JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Side note, its not just the R of Center content, but also creative content resources traditionally associated with the Left :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

For example? Croquis Cafe, a figure drawing and educational resource just lost all 120+ of their videos due to YT's increasingly puritanical algorithms, even though nothing that they offered were sexual, other than nudity. Several people have had their channels removed and demonetized on the basis of being "too sexual/explicit":rolleyes:

So YT is going down the exact same route that Tumblr did recently.... Vimeo is getting some traffic, but a lot of things on Vimeo are pay to view now.. am I surprised? Nope, not one bit. The "Free" market will compensate by providing new places... but the writing is on the wall for content creators on the whole, not just those of conservatives, but also those of creative, arts, and the like... traditionally a group that is pretty dang left leaning :rolleyes:

Yes, one can be an artist and a gun owner, they just don't seem to advertise as such :eek: lol

Edit; its very silly actually. YT requires age verification for some videos, and yet they pull videos with actual nudity.... leaving what someone termed as "Maxim/CQ for kiddies" alone :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
I'm not sure how not permitting YouTube to curate content based on political belief could stifle competition in any way.

That is not what was being asked for. People are asking for Government to regulate them like a utility. So what you are asking for is for some Government agency to step in and make the rules for them. Just look how well that always works out.
 
... Here's an easy fix: the Communications Decency Act immunizes websites from responsibility for their content on the grounds that they are not the publisher, simply the host, and they cannot police everything posted there. A simple amendment to the law that says that once you start to screen content on anything other than the basis of legality, you are now considered the publisher would probably be sufficient to stop websites from discriminatory behavior.

That's a good idea but I think there is still a flaw. First, YT does demonetization and deplatforming.

Looking just at demonetization, YT would say that they aren't a publisher and aren't curating anything. They are just making a business decision regarding who gets advertising dollars. Could a law requiring equal treatment of all content creators be Constitutional? I really don't know -- have to look at some cases from Teddy Roosevelt's monopoly busting era to figure out how that passed Constitutional muster.

Deplatforming is a second issue -- I can see YT deleting vids or suspending accounts for clearly promoting illegal behavior (although I'm sure it takes no effort to find videos of people doing bong rips in states where pot is not legal -- yep, just tested). Of course, most deplatforming seems politically motivated rather than legality related. I think it might be easier to regulate this aspect than it would be to regulate which creators YT funds because with deplatforming, YT is curating rather than merely deciding who it will give money to while still allowing demonetized vids to play.

Lastly, I don't think the free market is going to solve this problem. You can't even write the word b i t c h u t e.com here because the first 5 letters turn to "bubblegum". I used to use a site called vid.me -- they shut down some time ago. If you do a search, you'll find other video hosting sites but they're all probably going to disappear along with any content at any random point in the future. The problem with YT and the other big players is that at a certain scale, the free market just stops working not least of all because at that scale, the company can buy whatever legislation it wants and the functional difference between government and private entity gets very very blurry.
 
Lastly, I don't think the free market is going to solve this problem. You can't even write the word b i t c h u t e.com here because the first 5 letters turn to "bubblegum". I used to use a site called vid.me -- they shut down some time ago. If you do a search, you'll find other video hosting sites but they're all probably going to disappear along with any content at any random point in the future. The problem with YT and the other big players is that at a certain scale, the free market just stops working not least of all because at that scale, the company can buy whatever legislation it wants and the functional difference between government and private entity gets very very blurry.

This site and Youtube are both part of the free market. They came about because people wanted them. That is what free market is. Many here must not be old enough to remember what it was like when we had one phone Co. That was Gov. regulation. When Cable TV came along same thing, Gov. Regulation. When enough people wanted an alternative to the one phone Co and the one Cable provider, people found a way to do it. Youtube was never a Gov sponsored entity. someone came up with an idea, people liked it. There is currently no law preventing someone else from making another. Only obstacle is cost. If enough people want to see what Youtube will not allow someone will offer it. If enough people want to type something here that this site censors, someone will make one. It is amazing how many people are still able to be conned into thinking free market does not work but Gov does.
 
Regulating the internet as an utility, instead of a media network, might push things into paywalls and fee subscription sites, and basically force people to invest into receiving whatever they want.... but on the other hand, looking at what happened with the Telecomm Act of 1994, where many formerly independent media groups got consolidated into a few big money media groups.. the corporations buying up media sites are largely the result of that Act. Take Google's near monopoly of many things for example... and Verizon/Yahoo's ownership of Tumblr... not sure who owns Imgur and Reddit, but these two started to split off their communities because Imgur wants more money into their own communities... Facebook and the like... now publicly traded.. whats the bet that in the near future, people will start going back to forums, message boards, email newsletters instead of social media sites like Facebook, instagram and the like?
 
Regulating the internet as an utility, instead of a media network, might push things into paywalls and fee subscription sites, and basically force people to invest into receiving whatever they want.... but on the other hand, looking at what happened with the Telecomm Act of 1994, where many formerly independent media groups got consolidated into a few big money media groups.. the corporations buying up media sites are largely the result of that Act. Take Google's near monopoly of many things for example... and Verizon/Yahoo's ownership of Tumblr... not sure who owns Imgur and Reddit, but these two started to split off their communities because Imgur wants more money into their own communities... Facebook and the like... now publicly traded.. whats the bet that in the near future, people will start going back to forums, message boards, email newsletters instead of social media sites like Facebook, instagram and the like?

