@@phantomtrak6007 Scout, Soldier, or Pyro. Scout because it would be funny for him to have a silly hammer, and soldier because you could make it an alternative skin to the Market Garden and make a blast out of it with the same logic applying to Pyro but you'd make it work like the Homewrecker. Alternatively, it's a cross class melee weapon like the Necro Smasher.
@@Rodoet001 That is gonna be insane spaghetticode, and also, the Homewrecker already has a reskin (The Maul), while Pyro's other hammer weapon (AKA the one that actually sees use in casual and comp games alike), the Powerjack, doesn't have a proper reskin/remodel at all. And that's completely ignoring the cause of the aforementioned spaghetticode, that being a single weapon with different stats for different classes.
yet an incorrect motive leads most of the time to incorrect solutions, ignoring the genuine issue at hand. depends on the good intentions of the person raising the issue (and almost everyone thinks he/she is the good guy)
@@oliverschlesinger6744 Yes, I think this is often the case for racially based protests where there's a real issue going on but because the race numbers are disproportionate people assume it's because of racism.
@@hyperx6900 exactly. the very reason why "all live matters" is controversial. it's mostly about shaming & blaming, not finding a common ground with a fair solution for everyone.
@@oliverschlesinger6744 "all lives matter" isnt controversial because BLM is a movement about shaming and blaming, is controvertial because it comes from people that assume that BLM excludes people from other ethnicities, the same happened with "white lives matter", it started as "a movement that includes white people" and ended as nazi propaganda used on charlottesville.
There is no "left wing big tech" literally all socialmedia companies are capitalists, big tech is a boogie man that boomers use to describe "unregulated companies" because explicitly saying you want to regulate companies make other boomers calling you a communist psyco
@@fcoomega7734 The vast majority of "big tech" company's employees overwhelmingly donate to Democratic parties. So while the company itself might not be left, they sure are filled to the brim with people on the left. Also you're kinda proving Chris' point. Capitalist doesn't mean right wing or left wing.
*CORRECTION* Apparently he does use Shopify for merch? Didn’t know that so my bad on that one. Please don’t cancel me as that seems like a major inconvenience.
despite "him" selling crap there I would bet literally anything Donald J Trump has never even heard the word shopify, let alone knows what it actually is or does.
It's not really any different from a regular shop banning someone for causing trouble, and other shops doing the same before he can cause trouble elsewhere. No one would blame regular shops for doing what Big Tech did here.
@@CaptainIcebeard yeah but in those cases you can go to other shops and get the same/relatively similar product. For example, if say you're a content creator and you get kicked from youtube, where would you go to post your content? There's simply no viable alternative to youtube. Also the fact, as chris mentioned that there are people who rely on these sites as their only source of livelihood and social interaction makes comparing Big tech banning people from their sites to regular shops banning customers a bit unfair.
@@bearnial975 Yes, Chris did mention that, and I do not support YT in those cases. But that is not the same subject as Big Tech banning Trump or similar individuals. You can support one and not the other. As for being able to go to other shops, that is true, but Trump chose to use Twitter. He could have used Parler for his BS, but he chose to use the more popular world stage social media. If you want to reach everyone, you need to be prepared for the possibility that you lose that ability. Not to mention, Twitter has made it known multiple times over the last 4 years that they would have already banned Trump if he wasn't president of the USA at that time. I would assume something like that is consistent for Twitter internally. They don't like banning active leaders, but Trump just took it too far. Now we'll have to see if that remains consistent, but there's no reason for fearmongering in that regard just yet.
@@CaptainIcebeard I would absolutely blame other shops if they intentionally banned someone for something that they did at another shop at another time. Let’s say I walked into Walmart in my boxers and the employees have told me not to do so on multiple occasions yet I still came in until they banned me. It makes sense that it would be a permanent ban on all Walmarts because the infringement was on Walmart not every store. I would absolutely be frustrated if after I left Walmart and wore my pants and shirt and walked over to target they have banned me as well for some thing that I had not done on their premises. I think that’s a terrible argument to use, I don’t think someone should be banned from all platforms just because they said something on one of them, and note it was something he said not something he did. I don’t care that he was banned from Twitter, I care that he did something on Twitter and not only did they ban him there and virtually everywhere else, they even sought to shut down the places where he might frequent after. Using your analogy that’s like banning him from all major stores and then attempting to shut down the mom and pop stores that don’t mind if he goes to them instead. The fact that they have the power to remove alt tech completely insane. Not only that but they refuse to ban people in positions far worse than Donald Trump. They have been elected officials that have not only openly incited violence that still have their Twitter accounts, but also actively incentivize violence. Why hasn’t Maxine Waters Twitter been taken down for tweets like: “he needs to be taken down!” Or “we love our country but it doesn’t love us, but love won’t last forever!” Or “Join the resistance!” You might say: oh this aren’t calling for violence, well neither was Trump when he said go to the capital PEACEFULLY. Do use your analogy again it’s like banging someone for walking around in their boxers wild multiple people walk around without any clothes at all. They’ve been multiple people on or off Twitter inciting violence saying things like when they go low we kick them or we should punch Donald Trump in the face or go out in a crowd and tell them that they are not welcome (that last one being another Maxine waters special) and if you say: “oh they never said any of that on Twitter that’s why they aren’t getting banned” You’ve just admitted that the reason why they aren’t getting banned is because they haven’t set it on that specific site. But they did say it on a public platform and it was consumed by a general audience. Their reasoning for banning Trump on every single platform has been because of what he said on one single platform, if these people have been saying these things over all spans of platforms and have not been banned yet there’s a clear and blatant bias and you know it.
But do they? This becomes the argument of are they a platform or a publisher? If they are a publisher then they need to be held responsible for everything that is said using there site. If they are a platform then they need to have very limited if any forms of censorship. The only one I am marginally ok with is keeping adult stuff and child friendly stuff separate
The problem for me is that big tech companies basically have a monopoly on online speech. There are no other platforms available that have the same reach and impact as Twitter, RUclips etc. To me, online speech is the most important way to reach an audience in the 21st century, especially during a pandemic. These companies actively shut down any competition. They should be treated as a monopoly, and should be regulated as such. Not to mention that they ban Trump for breaking the TOS, but at the same time leave Chinese, Russian and Iranian propaganda alone. This would be less of an issue if they applied their rules consistently, instead of targeting people for their political views.
It's so much easier to ban a single person, who wield so much power, and purposefuly puts out misinformation and egged on the rioters at Capitol Hill...than to systematically autoban bots that spread propoganda. And how are you certain that they aren't also doing that already? I wouldn't make the claim that Twitter is doing nothing, because I don't have enough proof about it; we only see the posts/bots that aren't taken down, but what about the ones that are taken down? It could be possible that the issues you see on Twitter is the remaining 1% of "dirt" after their behind-the-scenes cleaning...or it could be that they actually aren't doing anything at all! If you wanna hold your current position, you need a lot more information
Trump got a free ride on Twitter too for the longest time though, because he brought in the eyeballs and engagements and the notoriety, TOS be damned. Every crazy tweet that made it into the news (and there were plenty) was a massive boost of free advertising for Twitter. So here it's not so much a case of "targeting for political views" as "he finally, after years of trying, managed to be more trouble than he's worth". It would be nice if they were more consistent in their application of the TOS, but being real everything here is about the bottom line, not really "politics" as such.
