’s in any danger of being shut down anytime soon.

  100. The outgoing counter-terrorism police chief said on Tuesday said there was “no doubt” that far-right material posted online by Mr Robinson drove Osborne to target Muslims.

    “He had grown to hate Muslims largely due his consumption of large amounts of online far-right material including, as evidenced at court, statements from former EDL leader Tommy Robinson, Britain First and others,”

    Ah yes – it was nothing to do with Bombs of Peace, Daggers of Peace, Vans of Peace, Mass-rapes of Peace. And there is nothing that challenges the accuracy of what would have been Robinson’s twitter account for it was either accurate or it was not.

  101. Great comments to accompany the above latest lefty hate fest..

    2 hours ago
    I think Momentum are six months away from having their own uniform. That’s how far gone this lot are.

    33
    Reply

    42 minutes ago
    They already have their own uniform. They dress in black, with their faces covered, and they carry Antifa flags and clubs.

    6
    Reply

Comments are closed.