Yep, again free market at work. If enough do not like what someone is doing, someone will find a way to offer what people want. Tech moves so fast it's hard to even guess at what there will be in a few years.
 
I would like a list of demonetized channels so I could exclusively watch those. The fact is, YT has to pay for the bandwidth those channels use, the electricity required to make it all work, the hardware to serve it all up, the roof to keep the hardware dry, and the people to maintain the system. When YT does not display an ad on a stream, that stream is a financial drain on YT and nothing else. Petty? Yep. ;-)

View attachment 587995
I can see them prepairing for. 2020 in advance by shutting down anyone that tells the truth.
 
874C8B76-59F9-42CF-9971-317EAEE04725.png

 
That is not what was being asked for. People are asking for Government to regulate them like a utility. So what you are asking for is for some Government agency to step in and make the rules for them. Just look how well that always works out.

if by "people" you mean me, then yes I mentioned the regulation of utilities as the philosophical grounding that would permit the regulation of YouTube. Public good sometimes outweighing private rights and all that.

How well government regulation works out is situational. If you enjoy your food not being full of sawdust, and your medicine actually containing medicine instead of poison, you can thank the government. There wouldn't have been a need for the Pure Food and Drug act if the free market was handling the situation satisfactorily.

The argument that government regulation is always bad gets rather tiresome. It's not like we even have to speculate how things would work if the government wasn't involved. Pick up a history book and read about the late 1800s with robber barons and child labor and adulterated food and you can see the utopia that an unfettered free market produces.

Likewise, the Communications Decency Act has pretty much allowed the internet to operate without any rules. What I'm hearing from posters in this thread and other places is that maybe society is no longer satisfied with the outcomes businesses like YouTube produce when left to their own devices.
 
yt, pppfffftttt, who cares what they do.

Not me.

As mentioned earlier, other venues provide all the same gun videos as yt (once did) that I care to watch.
Everyone should care. In todays world, not having a positive presence on social media is a sure death sentence as far as public opinion and support is concerned. Once progun people are silenced on the internet (in places everyone gathers, not just gun people) we will be a huge step closer to losing the rights we try to protect.
 
Everyone should care. In todays world, not having a positive presence on social media is a sure death sentence as far as public opinion and support is concerned. Once progun people are silenced on the internet (in places everyone gathers, not just gun people) we will be a huge step closer to losing the rights we try to protect.
100% agreed. It's an all out culture war and if you aren't helping by paying for good content then the content will go away and the culture war will be lost. Something to think about...
 
Playboy,

I wasn't articulate - my fault.

I too care, just won't let those on the opposite of right panic me with their silencing manipulation.

Since I can't, all by me lonesome stop them, I won't let them silence me as I can go elsewhere for the videos I'm interested in, which aren't many at this point. Generally, lost interest in most videos. Though to be sure, I like instructional videos.
 
Could anyone here on this site provide a list of sites where we could watch things that you tube would not want us to see?
I would like to subscribe to some of them.

You can try Full30.com: Firearms & Shooting Videos

The thing though, is that having gun vids on a general site like YT has the possibility of luring new people into the art through the meandering nature of watching random content. In contrast, those same people are much less likely to accidentally show up at a site dedicated to firearm content like full30. Dedicated firearm video sites are nice, but not a solution -- they just speak to the choir rather than carry the potential of expanding membership in the firearm owner's club (which is really important for maintaining the viability of the 2A).
 
awshoot,

I understand your point, but gun evangelism isn't something (at this point) I'm willing to expend energy on, with one caveat: If someone asks me to take them to the range and show them how to shoot.

You bet I will, but working//campainging at winning over anti-gun folk, nah...My shelf life for continuing to remain above ground is rapidly coming to it's expiration date.

I won't expend it on those who volunteer to remain dogmatic antis...
 
... I understand your point, but gun evangelism isn't something (at this point) I'm willing to expend energy on, with one caveat: If someone asks me to take them to the range and show them how to shoot. ...

I'm not really thinking about evangelism -- I'm thinking about people randomly stumbling on content and becoming interested. Maybe they're watching cat or crash videos and for whatever reason, a video of people doing trick shots comes up and they think "hey that's cool, I wonder if I could learn that?" Here's an example -- 33.4 million views -- some of those had to be from people who don't shoot (and maybe some of those would become interested):

 
Just a FYI, YT may be blocking this access, or its advertisers. One thing is clear however that there is a HUGE progressive push in the media exposure market so much so that they are even eating their own.
TY and Netflix are the original contenders of streaming. In more recent years SLING and others have taken over streaming TV channels normally reserved for Satellite and Cable,( yes this is going somewhere) In the last two years Charter/Spectrum and Comcast have both had investigation on blocking internet access to Netflix, and more recently SlingTV. I actually know this to be a 100% fact as I was able to document and video evidence that my service was blocked by one of those Cable companies.
Meaning do not be surprised at what is occurring, as in a JD Powers report in 2018 showed that millennial are going away from standard Dish and Cable and are dominating the streaming market. YouTubeTV is also part of this new channel streaming, which comes with ad free YT access to media. So one can see there is just cause to limit firearms or any conservative views on streaming, as the youth is accessing this same material and seems to represent their client base.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top