A Well Regulated Militia Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» A Well Regulated Militia » General Discussion » UPN: United Patriot Network » YouTube Restrictions Target Conservative and Gun Channels

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: YouTube Restrictions Target Conservative and Gun Channels
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are YouTube Restrictions Targeted on Conservative and Gun Channels?

By David Codrea

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “BREAKING: YouTube gun channels in danger of disappearing forever,” The Firearm Blog reported Thursday. “It appears that all gun related videos on YouTube have been flagged as restricted material. That means that either YouTube’s algorithm or users have flagged them as inappropriate for one reason or another. Once a video is flagged it is no longer eligible for monetization.”

“YouTube gun channels rocked by demonetization,” Guns.com corroborates. “In the latest installment of friction between popular firearm vloggers and the online video-sharing website, many gun channels are reporting that YouTube has greatly reduced their ability to run ads.”

“YouTube’s new ad strategy: Hide and filter conservative channels,” Red Alert Politics elaborates:

YouTube is addressing a corporate boycott: Advertising sponsors are withdrawing ads, but the solution involves disproportionately censoring channels that are not politically correct, specifically anything remotely conservative … In an effort to comply with corporate demands, YouTube has secretly enforced their restricted mode to hide age-inappropriate content, shield comments from all videos, and allow third-party media firms to evaluate which channels and videos should receive ad revenue.

This is all consistent with a report posted March 31 by AmmoLand Shooting Sports News highlighting political and social commentator Paul Joseph Watson’s warning that “Many of your favorite YouTubers could be about to disappear.” As we further explored, the suppression of non-“progressive” ideas is not just limited to YouTube, but also reflects in the corporate practices of the two other members of the social media Big Three.

It should be noted that conservative and gun channels aren't the only ones that have been reported as financially impacted, and that YouTube's “advertiser friendly content guidelines” appear “non-partisan,” albeit arbitrary and subjective:

Content that is considered “not advertiser-friendly” includes, but is not limited to:

Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor
Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism
Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language
Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items
Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

So the questions become are the rules evenly applied, or can discrimination be shown? And how does that tie in with what is happening with the other social media giants?

Aside from abetting censorship from repressive regimes, Breitbart reports Facebook has introduced the Orwellian-named “Initiative for Civil Courage Online” and other policy directives designed to stifle and even remove “conservative” views by smearing them as “racist,” “xenophobic,” “hateful,” and/or “fake news.” That’s on the heels of Team Zuckerberg banning private gun sales, a policy evidently enforced by an army of “progressive” snitches, with one of their leaders (who declares “It’s time to take everyone’s guns. It’s past time”) showing a financial tie between his livelihood and George Soros.


And also per Breitbart:

“Twitter has confirmed it is experimenting with graying out the profiles of users it deems are posting ‘sensitive content,’ displaying a warning to others before they can read their tweets.”

What’s the solution? Listen to voices that never use it, and abandon all social media?

You could, but then you’d be squandering resources and opportunities, and ceding the ideological battlespace and information-sharing tools to the antis. Face it, without social media, much of the news, research and rational opinion gun rights advocates need to stay informed would be extremely difficult to learn about, promote and share. It’s not like the establishment press either will cover it or won’t distort what it does “report” on. These online tools are being used to great advantage by our enemies, and turning our noses up suits them just fine.

What about going to other platforms? Without an unlikely mass exodus, that will have no effect on either the Big Three bottom line or on your ability to share information. When I put stuff out on my Facebook page or my Twitter feed, or even my rarely-used YouTube channel, the links can reach thousands. Other services I’ve tried are lucky to reach dozens.

So what can we do?

The first thing would be to come up with irrefutable documentation that conservative and gun channels are indeed being targeted. A few anecodtal examples won't cut it. And that means someone with the time, resources and inclination would need to establish that such discrimination is undeniable.

Then, one idea I haven’t seen explored (beyond me suggesting it) is to use “the enemy’s” own tactics against him. The small “l” libertarian in me says social media giants are private enterprises, and if we don’t like the way they operate, we should go our separate ways. That does not account for the tremendous influence these corporations have on government actions and policies, which introduces coercive potential into the voluntary associations.

It was the “progressives” who introduced antitrust laws designed to be a check and balance against monopolies, which Facebook, Twitter and Google/YouTube, with unprecedented global influence, arguably approximate. It would be hard to dispute any provable discrimination they exhibit toward conservatives and gun owners wouldn't represent a form of collusion and restraint of trade.

I don’t represent myself to be an attorney competent in that area of the law, so instead offer this as a question from a layman hoping to elicit an analysis from those who are. How — if the allegations are provable — would this not be something the feds would come down on other industries for?

Is that something “we” should want?