@@garetclaborn Nope. Spreading misinformation isn't about your political spectrum, it isn't about beliefs, or ideologies...it's the purposeful spreading of falsehood. You'd have to have the spine and brain of a jellyfish to think that Trump did not spread lies. "Democrats eat children!", is allowed to be your opinion despite not being true...but if you are a person of power and use your platform to spread that message than you are spreading misinformation.
Even though I dont always agree with your opinion, I like how your takes are always reasonable and more discussion based, instead of being hyperbolic and crazy. At the very least it gives me something to think about. Keep up the good work man 👍
Thought your take was pretty balanced, though I'd argue that the TOS point isn't very strong, because we routinely see these companies enforce their TOS against people they don't like, and ignore it for people they do like. Hence part of the reason its a problem, selective enforcement is bad.
Misgendering someone, even by accident, or calling someone a c**t will get you suspended, if not banned, on Twitter; but seemingly only if you think a certain way. Meanwhile, "celebrities" and blue checkmarks like Kathy Griffin and Patton Oswalt can get away with using similar languages or demanding certain high schoolers be harassed and doxxed purely because of their MAGA hats and suffer NO punishment at all. I left Twitter in the beginning of 2020 and never looked back.
Balanced? Chris literally used the same propaganda and lies the corporate media used to slander Trump supporters. He's just another money grubbing Establishment tool.
Can we just talk about the fact that we aren’t even a month into 2021 yet, and Chris has already uploaded 25% of the amount of videos he did in 2020 Edit: I just said 25% to be hyperbolic, but I checked and did the math and he literally has uploaded 23.52941176470588% of the videos he did last year This Year So Far: 4 Videos Last Year: 17 videos (Assuming none of his vids got taken down or privated)
“And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.” -Maxine Waters
Incidentally I think younger Dem aligned people have a hard time looking at that stuff and pointing it out because they only get their news from CNN and The New York Times. But had Trump said that stuff? Oh my God he'd have been public enemy number 1 even on Fox News
@@GuardianDarkAngel I think it's more like that a lot of younger people aren't reading the news. They're in their own respective echo chambers on Twitter, on Tumblr, wherever. These echo chambers create their own filter bubbles that reaffirm whatever the group believes and nothing else. They are, for all intents and purposes, radicalized by a combination of their in-group beliefs and algorithms promoting things they'd find relevant. And we all know where the MSM leans as far as their political alignment goes.
@@GuardianDarkAngel Lol, most left wing young people definitely have other main sources for news than old school MSM networks. Many of those sources I can personally tell you are very critical of the Dem establishment. That's the thing, leftists DO NOT blindly tow the party line in the same way so many conservatives do. Not to the same extent. Leftists are motivated by ideology, most Republicans over the last four years have only been motivated to SERVE DONALD TRUMP and "win".
It is annoying how many people on the left forget we’re supposed to be against monopolies when it comes to tech just because Silicon Valley has done a good job of marketing itself as progressive
@bodd boward If you are at all on the left, as this comment was originally targeted towards, then orange man unironically IS bad. Very bad. Just because you recognize that tech companies can also be bad does not make their enemy your friend. Anyone who considers themself on the left but then thinks "hey, these tech companies hate Trump, so maybe he does have a point" is probably not on the left to begin with. That man is antithetical to the vast majority of left-leaning ideals.
@bodd boward I disagree, taking no side from my view is bad because if things are bad for some people then they get worse when no one does anything about it. Like you would like to take a stand against big tech or the left because of the harm you perceive them to do. If you were truly and completely neutral, I doubt you would take the time to leave these comments or even watch these kinds of videos. But, to be fair, I am very partisan and I don't see that as a bad thing so you and I would probably disagree on a lot. Anyways, have a good one.
@bodd boward as a leftist, orange man bad because his beliefs and the bills he signed into law fundamentally contradict my beliefs on how the world should be most of the time (anti trans rights, cutting taxes for the rich, striking public healthcare funding, xenophobic bill proposals, keeping occupation abroad, not banning drone strikes, etc). Nothing to do with "the media" who I also disagree with most of the time but slightly less so than trump and the republicans Edit: also leftist isn't a "side" to me, Commies arent on my team because authoritarian governments are inherently bad, it's just easier to say "leftist" or "libertarian socialist" or something like that than listing all of my beliefs about the world. I can't speak for other people but I hope this is how the majority of people use that kind of phrasing
The curse if the fence sitter. Also this will bring him now hatred from the right wing than the left, because he implies Trump is still a horrible president, so people think he is in favor of Biden. Yes, I know, people are extremely mentally challenged and most will only remember whatever information that aligns with their ideals and forget what contradicts them...
@@deejnutz2068 well he leans in both political directions and has views where he would agree with either side. So by definition, he’s bipartisan as hell. As he stated at around the 11 min mark and throughout the vid, the cultural differences in each party should not sway your opinion, but the policies in the representative of each party. Andrew Yang would’ve been a much better choice for the dem prim. And trump, along with Biden, was bought through the elections. But that last part of course is just my opinion. Tha
Kinda blows my mind that this is a partisan topic.... It seems like it should be a generally agreed thing that social media is the new public square and has too much power.
The Democrat party is becoming less liberal and more authoritarian. They have no problem using what power they have to silence their political opponents. Many on the Left are clamoring for the passing of hate speech laws so that people are punished for saying things that are deemed to be “hateful”.
@@britishyankee961 that's not a Democrat issue, that's a America issue. These big tech companies aren't just censoring conservative views, they're censoring any view that doesn't fall within their narrow scope of policy, this also means every left-wing opinion that doesn't fall within their narrow-spectrum of left-wing opinion is also bannable. these tech companies aren't working for the Democrat Party, they're working for their own self-interest. It's also worth noting that both parties have become increasingly authoritarian. The right consistently tries to take away basic human decency by opposing gay marriage at every step, completely ignoring the existence of trans people, mistreating undocumented immigrants (which regardless of what you think about them coming to the country, they shouldn't be thrown in literal cages), a group of them literally tried to overturn a democratic election, and the right-wing party has been doing the same type of censorship on left-wing opinions for decades, they just think it's okay because they're socialists (even if it's not actually a socialist political stance) The left has used many of the same tactics, although arguably they've been much less successful in the realm of government. None of those hate speech laws have really passed, and the ones that have are so neutered as to be ineffective, so it's primarily corporate businesses that are doing the censorship, and these companies wouldn't have this much power if it wasn't for the fact that both parties support an economic policy that incentivizes Mega corporations are unaccountable to anybody but themselves.
I would love to hear your thoughts on the opinion that these Tech companies are acting as publishers while still reaping the benefits of being a platform, as in they're not liable for the content uploaded to their sites, and yet seem to be inconsistent when using their TOS to take people off their platform.
Section 230 does not define a distinction between platforms or publishers that limits their benefits of being a platform. It simply allows them to decide their own content moderation policies. Stripping them of these protections would simply mean more ‘censorship’ not less as they would be more strict out of fear of being held liable for the posts on their platforms.
