What’s your take? Should platform owners be held accountable? Speaking of taking charge, if you’re building a startup, .tech is the domain that puts you ahead of the game! Grab yours here ► go.tech/slidebeanv4 Use code SLIDEBEAN2024 at checkout for a 50% discount on your first year.
@@MarijnRoorda Piratebay is still going strong! And no, owners shouldn't always be liable for what happens on their platforms. The scope for charges would be infinite. The only grey area that could even be argued are things like negligence, willful disregard, pattern and practice, active promotion of certain activities,etc. And even in those cases its unclear. Its ethical to undermine things like the failed war on drugs. Illegal does not mean immoral.
Yes, beyond a certain point, you are complicit. It's called being the principal. As a boss, is it your fault when a subordinate acts poorly? Yes and no. Yes, because you are responsible for them and their actions. No, because they are their own individuals, but you will still suffer consequences.
The number of criminals/illegal activity on your platform isn't what matters, it's the percentages of it. People upload illegal content on RUclips all the time, and it gets taken down all the time. But if that number is say 100,000 pirated videos taken down a day does that mean that we should lock up Google's CEO? 100,000 is quite low considering the fact that 3.7 million videos are uploaded daily.
This is apples and oranges, policing copy righted material is legal, policing thoughts is not, if we became ok with policing thoughts on basis of fighting extremism, we'll get to the point that everyone that are in odds with who has the power "governments" in this case, will be labeled as an extremism thus policing them is legal. That is exactly like saying that the police has the right to enter houses, unwarranted. Believe me, I am Egyptian, middle eastern, I live this nightmare every single day. Our government is arresting political activists on a semi-daily basis and labeling them "Muslims brotherhood members" and calling this "terrorism fighting", even Christian activists are slapped with this label. imagine being a Christian and accused of joining an "Islamic" extremists group.
Wasn't the founder of Silk Road also charged with attempted murder, money laundering, mail fraud along with dozens of other crimes. freedom of speech martyr is not why he's serving life.
Did you forget he allegedly paid for wacks but just got scammed lol Murder-for-hire allegations Federal prosecutors alleged that Ulbricht had paid $730,000 in murder-for-hire deals targeting at least five people, allegedly because they threatened to reveal the Silk Road enterprise.
I think a lot of people are missing the nuances in the legality of these platforms. Obviously things like sex trafficking and unregulated weapons are common crimes in basically every country, but not every government practices rule of law and might bend the law to when determining what is legal. If platforms set a precedent in complying with a government, what's stopping them from complying with another and invading their user's privacy? Where do they draw the line? It's not as black and white as most people think it is.
@@김모치-z1h yes it is in every country on the globe and including international waters. You're a little ignorant. The US specifically is highly involved in the sex trafficking with the cartels. Especially in California.
No - But known illegal activity should be terminated and rules related need better definition. These ‘rules’ definitely harder every year with distributed services / shared ledger etc.
It’s always about politics. If the government doesn’t like you, they will find something. If they like you, they will look away. There is no such thing as justice, it’s an illusion.
Great video. I'm old enough to know that child abuse pornography in magazine form was sold from under the counter, where the gay porn also lay. In relatively early days of the internet I showed my neighbors why they needed to use a filter for their childrens access to the web. They were shocked when I showed them them the brutal murder of a Russian soldier by the Taliban, who cut his throat. I also told them that if that video was accessible, child abuse pornography would be easy to find. I'm not sorry that it's increasingly difficult for such degenerates to make and distribute it, but that is also part of this difficult topic. How do we ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are shielded from harm (children, elderly and mentally impaired), yet also protect the right to free speech in an increasingly authoritarian world?
Such a shitty ending video.. We need to fix the source. Not the symptoms. If there are sick people sharing sick shit, why are they? Why are we punishing everyone for fighting the one decent app. It's just so fucked up.
One thing i will fact check is that Napster was Not P2P and keep files on a server and thats why they were sued. Limewire was P2P and was around longer than Napster for that reason until streaming was invented
20:48 If signal groups are doing that, then we don't know. That's what end to end encryption is. Unless law enforcement can go and join them under cover, there's absolutely no way to know. Even after that, Signal never knows until law enforcement proves it.