Oh, and to the proprietors over at The Firearm Blog? You might want to rethink that “Firearms Not Politics” slogan. Just because you’re not interested in politics doesn’t mean politics isn’t interested in you.

UPDATE: I can't vouch for any of this but thought I should mention that Brid.TV offers “7 Best Alternatives to YouTube Video Monetization” for your review and consideration.

[ 04-17-2017, 05:33 AM: Message edited by: ConSigCor ]

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 14721 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who Will Speak for America If Social Media Forces the Alt Right Out of Business?

YouTube (i.e. Google) and Facebook are acting as unregulated monopolies. They provide a privately owned platform in which the Independent Media provides a conservative interpretation of the news as opposed to the radical left-wing Mainstream media who espouses such values as expressing anti-Christian views, advocating for the continual erosion of the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, completely open borders in which anyone with two legs and carrying weapons of mass destruction can illegally cross our borders take up residence, all courtesy of the US taxpayer. And according to Facebook and YouTube they have the right to ban you from using their platform for espousing traditional American values that our country was founded on.

Not Advertiser Friendly

I have had scores of videos demonetized by YouTube because they are “not advertiser friendly”. Not advertiser friendly? I had a video demonetized that had 1,735 likes and 21 dislikes, with over 40,000 views and I did not make a dime on the video. Why? Because I referred to a current event that involved a suspicious death of a political figure. My approval rating for this video had an approval rating of over 98% and it is not advertiser-friendly? With 98% of the people approving of the video, the video was very advertiser-friendly and would make the audience of The Common Sense Show MUCH more receptive to being advertising friendly. The term advertiser friendly is a Bravo-Sierra term. What they mean is that I am not loony-liberal-left anti-Christian friendly and my conservative views should not be heard. The First Amendment violators and the thought police are patrolling the corridors of the social media giants with the message “You either promote our world-view or will make you deliver your message at a financial loss.”

There is no such thing as advertiser friendly. The whores from Wall Street don’t care where they peddle their goods and services. just ask Prescott Bush (HW Bush’s father) when tried to get away with doing business with the Nazis during WW II.

Hate Speech and Extremism

Any view which is anti-New World Order which advocates for the for total obliteration of freedom, both politically and financially, is labeled as hate speech. If we advocate for screening immigrants criminal background is hate speech as if no terrorist with bad intentions would ever try and cross our border in order to do Americans harm.

If one speaks against the illegal and unethical actions of Wall Street, that is considered “extremism”. I have been demonetized and suspended from Facebook for discussing child-sex-trafficking. The FBI and every major police department in the country have task forces related to this topic, but if I write about it, even just to report a related news event, my work is banned and/or demonetized.

Please consider the following admonition from YouTube:

“Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown.”

Don’t the topics which includes content of controversial, sensitive issues, wars, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies make up 95% of the content on your nightly news?

Rules for Thee but Not for Me

Countless times, I have seen a CNN or Fox News video reproduced, with YouTube ads being played on YouTube without restriction. Ads from Wall Street advertisers play unabated and permeate these MSM sites and we in the alt media are not allowed to cover these same topics. If I address the topic (eg war, right vs. left politics), I am banned or demonetized. YouTube and Facebook are guilty of extremism. Extreme hypocritical treatment of divergent and legitimate political views is a repressible rehash of Stalin and Hitler (oh, the use these historical figures names will get banned as well).

For the record, The Common Sense Show does not advocate for violence except in extreme self- defense. The show argues against the use of violence by our government in their wars of occupation which are nothing more that resource-grabbing adventures on behalf of the globalists. Yet CNN videos play on YouTube unabated which stand in support with never-ending wars.

By the way, there is no appeal to the arbitrary decisions of censorship as the new algorithms are key word driven and they have no real appeal mechanism. Do you think CNN and Fox are ever demonetized or banned for covering news stories that are underwritten and funded by CIA? Former reporter, Amber Lyons, claimed was true?

Consider the following graphic appearing on Alex Jones’ Infowars website. This says it all. This has already happened to Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, where Google delisted Mike’s publications.

Facebook just banned Mark Dice. Was his content to funny or to TRUE?

Course of Action

The alt media should ban together and sue the Washington Post for accusing us of being Russian agents for supporting Donald Trump. We should look into suing Facebook and YouTube. Oh, I know they are private entities. However, they are unregulated monopolies that are predatory in nature. I have had some private conversations with sympathetic attorneys that think that these social media giants may have crossed the line with regard to anti-trust violations.

If the estimated 20-30 million people who frequent alt media sites would contribute 5 dollars each to a trust fund, we could make this brand of communist censorship very expensive to YouTube (Google) and Facebook.