Keep in mind that all of these bans happened immediately after the capitol was besieged and after Trump incited violence and spread dangerous misinformation. That alone may have been the driving force for all of these social media companies to ban him
@@brendankendall41 For sure but felt like they wanted to get rid of him for a long time but were too afraid to be the first company to de platform the sitting president at the time
They're in kahoots. All the big tech companies. Every single one. Then you go to "fact check " something on Google, only to realize that Google is also in on it, and now control what you think.
JonTron is dead, Steven Segal killed him with magic Aikido from across the globe for daring to mock him....all while sitting comfortably in a chair because he can't walk 5 steps without getting winded.
Amazon is about to lose a lawsuit against parlor, for dropping their contract. Parlor is going to try to use the Sherman anti-trust law as well, claiming they dropped parlor to help Twitter, who is also in a contract with Amazon.
@@icemachine79 If they did, so did Twitter who AWS also hosts. The problem is that it's literally a legal double standard. Amazon's case in itself is that Parler was used to host organization of violence (or something to that effect) arguing that their platform was responsible for the content thereon. If that were true, Twitter would be responsible for the CP and violent organization on *their* platform which AWS also hosts and should have been dropped, too.
Why would you expect the government to uphold a new Bill of Rights when it flippantly disregards the existing one? Not to mention you need to get it past them, and they aren't letting the plebs gain more rights, they need to take them away. Also the government would make the situation worse by integrating Silicon Valley into the DC bureaucrats, two of the worst types of people with power. And nothing in Silicon Valley is not a private business, they accept too many government benefits and privileges.
@@phantomtrak6007 clearly you dont know what a nursing home is. LMAO Its not a place where they keep newborns ya Rando. Nursing homes are where elderly people get care, you're thinking of a Nursery in a hospital. big FAIL + nowhere near comical
This is the first time that it has happened to a significantly powerful member of government, which shows that they have authority over the speech of every person regardless of power. Alex was just a guy, Trump was a president.
Good take. I'm a free markets sort of guy, but the social media thing is rather concerning. You shouldn't be banned before you actually break ToS on a platform. Really unsettling precedent.
The worst part is the selective enforcement. You heard about Twitter claiming child pornography wasn't against TOS, and it took the FBI itself intervening to actually get them to take it down. Same with the Antifa people who for the longest time were permitted to make death threats and incite violence without any repercussions while people who posted crime or covid statistics got immediately nuked off platform. If you're a platform, you can't be selective in your enforcement of TOS. If you're a publisher, you very much can be sued for illegal stuff that was permitted on your site. These social media companies that act like publishers should not have Section 230 protections.
@@shred1894 that’s the point I hoped he brought up. If the policies were equally enforced then I don’t think that we’d be having the extreme decisions we see today. However, I don’t think lefties are capable of seeing this point
@@gabrielonibudo5710 We are capable of doing that, it's just the retarded communists that have a problem, I'm ready to discuss whatever you want, just in a civil manner.
I personally don't understand this ideology. Donald Trump is the best possible person to be silenced, so who else will this possibly effect? Normal people with no power? I think everyone is overreacting, as if one day every social media platform is going to silence some random, unimportant civillian
"Voicing this concern about big tech is dogwhistling to the right" dogwhistle these nuts lmao, I'm with you there Chris, Zuckerburg and others have too much power
Except people were already voicing concerns over the power of big tech. It's the _timing_ and the _context_ of these particular "concerns" that make them suspect.
@@icemachine79 why can't you be glad you have more support for those concerns, are you really that petty that you'll turn away support for your cause just because they're "right wing", get out of here idiot. Right wing support (from libertarians) for restrictions on big tech have existed for over a decade, and was at its highest when Alex Jones was banned in a similar way to Trump, I know I was suspicious of big tech before he was banned, but it became obvious then that this is what the future would bring. This is why you have a neolib in charge now who's going to bring you back to the bush era by the time he's done, well done you owned the right and yourself at the same time, and your closer to ever to a one party state, but at least you owned the right, right?.
@@wisereaper4747 Because I doubt your sincerity. Alex Jones and Donald Trump abused the platforms they were given and banning them was the correct decision regardless of who had the power to make that call. But somehow, that point keeps getting lost amongst all the whining about "censorship."
@@icemachine79 well then you're an idiot, I doubt your sincerity, you care more about you own "side" then sorting out issues with big tech, how long have you been on this site, 2007? and you still behave like a child. And I can tell you why, its because your statement is so ironic, everything you've posted shows zero self awareness over the issue and makes it obvious you only care because it isn't you censoring people. "When the ban people I don't like then big tech gud, when they ban my friend big tech bad". Both Trump and Alex did not deserve being depersoned, and you are deluded to think so, many on the leftists with power have posted far worse (not that I want them depersoned either) yet most are still on those sites, so just piss off you overgrown child, you disgust me with your faux concern over genuine issues that you want to gain politically from
The lack of interest in genuine policy has been an issue that's vehemently bothered me about politics rn. Idk if it was always like that to some extent but I feel internet culture wars have really exacerbated the issue. It seems more about decorum nowadays than anything else.
@@angelgjr1999 I agree but I definitely feel like when people on the left do it they get more mainstream support. Like when the MSM wants to encourage guilt by association, they rarely target those on the left.
I feel like social media has definitely exacerbated the problem, but I think part of the reason is there has been a sustained effort in media and education, to get everyone into politics. This is done with a lot of moral grandstanding and guilt tripping, implying as if you are morally bankrupt if you're not interested in politics etc. You simply have to use your voice even if you have nothing of vaiue to say etc. Which leads to many inexperienced or sheltered or academically uninterested or just plain low IQ people getting involved with politics without the research, life experience and knowledge of different perspectives etc. Plus I dont know about you but I don't remember celebs similar to Cardi B advocating for political candidates etc 20 years ago lol.
More "both sides are bad" BS. Right wingers advocate for genocide and conspiracy theories that's why they get banned. When the left get's banned is because they actually threaten the system (like Antifa).
@@horuslupercal392 You are proving OP's point. Your ridiculous, unfounded rhetoric is exactly the problem with our country's discourse, and the larger digital social sphere today.
Also notice how what Alex says and said is coming true? Like how chemicals have actually turned frogs and fish gay. It’s almost like... the government is censoring the truth and fabricating evidence as to why it needs to be censored?
@@loreng6077 this is so headass it's fucking hilarious. The problem wasn't just that Alex Jones said "they are turning the frogs gay" (which is pretty much completely incorrect but if I am being charitable it's more like greatly oversimplified), it's that he tried to somehow use that as evidence that the boogie man people (globalists, communists, whatever name he wants to use for the shadow people at the time) are doing the same thing to humans (which completely ignores the differences in biology between humans and amphibians/fish) and also perpetuates the false belief that sexual orientation or gender identity (you can never tell which one they are talking about because they don't really understand the differences) can be changed in humans using hormones and the like which again completely ignores scientific evidence and implies that gay people could be "changed back" or something stupid like that. Also ignores the fact that he sells snake oil in the form of bullshit supplements to gullible people online so that they can increase their "male vitality" or that he encouraged harassment of the families of mass shooting victims. Anyways, there's really no use in my comment because to you I am probably a government shill who is working as part of a psyop anyways.