Personally, I think blaming the ones that create a service for people to use (meaning with _honest_ or _best moral_ or _ethical_ intentions) shouldn't be at the fault of the Creator, the owners or Founders if you will. It's those that abuse it. The laws, more frequently, are becoming a platform to dictate or direct unfair responsibilities towards its creators for the millions of users, as an example, that vandalize their property. Shouldn't those users be the ones held liable? It's just like when content creators post NSFW content, but in a number of cases the viewers are the ones that get in trouble!? In this case, shouldn't the content creators be primarily held responsible? So how is it any different from when someone buys a vehicle from a dealership or even steals someone's vehicle & chooses to use it to loot businesses or do shootouts? Should the dealership or vehicle owner (who was probably visiting a relative elsewhere unbeknownst of the theft) be held responsible? It's like the law is trying to convolute the issue or imply double standards to protect their own best interests; apparently, it's not necessarily about JUSTice ⚖️ with them. It's about *making an example out of people* which is not the right, fair, & JUST way to go about it. Not to mention the cruel and unusual punishment that doesn't fit the actual act(s). You're locking people up for an insane amount of time over what can be seen as -if uninfluenced- controversial/trivial matters. Unfortunately, people don't live for 150+ or hundreds of years so those ridiculous sentencing speaks for itself about the flawed Law. The justice system needs to overhaul itself and focus on the real issues in society, not some political hyperboles or construed views of Justice based off of emotions. Emotions can lead to irrationalities and misunderstandings. Also, people can change and become a benefit to society. Therefore, there are options that are way better than incarceration. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to everyone but it applies to many. If you don't want to take just my word for it, you can speak with our most intelligent leaders in that particular field - the doctors, specifically in psychiatry, psychology, and even a nation's leader themselves or, particularly, presidents who commute those individuals, expunge, or grant clemency towards their sentencing usually before the end of their term(s). Of course, there's a process behind all of that as they transition back into society. It's a shame how the current state of our society views certain issues in relation to the law and many of us just accept it. I find that unchallenging it provides more problems than challenging it'd provide solutions. Finally, having the law to apply to only certain entities due to a highly influential status not only compromises the rule of law but it contradicts it too. Obviously there's more to it than that and I can't put all of those thoughts in this comment section, but I guess this can serve as a very basic or general idea(l). Great video, btw! I soundly agree with most of everything you said.
This was an excellent summary. Thanks so much. Law enforcement still has the same tools they've always had (pre-internet) to catch criminals and they need to use those. If we end-to-end encryption is compromised, the loss of freedom and privacy to everyone everywhere will have a much greater cost than not being able to stop some bad guys online.
_Given_ that Kim actively engaged in piracy in the past, using various levels of plausible deniability, it is reasonable to say this is more of the same. I'm not sure if this rises to "beyond a reasonable doubt" But it is "clear and convincing" that Kim meant this for piracy and used legitimate business purposes as cover. (In fairness, the lesson most people learn from prison is "don't get caught.") When you say it is terrible that people believe "disinformation," my first thought is "as defined by whom?" I do not trust any proposed arbiter of truth. I cannot trust anyone to tell me what is and is not "disinformation." I really don't think government cares about CSAM except as a tool to get people to support surveillance. If it cared, it would go after the people actually abusing the children. Instead, it plays whack-a-mole with the consumers. As long as the supply is there, there will always be consumers. Government can pretend it is "doing something." But producing the stuff is what is hard. It requires getting access to the children. This is something government could actually cut off -- if it wanted to.
Neither of these are going, they are responsible only for the policy of the platform and for enforcing that policy, but not for what the users upload. However, the timing in 2012 is suspicions, looks like it is in sync also with the freeze of the Iranian assets. So, the real question which should be asked: was that platform propagating an invisible virus for a financial warfare and who was orchestrating the contracts for that? And that leads to the government...
You should keep in mind that in Europe there is no absolute free speech like in the USA. Be it France, Germany, or Slovenia, there is stuff that you cannot say in public (praising fascist regimes for an example), and some platforms have become public places with their popularity.
21:09 You might be right, but to me, i think falicitating bad peoples from communicating is not a bad thing, the problem is good peoples can discover those group chat like you just did. What they really need to do is not ban the account(s)/group chat but to shadow ban the account(s) & group chat to be only accessible by invite only and only "publicly" visible by the FBI. Personally, i think it's a bad thing to make it difficult for bad peoples to communicate, why is that? If you make it difficult they will just switch to a different, less know application which will fly more easily under the authority's radar. If dumb bad peoples want to use a very popular application which the FBI can easily request and gather information, it's on them.