If everyone refused to use Google’s search engine, it would cost them billions. If we began to boycott advertisers who are contributing to the demise of the Independent Media, feel the pinch, we would quickly see how broad the term “not advertiser friendly” would become.

If our followers were crowdfunding their favorites shows, websites and YouTube creators, the message would still be heard.

Here is the stark reality of where this is headed

The alt media in a dying gasp to stay viable, will attempt to get their followers to, in some measure, pay for their favorite entities to stay in business. However, I am not confident in the alt right crowd’s determination to do such a thing on a scale that will make any real difference.

Before the alt media largely goes extinct, you will see the following:

Websites will ban users who employ adblockers to access their site
Radio shows will charge a small premium (5-10 dollars per month to access).
YouTubers will be forced to watch private ads secured by the creators and played in front of their video.

I have experimented with the third option. Here were the results: I added almost 11,000 subscribers over the past 30 days. However, 2,000+ YouTubers unsubscribed because they did not think I should show any private ads. In other words, a fair amount of the public expects to continue to receive something for nothing.

I am lucky, luckier than most. I have other things I can do to make money and support my family. I do not need YouTube and Facebook. Yet, I am the only source of support for my family. I will not diminish my family’s standard of living to bring you a service that cuts into that family budget. Would you? If so, try donating to your favorite journalists. I am going to give it until June, and if things do not turn around, Iam probably going to abandon my website and YouTube. I can afford the radio show, but not in the format that it is in. The scope of coverage will be reduced. I expect nobody to weep for me, however, if enough of us in the alt media make tough economic choices, where are you going to get your news? Wolf Blitzer? Alleged sexual harasser Bill O’Reilly or the CIA’s Anderson Cooper?

Although I do other things for a living, this is not true for a fair amount of my colleagues. This is their livelihood. They are professional journalists who bring the public the truth, the truth you are not getting on FOX, CNN, and now on YouTube and Facebook. They will die on the vine. Most will be gone in six months to a year. And then it will be open season on Americans because nobody will be left to speak.

Here is what I have concluded:

First they came for Healthmasters.com radio show and America said nothing
Then they came for Revolution Radio and American said nothing
Then they came for Agenda 21 Radio and America said nothing
Then they came for the Hagmann Report and America said nothing
Then they came for Natural News and America said nothing
Then they came for SteveQuayle.com and America said nothing
Then they came for The Common Sense Show and America said nothing
Then they came for America and there was nobody left to speak

The first step is in the installation of a police state complete with all the trappings of Hitler is to take away the command and control of the conservative base in this country and that is what is going on right now. The countdown to tyranny has begun and America continues to snore.

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 14721 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Archangel1
NCO Contributor
Member # 12498

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Archangel1   Email Archangel1   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Were the two posts above by David Codrea?

I was trying to explain the coming (here?) tyranny of the new and old media plus the progressive left in government to a friend. This would be a good reference for her.

--------------------
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always Bad Men." Lord Actin 1887

I fear we live in evil times...

Posts: 710 | From: West | Registered: Feb 2012  | Report this post to a Moderator
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The first post is by David Codrea and the second one is from Dave Hodges of the "Common Sense Show".

Gary Franchi over at the Next News Network has been discussing this also.

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 14721 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Archangel1
NCO Contributor
Member # 12498

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Archangel1   Email Archangel1   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks. People are slowly waking up.

--------------------
"Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always Bad Men." Lord Actin 1887

I fear we live in evil times...

Posts: 710 | From: West | Registered: Feb 2012  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just to make it semi-official. The "secret" AWRM affiliated YouTube guy (cough cough) did not take much of a hit on the YouTube advertiser shuffle.

[ 04-21-2017, 03:35 PM: Message edited by: Breacher ]

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
ConSigCor
Administrator

Member # 7

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ConSigCor   Email ConSigCor   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
“We’re At The Mercy Of The Algos”; More News Sites Say Facebook’s ‘Fake News’ Filter Is Killing Traffic

It seems as though the first confirmed victim of Facebook's 'fake news' crusade may be none other than the Chicago Tribune

Zero Hedge - April 21, 2017

Yesterday we highlighted an article written by the Chicago Tribune’s Deputy Editor for Digital News, Kurt Gessler, which provided a fairly compelling set of facts to suggest that Facebook’s ‘fake news’ filter was suppressing the distribution of articles from media sources which undoubtedly consider themselves “legitimate new outlets” (with the definition of ‘legitimate’ left solely to the discretion of Facebook execs, of course).