@@TheCyanSqueegee considering the chemical in question that he was talking about has been banned for use in the EU, I thi k it's safe to say that it's not safe in general to use and thats probably more in line of what he was saying
@@livexlink1742 Well I personally think it takes a little too much mental gymnastics to get from "they're turning the frickin frogs gay" and the implication (which I mentioned earlier) that the same is being done to humans to "these chemicals we are adding to the ecosystem may be harmful to wildlife and cause little understood biological changes to links in the food chain". One is a statement expressing a valid concern and the other is a completely oversimplified and attention grabbing soundbite used to sell scam products. But you do you.
Honestly this is probably the best most nuanced opinion that's been shared on this topic. The only criticism I have is the idea that an election could be stolen is delusional. I personally do belive trump lost but that doesn't excuse the mishandling of the political process to reach that decision. Pennsylvania disregarding its construction should have been enough to trigger increased oversight or something more whether there was fraud or not. Honestly whether there was fraud doesn't even really matter so much as the response that was shown to the accusation. This whole "most secure election in history" narrative was such a weird counter that it did raise some red flags for me. Its like someone accusing me of stealing 20 dollars from them and I reply that I couldn't have done that because I am the most honest person in the world. I might not have stolen 20 dollars but its still a really off-putting response. I really hope Chris sees this, I would be very curious for his response.
I just wanted to say its really nice to hear an opinion on the election that admits there are genuine reasons to be suspicious but also doesn't immediately jump on it being 100% stolen. It seems like whenever skepticism is brought up about this election the immediate reaction is to strawman the guy bringing it up as a conspiracy theorist.
@@jaybuzzton453 Exactly right. I don't even like Trump, but I still think the way the democrats reacted to republicans asking for recounts was weird. R: Can we get a recount and check the signatures to make sure there was no fraud? D: I don't think you should. It will probably only change the result by a few hundred votes. R: No, you're misunderstanding. We want to check for fraudulent votes by checking the signatures. D: YOU WON'T FIND ANYTHING SO THERE'S NO POINT!!! SHUT UP YOU CRACKPOT CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!! R: What about these dead people on the voter rolls? Can we check if votes were sent in in their names? D: Why? They're dead, they can't have voted. R: What I'm trying to say is that if they're still on the voter rolls, someone could have pretended to be them and cast their vote. D: DEAD PEOPLE CAN'T VOTE!!! YOU'RE WORSE THAN ALEX JONES!!!
Also, it would have made the transition of power so much calmer had they actually properly looked into the whole case. Like no better way to prove Trump and his followers wrong than having a conservative supreme court dunk on their lawsuit live on air.
@@jaybuzzton453 I personally think that Trump would’ve lost due to his COVID response anyways. I also think that the social media/news network monolith are extremely bias towards the left and against Trump, thus making the election unfair (votes not made in an informed manner with sound judgements) but that isn’t an election fraud and the votes are still valid. I don’t know if there’s an election fraud or not because I do see those “evidences” were refuted every now and then and I can accept that Trump lost. However, a thorough investigation would surely be appreciated and that fact that there isn’t one shows that they either don’t really care about the truth or that they don’t care about giving people a proper explanation: do what I say because I say so. The issue here, though, is how the left-social media alliance is so powerful they can basically control the narratives and hold the power to deplatform political enemies.
Our scope has been so narrowed to a single elected official that we've missed every advance towards control over the public square until it was too late.
I appreciate the callout over the breakdown of left/right discourse in the past several years. It really has become so polarized over the stupidest things, and I personally have been called every kind of name for holding opinions that aren't all strictly left or right. Whatever that means.
I mostly agree with everything you said here, especially the point you made about social media being the new "public square". So wouldn't you agree that large social media networks should have first amendment protections? Leaving the TOS of "what you can say" up to the companies basically allows them to dictate what is free speech. Lmk what you think about this
The United States constitution does not apply to any country that is not the US. The internet is available to most countries in the world, not just the US.
@@Zachary- Agreed, but most social media corporations are based in the US, and I think the US has pretty good law 4egarding free speech, so why not use it as the standard?
@Stone Cold not an argument. Colin Kaepernick is being openly promoted by multibillion-dollar International conglomerates that use slave labor which is willingly ignored by the left because of corporate controlled wokeness. Meanwhile the very people that you just accused of trying to censor Kaepernick have been censored themselves by the people of promoting Colin Kaepernick.
Agree with literally everything? You can't form your own opinion? I listened and yeah he made some good points but not everything as a lot of it was lacking of any real research but I don't assume that of many youtube political channels, a lot of them like Chris do basic research like most people and believe they have the whole story mapped out when every issue is so much more grey than at first glance. It's been almost a year since this video and some of what he's said isn't correct anymore. I guess my advice is never go into a topic thinking the case is closed, in time everything that can be proven differently.
I think it’s scary when the ones who have more power right now are the CEO’s and executive boards on these social media companies and not the government officials.
@@alvarezrodriguez4163 he was also the president at the time, meaning we as a country voted him in... if they can do this to the POTUS imagine what they could do if they decided they no longer wanted someone like u on the internet
I believe so. Saying something another group doesn't like still holds consequences like in real life. By limiting what and where people can talk, we will continue to promote extremism on both sides. We can actually see the consequences of limiting online speech by taking a look at the capital hill rioting. The far right have been pushed out of any conversation because they're banned from major social media. So where are they now? Pushed out of the mainstream they're in their own pockets where they share extreme ideas until everyone is redpilled. They can only be pushed further into the dark, never removed. The left has issues as well. Reddit as an example, if your opinion is contrary to the 'hive' or whatever is the more popular group on a sub, you will typically be downvoted and removed from the discussion. Now we have an echo chamber of ideas that in certain areas are becoming extreme as well. BLM riot promotions are left up while being more extreme and damaging than what occured recently (for clarity, I'm not advocating the CH riot nor any BLM riots, none of these should have happened period). In the older days of the internet, when everyone could say as they pleased and there was no control over the discussion, at least both sides could interact and share ideas. On free speech websites today, open discussion from both sides still flourishes, much unlike the big popular destinations. Ultimately I'd like some guidelines to maybe assist the flow without too much outside influence on open free speech discussion. What are your thoughts on online speech as well as on what I've said?
@@PzkpfwV following that thought, how do we implement it? Do you think we should all have mugshots like ID cards? To what extent do we allow creativity and individualism to come out through our picture? Hats, etc.? Is there someone monitoring all these pictures? Are they safe... Or even real? I'm going to presume the idea is to hold others accountable for what they say, so correct me if I'm wrong... I think it sounds fine, you're probably not going to hear antisemitists ranting anywhere, but like I presented in my comment above you aren't going to remove them this way, we're only going to deplatform and encourage these people to act elsewhere. Maybe a government controlled social media hub would be better while allowing other creative outlets? Is the main hub mandatory in this case? If we did implement this, how do we protect the people using it? Hackers have continued to show that nothing is sacred and everything is taintable.
No Internet access itself is not even a human right. Also nobody should be obligated to host you or provide you with an outlet. You might as well say book speech is a human right and my rights are being violated if a publisher rejects my book.
Agreed but I think the double-standard should be looked at to. You had politicians that openly, blatently, endorsed riots (to the point of paying for their bail) over the last 8 months but no punishment from them.