By the logic the gov goons go after platform owners &/or managers, then _ALL_ gov officials should also be in jail because millions of illegal activities happen every day on the public roads and sidewalks and on public land.
His age was not the deciding factor. the judge can sentence you to probation time instead of jail time. This often happens when you've had no criminal history up to that point or if the judge deems your crime not severe enough to send you to jail. There are guidelines on probation and jail time for crimes and the judge can decide which one or what combination of both he'll sentence you with.
they just pick and choose when to abide by these laws. certain platforms get away with egregious tos' and algos and etc. but have the money, power and influence to get away with what their doing
I had to go back and do my own research on this because i definitely remembered the FBI v Apple case differently than what was presented here. The case had no ruling at all. Where are you getting this from? The FBI actually dropped the case because they found a way into the phones. There is 0 case law that says privacy is absolute or comes before public or national safety. The way it's said in the video would mean even warrant backed access to phone logs and messages are illegal, and the FBI ultimately getting access to the phone would be illegal. Very irresponsible 'reporting'(?). Videos like these definitely need sources
Also, you said it was a dispute between Apple and the government and essentially the government lost. But lost because of a non-existent judgment. Uh well you do know that the courts are government too, right? It was one lower branch of govt listening to the case of another lower branch of govt in an agency. But again, the case was dropped, and nothing was ruled. Apple's size had nothing to do with it. Alphabet is much much larger than Apple was in 2016, and they just lost an anti-monopoly case.
Free Speech section of the video uses the Egypt revolution as a positive example. Why choose not to also speak of the complete opposite examples? Where those exact same platforms were used to spread misinformation and led to acts of g3n_oc1de and murd3r0u$ r10ts in multiple countries including Sri Lanka? Were those also not the epitome of free Speech?
To answer the final question on why founder of silk road was arrested and jailed vs the dealers, the govt always goes after the biggest fish. Always. Not every corner boy, mob member, or cartle member gets arrested. Not enough resources. They always go after the heads and the main facilitators. And note, some dealers were in fact arrested and some cases are still ongoing.
What’s your take? Should platform owners be held accountable?
Speaking of taking charge, if you’re building a startup, .tech is the domain that puts you ahead of the game!
Grab yours here ► go.tech/slidebeanv4
Use code SLIDEBEAN2024 at checkout for a 50% discount on your first year.
Yes
I miss the good old days of going to piratebay to download a movie cause Netflix didn't exist yet.
@@MarijnRoorda Piratebay is still going strong! And no, owners shouldn't always be liable for what happens on their platforms. The scope for charges would be infinite. The only grey area that could even be argued are things like negligence, willful disregard, pattern and practice, active promotion of certain activities,etc. And even in those cases its unclear. Its ethical to undermine things like the failed war on drugs. Illegal does not mean immoral.
Yes, beyond a certain point, you are complicit. It's called being the principal. As a boss, is it your fault when a subordinate acts poorly? Yes and no. Yes, because you are responsible for them and their actions. No, because they are their own individuals, but you will still suffer consequences.
No platform owners should not be held liable here, especially encrypted data
The number of criminals/illegal activity on your platform isn't what matters, it's the percentages of it. People upload illegal content on RUclips all the time, and it gets taken down all the time. But if that number is say 100,000 pirated videos taken down a day does that mean that we should lock up Google's CEO? 100,000 is quite low considering the fact that 3.7 million videos are uploaded daily.
This is apples and oranges, policing copy righted material is legal, policing thoughts is not, if we became ok with policing thoughts on basis of fighting extremism, we'll get to the point that everyone that are in odds with who has the power "governments" in this case, will be labeled as an extremism thus policing them is legal.
That is exactly like saying that the police has the right to enter houses, unwarranted.
Believe me, I am Egyptian, middle eastern, I live this nightmare every single day.
Our government is arresting political activists on a semi-daily basis and labeling them "Muslims brotherhood members" and calling this "terrorism fighting", even Christian activists are slapped with this label. imagine being a Christian and accused of joining an
"Islamic" extremists group.
Wasn't the founder of Silk Road also charged with attempted murder, money laundering, mail fraud along with dozens of other crimes. freedom of speech martyr is not why he's serving life.
Most of those accusation were made up by the goverment
Dear RUclips, I turned on notifications for this channel. PLEASE NOTIFY ME!
✊🏽
then mark zuckerberg larry page and sergey brin must've also been in jail
The big difference being the people you named don't ignore Federal Warrants.