As it turns out, the Chicago Tribune was not alone as Gessler’s article prompted a whole host of digital publishers to come forward with similar stories of traffic destruction. Per Digiday:

Facebook’s news feed algorithm changes have been part of publishing reality for many years. But to Matt Karolian, director of audience engagement at The Boston Globe, “last month was probably the worst we’ve had in reach in about a year. The fact everyone else is seeing it is a little bit troubling.”
Aysha Khan said Facebook reach has also been sliding at the Religion News Service, where she’s social media editor.

“Reach spiked in the summer, and we started hitting 15, 25K reach on bigger posts that were polarizing,” Khan said. “It wasn’t just political posts, but any kind of interviews. Anything that had potential to get a big reaction got a big reaction. But then we noticed that kind of stopped, and by January, it was just gone. Now we’re worse off than we were to start with.”

The change has happened even as RNS has been doing more video, including live video, and photos, things that Facebook has encouraged. Khan said RNS is still trying, though, with plans for more regularly scheduled live video and videos generally.

Meanwhile, Vocativ…

@kurtgessler This looks somewhat familiar to me as well. It's not just you.

— rob blatt (@robblatt) April 19, 2017

and Chicago Magazine also corroborated the Tribune’s data.

@whet @kurtgessler This is great @kurtgessler – I haven’t crunched the #s yet but our FB reach is definitely down. And we do have FBIA enabled.

— Bettina Chang (@bechang8) April 18, 2017

“In my mind, we’re kind of at the mercy of the algorithm,” Khan said. “But there’s a lot of stories that are getting underwhelming responses that readers can’t even see.

Of course, we would argue that any business model which relies on Facebook for distribution is fundamentally flawed. That said, we have to admit that the irony of Facebook’s ‘fake news’ crusade ensnaring some of the nation’s most recognizable, elitist mainstream media outlets is, to the say the least, humorous.

* * *

For those who missed our original post on the topic, see below:

Back in December we wrote about the efforts of Facebook to combat the spread of “fake news” over social media with the introduction of a filter intended to flag ‘fake’ content so that users wouldn’t haven’t to go through the hassle of critically analyzing information on their own. As we noted at the time, it was a genius plan, except for one small issue: who determines what is considered “fake news” and how exactly do they draw those conclusions? From our prior post (see “Facebook Launches Campaign To Combat “Fake News”“):

The first problem, however, immediately emerges because as NBC notes, “legitimate news outlets won’t be able to be flagged”, which then begs the question who or what is considered “legitimate news outlets”, does it include the likes of NYTs and the WaPos, which during the runup to the election declared on a daily basis, that Trump has no chance of winning, which have since posted defamatory stories about so-called “Russian propaganda news sites”, admitting subsequently that their source data was incorrect, and which many consider to be the source of “fake news”.
Also, just who makes the determination what is considered “legitimate news outlets.”

Now, it seems as though the first confirmed victim of Facebook’s ‘fake news’ crusade may be none other than the Chicago Tribune, a newspaper that undoubtedly considers itself a “legitimate news outlet.”

The discovery was highlighted in an article written by the Chicago Tribune’s own Deputy Editor for Digital News, Kurt Gessler, who noted that a curious thing happened back in December when Facebook first changed up its algorithms to target fake news, namely their traffic crashed. Per the chart below, the typical Tribune post went from attracting the interest of 30-35k people down to 15-20k people in a matter of months.

Meanwhile, the number of Tribune articles shared over Facebook that reached less than 10,000 viewers (i.e. the “duds”) skyrocketed while the number of highly successful articles, those reaching 50,000+ people, simultaneously plunged.

So, either the Chicago Tribune suddenly started producing a lot of garbage that no one wanted to read, which just happened to coincide with the implementation of Facebook’s new “fake news” algo, or the media outlet was pumping out content that Facebook suddenly figured to fit the definition of ‘fake’.

Certainly, the issue couldn’t be attributed to a loss of followers….

…or less content creation.

Perhaps Facebook’s algos are better at identifying “fake news” than we thought.

--------------------
"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861

Posts: 14721 | From: A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC | Registered: Oct 2001  | Report this post to a Moderator
Breacher
Senior Member
Member # 1119

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Breacher   Email Breacher   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah if, they clickbait and jam up my iPad running an updated OS, then fuck their "news". It takes a lot of spyware and garbage to trigger an apple OS shutdown and those "legitimate" news sources often do, along with misleading sensationalistic false conclusion leading headlines.

[ 04-21-2017, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Breacher ]

--------------------
Life liberty, and the pursuit of those who threaten them.

Trump: not the president America needs, but the president America deserves.

Posts: 6705 | From: Western States | Registered: Sep 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | A Well Regulated Militia

All information posted on this site is the private property
of the individual who posted the information and AWRM.org,
and may not be reproduced anywhere without permission.
© 2001-2016 AWRM.org All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2