Yeah I was watching that from Australia and I was like "wait, it that... is that _legal_ for politicians to do in the US? Aren't they rallying a rioting mob against their opposition? How isn't that illegal?!" So... it _wasn't_ legal but no one got in trouble for it? WTF is going on in the US?! Your country is becoming more insane by the day!
Besides that, although hilariously incompetent, the "attack on the Capitol," has far more merit as a protest against the government than the months of neighbourhoods and people's shops and livelihoods on fire in order to "own the system." Yet you'd borderline be banned for not supporting Black Lives Matter. I guess protesting is all fun and trendy unless you're actually dealing hits to the people you're meant to be protesting against. People are dumb.
@@Zakjuh The problem here is that you're equating people protesting police brutality with people storming the capitol because their guy lost an election. The BLM protests began peacefully and only turned violent when it was met with more police brutality. The protests at the capitol also started peacefully, but got violent after it was riled up by the president and his cronies pushing baseless lies. BLM was never meant to be a direct attack on the democracy of America.
Shouldn't have to remind you that the only Communist leader that wasn't a billionaire by our standards at some point in their life before taking a leadership position was Stalin. Unless you view Stalin as a great leader Communism is and has always been an oligarchy. Source: Armenian.
@@utternon-cents9136 Would need to read up a bit more on Spanish 30's to give a reasonable answer but as far as the first paragraph of wiki is concerned probably not. Right wing authoritarianism is a monarchy so not really an oligarchy technically same result really though. That said libcom (I'm assuming you mean Libertarian Communism) is an oxymoron. Communism by its nature is Authoritarian. It's literally calling yourself a libertarian authoritarian. All examples of libcoms are just authoritarians who want to destroy the current system to institute their own authoritarian system. As far as I'm concerned lib left is pure anarchy with no system in place to manage an economy. Lib right is much the same but the market being the system that manages an economy. You could argue lib left is socialism by democratic choice. Except at the end of it all 51% chose for the other 49% That in itself is Authoritarian. 100% of people will never agree. Hence why communism/socialism is by its nature authoritarian. Socialism is a less absolute authority but the whole concept is taking something that doesn't belong to you and "redistributing" it. That's authoritarian. Most systems aside from a capitalist system with an elected leadership is basically an oligarchy. Edit: correction most modern systems Monarchy doesn't really fit an oligarchy. Edit 2: Read a bit further into the wiki. "it should have arranged for regular parliamentary elections and adjourned. However, fearing the increasingly popular opposition, the Radical and Socialist majority postponed the regular elections, prolonging their power for two more years." Yeah that shit was an oligarchy.
@@tigran914 I think you fundamentally misunderstand Anarchism and its relation to Communism. Unfortunately the theory behind both is far more extensive than I can accurately go into detail on in a youtube comment so I won't even try. But if you would like to understand this better I highly recommend reading at least some of "Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin. Here is a link to a relevant section: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch3.html
Idgaf one way or the other about Trump. But them being able to remove a sitting president like this, even after he made sure his speech was legal by "weasel-wording" it, as you say, is completely f'd.
I agree with most of your points but there's one you made that my dad has a compellingly strong argument against: if you want the internet to be regulated, WHO will put the regulations in place? The big government guys we don't trust who are in bed with these big tech companies anyway?
We the people. If the founding fathers, who were technically just normal people, could establish our nation and it's laws then we should be able to do the same for the internet.
Honestly most people just want equal rules for each other. If a large and diverse enough group of people have full viewing rights to moderation I feel like you wouldn't run into half as many problems as you currently do.
That's a terrible idea. The public square would then be controlled solely by mob rule, and the ethics of a mob are fluid, emotional, and rarely rational. The people who genuinely have unpopular, but not immoral opinions would have their speech restricted all the time.
@@RandomBrick13 I proposed a set of rules decided on by the people, not mob rule. It's like having laws against theft. Punishing a thief based on preexisting rules isn't mob rule.
"A genuine issue raised by an incorrect motive is still a genuine issue." Chris I need you to say that a few more times for the folks in the back. Because from where I'm sitting motive has taken precedent over issues and concerns in America. Like I'm a deeply deeply conservative person, probably to a fault, but people like you and I need to seriously address this shit before even being in the same room as one another become some moral or ideological scandal.
I think Chris is being intellectually disingenuous with his entire argument he's okay when the president is banned off platforms even though he didn't break TOs but he's afraid of the implications but he's also supportive of socialism. And on top of that he's okay with calling out the rich as having too much power but everyone's been a lockdown for like over several months and even though he hasn't made many videos I'm pretty sure he makes more money than the average person working and not working because of the lockdowns so when that make him technically rich?
@@lazyboi2373 no I'm going to call at the BS where I hear it. seems like a lot of liberals are starting to get scared because the thing they advocated for for the good half of the year against orange man is starting to come back to kick them in the ass
@@dapperwolf6034 Just because he has some missteps in ideas or beliefs doesn't mean that he is exempt from having solid points and arguments at other times. Can he get caught in a vacuum at times? Yes. Does he make oversights for a multitude of reasons? Yes. Are his stances perfect in regards to political alignment? No. But for fucks sake if we keep up this status quo of a perfect record being necessary to make valid arguments at all we are only going to dig ourselves a deeper hole. In THIS case he has made one clear grand point in that big tech, and if you want to branch out large scale organizations, have way too much power and are in a position to seriously damage social balance.
The fact that he said "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard", and that he didn't explicitly say "Go break into the Capitol Building", makes a legal argument impossible. Did he contribute to their thinking? Yes, absolutely. Even then, I don't think you can argue that he wanted them to break into the building. You think he was like, "Oh yeah, that would be good. That would accomplish a lot and definitely wouldn't come back to hurt me in any way."
It's basically the legal equivalent of putting your finger very close to someone's face and yelling "IM NOT TOUCHING YOU". Like sure he's not, but he's basically accomplishing the same ends of annoying you. If touching peoples face were illegal, it would make sense that he not be prosecuted legally for what he did, since he never touched your face, but I would have no problem with a society treating him the same way they would a face toucher. Because, like i said, the end result of what he did is the same as it would have been had he touched your face.
@@franklinbadge1215 You're leaving out the fact that he explicitly told them to be peaceful and then told them to go home on multiple platforms, despite those platforms trying to delete his videos and tweets where he said that. I'm not even trying to defend the guy, or Trump supporters, but the facts are clear, which is why the second impeachment accomplished nothing.
Its nice to see what can only be described as a rational evaluation to this whole mess coming forward. The fears you bring up should be addressed by everyone, regardless of political background. Big tech has grown out of control over the past decade, as someone who essentially grew up throughout the social evolution of the internet, its become incredibly obvious just how far its gotten out of hand. Despite how big a part of our lives the internet has become, its sad to see just how small its gotten. Another issue that came out of the aftermath of the riot was the way it was handled in the media. Doesnt matter if Trump was your guy or not, or if you were pro-BLM or not, what started off as protests in Washington 6 months ago and 4 weeks ago, devolved into riots. Riots that ended with violence, destruction and death. But because it happened at the capitol this time and not your city or neighborhood, it was wrong. Suddenly the cops hurt by these rioters were heroes and the rioters were now insurrectionists. It just felt so hypocritical watching it all unfold. Perhaps my views are wrong in that respect, but after watching fires and looting and violence occur throughout American cities for nights on end, I couldnt really find a reason to be any angrier with the capitol riots then I was with any other.