They work with the government
The CIA financed Facebook.
@@samelmudir They were bankrolled by it.
They are jews thats the difference
First time I agree with Trump , let the Dread pirate out already that sentence is complete bullshit.
Did you forget he allegedly paid for wacks but just got scammed lol
Murder-for-hire allegations
Federal prosecutors alleged that Ulbricht had paid $730,000 in murder-for-hire deals targeting at least five people, allegedly because they threatened to reveal the Silk Road enterprise.
I think a lot of people are missing the nuances in the legality of these platforms. Obviously things like sex trafficking and unregulated weapons are common crimes in basically every country, but not every government practices rule of law and might bend the law to when determining what is legal.
If platforms set a precedent in complying with a government, what's stopping them from complying with another and invading their user's privacy?
Where do they draw the line? It's not as black and white as most people think it is.
"If platform set a precedent in complying with government", bro almost all platforms already do that.
I don't know where you are from, but those are not common crimes lol..
@@김모치-z1h yes it is in every country on the globe and including international waters. You're a little ignorant. The US specifically is highly involved in the sex trafficking with the cartels. Especially in California.
No - But known illegal activity should be terminated and rules related need better definition. These ‘rules’ definitely harder every year with distributed services / shared ledger etc.
It’s always about politics. If the government doesn’t like you, they will find something. If they like you, they will look away. There is no such thing as justice, it’s an illusion.
Great video. I'm old enough to know that child abuse pornography in magazine form was sold from under the counter, where the gay porn also lay. In relatively early days of the internet I showed my neighbors why they needed to use a filter for their childrens access to the web. They were shocked when I showed them them the brutal murder of a Russian soldier by the Taliban, who cut his throat.
I also told them that if that video was accessible, child abuse pornography would be easy to find.
I'm not sorry that it's increasingly difficult for such degenerates to make and distribute it, but that is also part of this difficult topic.
How do we ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are shielded from harm (children, elderly and mentally impaired), yet also protect the right to free speech in an increasingly authoritarian world?
Such a shitty ending video.. We need to fix the source. Not the symptoms. If there are sick people sharing sick shit, why are they? Why are we punishing everyone for fighting the one decent app. It's just so fucked up.
One thing i will fact check is that Napster was Not P2P and keep files on a server and thats why they were sued. Limewire was P2P and was around longer than Napster for that reason until streaming was invented
20:48
If signal groups are doing that, then we don't know. That's what end to end encryption is. Unless law enforcement can go and join them under cover, there's absolutely no way to know. Even after that, Signal never knows until law enforcement proves it.
Personally, I think blaming the ones that create a service for people to use (meaning with _honest_ or _best moral_ or _ethical_ intentions) shouldn't be at the fault of the Creator, the owners or Founders if you will. It's those that abuse it. The laws, more frequently, are becoming a platform to dictate or direct unfair responsibilities towards its creators for the millions of users, as an example, that vandalize their property.
Shouldn't those users be the ones held liable? It's just like when content creators post NSFW content, but in a number of cases the viewers are the ones that get in trouble!? In this case, shouldn't the content creators be primarily held responsible? So how is it any different from when someone buys a vehicle from a dealership or even steals someone's vehicle & chooses to use it to loot businesses or do shootouts? Should the dealership or vehicle owner (who was probably visiting a relative elsewhere unbeknownst of the theft) be held responsible? It's like the law is trying to convolute the issue or imply double standards to protect their own best interests; apparently, it's not necessarily about JUSTice ⚖️ with them. It's about *making an example out of people* which is not the right, fair, & JUST way to go about it.
Not to mention the cruel and unusual punishment that doesn't fit the actual act(s). You're locking people up for an insane amount of time over what can be seen as -if uninfluenced- controversial/trivial matters. Unfortunately, people don't live for 150+ or hundreds of years so those ridiculous sentencing speaks for itself about the flawed Law. The justice system needs to overhaul itself and focus on the real issues in society, not some political hyperboles or construed views of Justice based off of emotions. Emotions can lead to irrationalities and misunderstandings.