Hell, the capitol "riots" resulted in far less damages than the "peaceful protests" The people in the capitol, for the most part, were just acting like idiots and taking selfies and shit. Not destroying historic monuments. The most destruction they did was taking Pelosi's podium and throwing her papers all over the place
It was genuinely depressing to see so many actual intelligent people bending over backwards to justify the blm riots. I remember when shoeonhead compared them to the Boston tea party, which is so fucking stupid I don't even know what to say. And remember when she was really quiet during the Kyle Rittenhouse incident. And fast forward a few months later and she seems to be horrified at the capitol hill riots. This kind of hypocrisy creates a breeding ground for extremism, because you are basically making a whole group of people feel like their voices aren't being heard.
@@IzzySarru and 60 secret service officers were injured when BLM attempted to storm the White House. Yet, them using regular crowd control techniques back then was painted as an evil act.
I have to disagree with your first premise (that he egged people on, and knew he was doing it). Conservatives and Trumps supporters (there's overlap, but they're not the same single group) have a long-standing habit of peaceful protest. In Jan 2020, 22,000 armed pro-2A protesters converged on the Virginia Capitol to protest the governor's proposed gun restrictions. Despite the anger over the restrictions, the Associated Press said the crowd was peaceful, the mood was almost festive, and there was a single arrest for a nonviolent offence (ironically, wearing a mask in public). When their permit to assemble had expired, they voluntarily dispersed. In May 2020, armed anti-lockdown protesters "stormed" the Michigan Capitol. They were cleared by security, submitted to temperature checks, and then stood quietly in the public gallery while legally open carrying. The only person hurt in this series of protests was an unarmed woman standing alone in the public gallery. The governor had suddenly decided that, in order to facilitate social distancing, the gallery would only be open to people with press passes. The woman ended up in the hospital. The iconic photo of a man "screaming in the face of security guards" was actually a man screaming between two guards at someone standing behind them. He claims that person was one of the guards who injured the woman. In Nov 2020, tens of thousands of people gathered in DC to support Trump. By that time, the majority of Trump voters were of the belief that the election was stolen. A lot of people there were chanting "stop the steal". Still, the crowd was peaceful, dispersed on their own at the end of the afternoon (at which point, Antifa began harassing and attacking them as they walked back to their cars and hotels). The above were angry people, with deeply felt grievances, egged on by their chosen news media and each other, and yes, even President Trump. No one rioted. Even the infamous "Unite the Right" rallies (both the tiki torch abomination, and the more moderate rally the next day) were peaceful. You know. Right up until they found themselves surrounded by a bunch of armed Antifa who, having stayed outside the police perimeter, had not been made to hand over their weapons. Estimates of the crowd size at the Jan 6 DC rally range up to 300,000. About 300 people entered the Capitol. The ones who broke through the barricades and pried open the doors were, according to the New York Times, at the Capitol all morning, and did not attend Trump's speech. And yes, there were Trump supporters among them, but there were at least two far left wing provocateurs in Trump gear. They can be seen in footage congratulating each other on how they "made it happen". Nick Fuentes and "Baked Alaska" were also there. They haven't supported Trump since he proved to not be their longed-for alt-right god-emperor. To confuse matters even further, there's footage of people walking in casually, past a line of Capitol police who say and do nothing to impede them. These people claim they didn't realize the doors had been forced open, and since the cops said nothing to them, they thought they were lawfully entering a public building. You can even see them walking calmly between the tour ropes. Dumb? Yes. Intent to overthrow the government? No. There's also footage of Trump supporters shouting, "no antifa!" at a man trying to break a window. When members of the crowd tackle him, the Trump supporters cheer. And footage of Alex Jones and others hollering through a bullhorn to not fall for the bait--they'd been infiltrated by Antifa, and the riot was a false flag event aimed at stopping the objections and painting Trump supporters as violent and dangerous. (Was this the ONLY thing going on? I highly doubt it. But it WAS something that was going on--there's footage proving that.) And finally, in Trump's speech (and all his promotional materials for the event), it is made clear that Republican congressmen and women were going to be objecting to the electoral votes. Trump had invited his supporters to DC to provide moral support for those Republican objectors--again, this is in the speech and the promo materials. Even if that endeavor did not succeed in overturning the election, it would provide 10-12 hours to do what no court thus far had allowed to happen--to have the evidence, arguments and merits of Trump's claims read into the public record. As such, what happened would be the exact opposite of what Trump and Trump supporters would want. It interrupted the two hour debate on the first objection (AZ) about 20 minutes in, and when the joint session reconvened, there were no more objections. So let's ask, shall we? What did Trump or his supporters have to gain by storming the Capitol? What did they have to gain by misbehaving in any way whatsoever? Consider these questions in the context of how out of character it is for Trump supporters and conservatives to resort to lawlessness, even when they feel they have genuine, pressing, glaring grievances. Also consider that Trump has been pretty consistent in his condemnation of political violence. What did the other side have to gain? An excuse to impeach Trump, which would, if he's convicted, permanently bar him from running for public office. A media narrative of Trump supporters as violent "cult members", and Trump's Republican "enablers" in congress as dangerous extremists. An end to 10-12 hours of public debate on election irregularities within the first 20 minutes. And now consider a few ancillary matters. Only about 500 of the 2300 Capitol police officers were on duty Jan 6. Think about it. There is a rare event planned (objections by both House members and Senators, and the subsequent debates) inside the Capitol building. 300,000 of Trump's most passionate supporters are in DC to protest an election they believe was stolen. The media narrative for the last 4 years has been that Trump's supporters are dangerous extremists. Surely those who'd travel to DC to protest would be the most ardent and unwavering of his supporters, no? And yet not only did the Capitol Police Chief post fewer than 1/4 of his own officers to protect the building that day, he declined offers of federal LEO assistance in advance of the day. At 4:17PM, Trump posted a message to his supporters on Twitter, asking them to be peaceful, respect law enforcement and go home. Twitter deleted it half an hour later, and locked him out of his account for the following 12 hours. I'm sorry, but this shit don't add up.
@@littleunmind564 "probably" as if she wasn't 10 feet tall. Going by most proportions I've seen she would be wearing size 16+ shoes. No way in hell does Trump wear bigger than that
4:24 Most have updated their TOS to make behavior on other platforms actionable. Patreon was one of the first to do this with "manifest observable behavior".
Question, is the problem more with society's addiction to social media or the companies themselves? Sounds like a little Column A, little Column B...but maybe as a society we need to reject the power social media offers us. (I say this by writing a comment on one of the most powerful social media sites in the world so go figure)
This is what I've thought about too. Social Media isn't a right. Having a platform to share any random thought or idea you have isn't a right. As much as I don't like the Social Media Megacorps, its not infringing on rights to get banned for posting stupid shit on Twitter. Idk, its an interesting discussion tho.
Censorship should be an everyone issue. We’re straight up going into books like the giver or Fahrenheit 451. One day everything will be banned or censored
I am a conservative and this was so well spoken I feel like we just had a polite discussion. Its important to know exactly what the other side thinks when the news just shows the worst of whatever side they disagree with. I hope you do more political videos im always looking for the opposite side to just discuss without he hate. A video like this has the power to bring both sides together.
saying social media IS the new public square is also saying that one is entitled to a twitter account for sake of their freedom of speech. and thats a pretty deep rabbit hole. making access to twitter equal to freedom of speech is whats giving the big tech companies their power. it shows just how reliant we are on them.
I disagree with your framing of the issue. Nobody is saying we should have a "right" to a twitter account, or any specific service. Rather, we need to acknowledge that these media companies are already in *de facto* control of our most important public platforms-the very ones at the heart of public discourse. We have unwittingly put a small number of private companies in charge of our most important communications channels, and now we need to sit down and figure out exactly what to do about it, ASAP. I would posit that, at a minimum, we need to make the following changes: 1. Clearly delineate between being a publisher and being a platform, and force these companies to choose one or the other. Either they have the right _and_ the responsibility to police all the content on their platform, or they have no right or responsibility to do so at all (outside of the minimum of removing things that are blatantly illegal). And the choice they make must be made clearly known to all. 2. Narrow down and clarify what a _term of service_ can and cannot do. No more vague weasel words and conditions that can be unilaterally altered whenever its convenient for _them_ . No more shutting down of voices for their _views_ , but only for their _actions_ , and even then only if truly warranted. Force these companies to clearly spell out exactly what behaviors are allowed and not allowed, and make sure they stick to their word. 3. Reshape the regulations and structure of the industry to protect freedom of choice and encourage open competition, including ease of entry by newcomers. It should not be possible for a small oligarchy of companies to deplatform a platform, for any reason. 4. Work to foster a culture that truly values freedom of speech as an inalienable right. Push, in whatever ways we can, respect for free speech, not just as a legal doctrine, but as an unquestionable moral value. We need to put real public pressure on any platform that engages in undue censorship, and punish them for even trying. 5 (bonus point). Fix our g'damn broken copyright/intellectual property system. We need to take away the ability for bad actors to (mis)use our legal system as a bludgeon, and put our publicly-shared cultural heritage back into the hands of the people. It is important to recognize that freedom of speech without access to an audience to hear it is not really free. What good is having the _right_ to express yourself if you don't have the _ability_ to be heard? And remember, it's not just the right of random individuals to speak their thoughts that is at stake, it is _your_ right to engage with those ideas. To consider them. To respond to them. To debate them. To accept them. To reject them. To learn from them and use them to develop your own, unique position. That's why I prefer to call it "freedom of inquiry", rather than "freedom of speech". There's so much more to it than just the freedom to express yourself. In short, yes, social media really is the new public square, and for as long as it is, we have to ensure that it remains _public_ .
@@corbonthec0b he’s being investigated by the Manhattan district attorney and the New York State attorney generals office for financial crimes. And the senate might (probably won’t) convict him. And there are rumors that trump doesn’t want Rudy Giuliani to represent him anymore.
I'm not comfortable with social media controlling our access to society either. So I went outside and met my neighbors. Gave them some extra veggies from the garden and eggs my uncle gave me. Turns out the old lady next door makes some killer oatmeal cookies.
That Mass Effect music gives me the feels everytime. Good take, spooky big tech move for sure. The personality behind it makes it too easy a pill to swallow
That shirt is so fresh
Damnit, now I want one
I NEED IT
Yo its matty lmao
Its matty freakin smokes
Where do I get it
You say glasses off. Yet they remain.
Curious.
I also got a commercial for glasses before the vid lol
I got some for lasic
He took them off you insatiable pervert.
Indubitably
Calm down TPUSA
Tom Sweeny looked like a two-year-old telling their parents that they wet the bed
No, he looks like a 26 year old telling his roommates that he wet the bed. He probably did.
@@thebonelessone3107 he saw the camera and decided to wait until he stopped recording to tell him.
Big “I frew up” energy
He always looks like that tho
and Chris responded like a parent who was prepared to hear something worse
"The Billionaire's Banhammer" sounds like a weapon in TF2
What class would it be for?
@@phantomtrak6007 The Gaben
@@phantomtrak6007 Scout, Soldier, or Pyro. Scout because it would be funny for him to have a silly hammer, and soldier because you could make it an alternative skin to the Market Garden and make a blast out of it with the same logic applying to Pyro but you'd make it work like the Homewrecker. Alternatively, it's a cross class melee weapon like the Necro Smasher.
@@Rodoet001 That's gonna be some insane spaghetti code.
@@Rodoet001 That is gonna be insane spaghetticode, and also, the Homewrecker already has a reskin (The Maul), while Pyro's other hammer weapon (AKA the one that actually sees use in casual and comp games alike), the Powerjack, doesn't have a proper reskin/remodel at all. And that's completely ignoring the cause of the aforementioned spaghetticode, that being a single weapon with different stats for different classes.
"A genuine issue raised by an incorrect motive is still a genuine issue."
Y E S
yet an incorrect motive leads most of the time to incorrect solutions, ignoring the genuine issue at hand. depends on the good intentions of the person raising the issue (and almost everyone thinks he/she is the good guy)
@@oliverschlesinger6744 Yes, I think this is often the case for racially based protests where there's a real issue going on but because the race numbers are disproportionate people assume it's because of racism.
@@hyperx6900 exactly. the very reason why "all live matters" is controversial. it's mostly about shaming & blaming, not finding a common ground with a fair solution for everyone.
@@oliverschlesinger6744 ok, but was an incorrect solution this time? I mean, trump literally asked for a coup from his followers.
@@oliverschlesinger6744 "all lives matter" isnt controversial because BLM is a movement about shaming and blaming, is controvertial because it comes from people that assume that BLM excludes people from other ethnicities, the same happened with "white lives matter", it started as "a movement that includes white people" and ended as nazi propaganda used on charlottesville.
I can’t wait for “I Bought Trump’s OnlyFans So You Don’t Have To” videos
Naughty man with naughty ideas
Maybe we finally get those clips of prostitutes pissing on hotel beds we were teased with not long ago. Now that shit would be worth a subscription.
"Right wing or left wing, big tech is too powerful."
You dropped you crown, king.
Im vegan
mood
There is no "left wing big tech" literally all socialmedia companies are capitalists, big tech is a boogie man that boomers use to describe "unregulated companies" because explicitly saying you want to regulate companies make other boomers calling you a communist psyco
@@fcoomega7734 nani
@@fcoomega7734 The vast majority of "big tech" company's employees overwhelmingly donate to Democratic parties. So while the company itself might not be left, they sure are filled to the brim with people on the left. Also you're kinda proving Chris' point. Capitalist doesn't mean right wing or left wing.
*CORRECTION* Apparently he does use Shopify for merch? Didn’t know that so my bad on that one. Please don’t cancel me as that seems like a major inconvenience.
Well he doesn't use it anymore I guess
Tell me if he drops the ep on spotify
despite "him" selling crap there I would bet literally anything Donald J Trump has never even heard the word shopify, let alone knows what it actually is or does.
Love the mass effect travel map background music as ambience for the talking points btw
@@Muonium1 yes because he must’ve been an idiot and just happened upon the highest office in our land.
My man wasn’t lying when he said he’d upload more! Glad to see you!
You jinxed it, these are the only two videos we'll get til September.
But this is Glasses Off so he can´t see you (sorry)
Lmao he really didn't post another glasses off until 9 months after this
My stance: They have the power to do that.