Also, people can change and become a benefit to society. Therefore, there are options that are way better than incarceration. Unfortunately, that doesn't apply to everyone but it applies to many. If you don't want to take just my word for it, you can speak with our most intelligent leaders in that particular field - the doctors, specifically in psychiatry, psychology, and even a nation's leader themselves or, particularly, presidents who commute those individuals, expunge, or grant clemency towards their sentencing usually before the end of their term(s). Of course, there's a process behind all of that as they transition back into society. It's a shame how the current state of our society views certain issues in relation to the law and many of us just accept it. I find that unchallenging it provides more problems than challenging it'd provide solutions. Finally, having the law to apply to only certain entities due to a highly influential status not only compromises the rule of law but it contradicts it too. Obviously there's more to it than that and I can't put all of those thoughts in this comment section, but I guess this can serve as a very basic or general idea(l).
Great video, btw! I soundly agree with most of everything you said.
If a bank robber uses public highways to getaway, does that make the highways agency complicit with facilitating the crime?
This was an excellent summary. Thanks so much.
Law enforcement still has the same tools they've always had (pre-internet) to catch criminals and they need to use those.
If we end-to-end encryption is compromised, the loss of freedom and privacy to everyone everywhere will have a much greater cost than not being able to stop some bad guys online.
You mean tools like wire tapping and warrants to search your mail and phone records? Why would that be different for emails and other msgs?
_Given_ that Kim actively engaged in piracy in the past, using various levels of plausible deniability, it is reasonable to say this is more of the same. I'm not sure if this rises to "beyond a reasonable doubt" But it is "clear and convincing" that Kim meant this for piracy and used legitimate business purposes as cover. (In fairness, the lesson most people learn from prison is "don't get caught.")
When you say it is terrible that people believe "disinformation," my first thought is "as defined by whom?" I do not trust any proposed arbiter of truth. I cannot trust anyone to tell me what is and is not "disinformation."
I really don't think government cares about CSAM except as a tool to get people to support surveillance. If it cared, it would go after the people actually abusing the children. Instead, it plays whack-a-mole with the consumers. As long as the supply is there, there will always be consumers. Government can pretend it is "doing something." But producing the stuff is what is hard. It requires getting access to the children. This is something government could actually cut off -- if it wanted to.
Neither of these are going, they are responsible only for the policy of the platform and for enforcing that policy, but not for what the users upload. However, the timing in 2012 is suspicions, looks like it is in sync also with the freeze of the Iranian assets. So, the real question which should be asked: was that platform propagating an invisible virus for a financial warfare and who was orchestrating the contracts for that? And that leads to the government...
Great content, I think it's one of best videos you made so far.
You should keep in mind that in Europe there is no absolute free speech like in the USA. Be it France, Germany, or Slovenia, there is stuff that you cannot say in public (praising fascist regimes for an example), and some platforms have become public places with their popularity.
You can get jail time for showing a finger to a police officer.
Europe is a second world continent lol
I'm sorry, can't hear you over my free healthcare.
@@McPingvin There is no such thing as free.
@@McPingvin There is no such thing as free.
Thank you for not making this video in HDR! So much better!
Really level headed and full of all the proper context. Great breakdown
Is it me or all American companies didn’t get touched 🤔
it is clear by now innit? another most horrid example would be NRA and gun manufacturers.. if they were held to the same standards, pheww...
What was Donald Trumps message in jailing Julian Assange but not the American Journalists he worked with?
21:09 You might be right, but to me, i think falicitating bad peoples from communicating is not a bad thing, the problem is good peoples can discover those group chat like you just did. What they really need to do is not ban the account(s)/group chat but to shadow ban the account(s) & group chat to be only accessible by invite only and only "publicly" visible by the FBI.
Personally, i think it's a bad thing to make it difficult for bad peoples to communicate, why is that? If you make it difficult they will just switch to a different, less know application which will fly more easily under the authority's radar. If dumb bad peoples want to use a very popular application which the FBI can easily request and gather information, it's on them.
Some crimes should be legally required to be mandatedly reported by corporates and private entities (except spouse, lawyer, etc)
Well done - what a good way to tell a story
It's a complicated topic but I support open internet over anything
By the logic the gov goons go after platform owners &/or managers, then _ALL_ gov officials should also be in jail because millions of illegal activities happen every day on the public roads and sidewalks and on public land.
13:53 As an Engineer, Technical Founder, you guys did a surprising job at explaining this correctly. Good job.
6:10
Luda watching Luda in 1999 is Ludacris! 😳
😄
7:53
I wonder if he ever got that Blueberry Yum Yum 🚬🪻 from a "Sweedish" country? 🙃
No you shouldn't, plain and simple. It's madness to even consider it.
But Mega also have _that_ content in their platform. Why you didn’t talk about it?
Why do you believe that law is applied to everyone the same way or that it should be?
Its just not really possible for a plattform the size of to have real moderation and be free for the users
I don't understrand.
3:40 - He was born in 1974, so he was way past being underage when he committed that crime.
His age was not the deciding factor. the judge can sentence you to probation time instead of jail time. This often happens when you've had no criminal history up to that point or if the judge deems your crime not severe enough to send you to jail. There are guidelines on probation and jail time for crimes and the judge can decide which one or what combination of both he'll sentence you with.
um... Kim dotcom is NOT in jail. He has yet to be extradited from NZ to USA.
Great video
pirate bay never fell... it still runs but on different domain names
I love mega upload. ME-GA UP-LOAD. 🎶🎵
I think I recognize those buildings, do you live in Chicago?
Underrated asf
Great video dude!
Don't strike the backdrop, strike the counteractor. TG is the backdrop and Defence Intelligence of Ukraine recognizes that at least by Budanov's claim
Superb video and well explained.
Thanks 🙏
Imagine a world without capitalism and greed
they just pick and choose when to abide by these laws. certain platforms get away with egregious tos' and algos and etc. but have the money, power and influence to get away with what their doing
Google and FB CEOs should be their cellmates.
grifters are everywhere. they always come up with excuses.
Interesting documentary, but I don’t like that you used RT as a source. Did Wozniak never give anywhere else an interview with this topic?
"It's not just as simple as free speech" - Sidebean
Somebody doesn't understand free speech.
I had to go back and do my own research on this because i definitely remembered the FBI v Apple case differently than what was presented here. The case had no ruling at all. Where are you getting this from?
The FBI actually dropped the case because they found a way into the phones. There is 0 case law that says privacy is absolute or comes before public or national safety. The way it's said in the video would mean even warrant backed access to phone logs and messages are illegal, and the FBI ultimately getting access to the phone would be illegal. Very irresponsible 'reporting'(?). Videos like these definitely need sources
Also, you said it was a dispute between Apple and the government and essentially the government lost. But lost because of a non-existent judgment. Uh well you do know that the courts are government too, right? It was one lower branch of govt listening to the case of another lower branch of govt in an agency. But again, the case was dropped, and nothing was ruled.
Apple's size had nothing to do with it. Alphabet is much much larger than Apple was in 2016, and they just lost an anti-monopoly case.
Free Speech section of the video uses the Egypt revolution as a positive example. Why choose not to also speak of the complete opposite examples?
Where those exact same platforms were used to spread misinformation and led to acts of g3n_oc1de and murd3r0u$ r10ts in multiple countries including Sri Lanka?
Were those also not the epitome of free Speech?
To answer the final question on why founder of silk road was arrested and jailed vs the dealers, the govt always goes after the biggest fish. Always. Not every corner boy, mob member, or cartle member gets arrested. Not enough resources. They always go after the heads and the main facilitators.
And note, some dealers were in fact arrested and some cases are still ongoing.
jaja ame el contraste del background del Sanatorio Duran y un tema tan high tech
Free speech doesn't give the right to break the law. IMO
Um dude silk road guy hired murderers thats why he got life
That is what they said cause they had no case
I feel like yes if it’s super obvious
Everything looks and sounds very sketchy ..
Correction: Facebook is a ripoff of VK
Hyoocrisy is what the govts roll by
yes and no
Dont forget Ross ulbricht
19:42 per day
18:02 you lost me with your isis hamas succession...without quoting any euro anglo american official sources of propaganda. it always smells fishy
Have you seen Kim's tweets las few years...? Jail cell can't come soon enough to that thing...
Explain?
@@patricksquires77 He's a Z shill.
Elaborate.
@@movement2contact nobody knows what "Z" is buddy
@@ILoveTinfoilHats I do, so that makes at least one person who does, proving you wrong.
Piracy is horrible. But you shouldn't shoot the messenger.
yeah, a rusnya fighting for free speech and privacy, cool story bro. Tovarisch mayor was looking over his shoulder all along
Too late for pavel, genious yet the most stupid person he is.(for changing the rules.
Karma te percusit to pavel durov.
SWEEDISH government? 😂
Bro did you just use RT as a source? 😂
Not a source, just the Wozniak interview.
Yep, close the enterprenuer, but keep puff daddy and jeffrey's list hidden. Then repeat fredom, fredom...