My concern: They have the power to do that.
It's not really any different from a regular shop banning someone for causing trouble, and other shops doing the same before he can cause trouble elsewhere. No one would blame regular shops for doing what Big Tech did here.
@@CaptainIcebeard yeah but in those cases you can go to other shops and get the same/relatively similar product.
For example, if say you're a content creator and you get kicked from youtube, where would you go to post your content? There's simply no viable alternative to youtube.
Also the fact, as chris mentioned that there are people who rely on these sites as their only source of livelihood and social interaction makes comparing Big tech banning people from their sites to regular shops banning customers a bit unfair.
@@bearnial975 Yes, Chris did mention that, and I do not support YT in those cases. But that is not the same subject as Big Tech banning Trump or similar individuals. You can support one and not the other.
As for being able to go to other shops, that is true, but Trump chose to use Twitter. He could have used Parler for his BS, but he chose to use the more popular world stage social media. If you want to reach everyone, you need to be prepared for the possibility that you lose that ability.
Not to mention, Twitter has made it known multiple times over the last 4 years that they would have already banned Trump if he wasn't president of the USA at that time. I would assume something like that is consistent for Twitter internally. They don't like banning active leaders, but Trump just took it too far. Now we'll have to see if that remains consistent, but there's no reason for fearmongering in that regard just yet.
@@CaptainIcebeard I would absolutely blame other shops if they intentionally banned someone for something that they did at another shop at another time.
Let’s say I walked into Walmart in my boxers and the employees have told me not to do so on multiple occasions yet I still came in until they banned me. It makes sense that it would be a permanent ban on all Walmarts because the infringement was on Walmart not every store. I would absolutely be frustrated if after I left Walmart and wore my pants and shirt and walked over to target they have banned me as well for some thing that I had not done on their premises.
I think that’s a terrible argument to use, I don’t think someone should be banned from all platforms just because they said something on one of them, and note it was something he said not something he did. I don’t care that he was banned from Twitter, I care that he did something on Twitter and not only did they ban him there and virtually everywhere else, they even sought to shut down the places where he might frequent after. Using your analogy that’s like banning him from all major stores and then attempting to shut down the mom and pop stores that don’t mind if he goes to them instead.
The fact that they have the power to remove alt tech completely insane.
Not only that but they refuse to ban people in positions far worse than Donald Trump. They have been elected officials that have not only openly incited violence that still have their Twitter accounts, but also actively incentivize violence.
Why hasn’t Maxine Waters Twitter been taken down for tweets like: “he needs to be taken down!” Or “we love our country but it doesn’t love us, but love won’t last forever!” Or “Join the resistance!”
You might say: oh this aren’t calling for violence, well neither was Trump when he said go to the capital PEACEFULLY.
Do use your analogy again it’s like banging someone for walking around in their boxers wild multiple people walk around without any clothes at all. They’ve been multiple people on or off Twitter inciting violence saying things like when they go low we kick them or we should punch Donald Trump in the face or go out in a crowd and tell them that they are not welcome (that last one being another Maxine waters special)
and if you say: “oh they never said any of that on Twitter that’s why they aren’t getting banned” You’ve just admitted that the reason why they aren’t getting banned is because they haven’t set it on that specific site. But they did say it on a public platform and it was consumed by a general audience. Their reasoning for banning Trump on every single platform has been because of what he said on one single platform, if these people have been saying these things over all spans of platforms and have not been banned yet there’s a clear and blatant bias and you know it.
But do they? This becomes the argument of are they a platform or a publisher?
If they are a publisher then they need to be held responsible for everything that is said using there site.
If they are a platform then they need to have very limited if any forms of censorship. The only one I am marginally ok with is keeping adult stuff and child friendly stuff separate
The problem for me is that big tech companies basically have a monopoly on online speech. There are no other platforms available that have the same reach and impact as Twitter, RUclips etc. To me, online speech is the most important way to reach an audience in the 21st century, especially during a pandemic. These companies actively shut down any competition. They should be treated as a monopoly, and should be regulated as such.
Not to mention that they ban Trump for breaking the TOS, but at the same time leave Chinese, Russian and Iranian propaganda alone. This would be less of an issue if they applied their rules consistently, instead of targeting people for their political views.
It's so much easier to ban a single person, who wield so much power, and purposefuly puts out misinformation and egged on the rioters at Capitol Hill...than to systematically autoban bots that spread propoganda. And how are you certain that they aren't also doing that already? I wouldn't make the claim that Twitter is doing nothing, because I don't have enough proof about it; we only see the posts/bots that aren't taken down, but what about the ones that are taken down?
It could be possible that the issues you see on Twitter is the remaining 1% of "dirt" after their behind-the-scenes cleaning...or it could be that they actually aren't doing anything at all! If you wanna hold your current position, you need a lot more information
Trump got a free ride on Twitter too for the longest time though, because he brought in the eyeballs and engagements and the notoriety, TOS be damned. Every crazy tweet that made it into the news (and there were plenty) was a massive boost of free advertising for Twitter. So here it's not so much a case of "targeting for political views" as "he finally, after years of trying, managed to be more trouble than he's worth". It would be nice if they were more consistent in their application of the TOS, but being real everything here is about the bottom line, not really "politics" as such.
@@jetjet6560 who decides what misinformation is or is not is depending on who is in power, not what is accurate
Ikr. And they literally left cp up for NOT violating their tos until a government agency stepped in.
@@garetclaborn Nope. Spreading misinformation isn't about your political spectrum, it isn't about beliefs, or ideologies...it's the purposeful spreading of falsehood. You'd have to have the spine and brain of a jellyfish to think that Trump did not spread lies. "Democrats eat children!", is allowed to be your opinion despite not being true...but if you are a person of power and use your platform to spread that message than you are spreading misinformation.
If you were on time, I'd be hospitalized from shock and fear.
"I don't trust anyone above my pay grade." -Jeff "Joker" Moreau
I see the Mass Effect music made you nostalgic as well
Even though I dont always agree with your opinion, I like how your takes are always reasonable and more discussion based, instead of being hyperbolic and crazy. At the very least it gives me something to think about. Keep up the good work man 👍
Appreciate it!
@@ChrisRayGun this comment matches my sentiment exactly
@Glizzy God
Of course he hates the gays. He's a fascist nazi. He's also an SJW commie. Truly the worst of both worlds!
this is what politics should be: not pointless bickering between sides, but discussion between both sides
Just bought Trump’s Onlyfans. Very high quality stuff 👍
I just had flashbacks to that one deepfake porn video of trumps face over some GILF
God I wish I could just bleach my eyes
I support trump and like the joke.
I genuinely thought you said "trump bought onlyfans" for a second...
And I think my soul left my body
@@warthunder9155 where's the joke?
@@calebangell77 that’s what I’m saying
Thought your take was pretty balanced, though I'd argue that the TOS point isn't very strong, because we routinely see these companies enforce their TOS against people they don't like, and ignore it for people they do like. Hence part of the reason its a problem, selective enforcement is bad.
Misgendering someone, even by accident, or calling someone a c**t will get you suspended, if not banned, on Twitter; but seemingly only if you think a certain way. Meanwhile, "celebrities" and blue checkmarks like Kathy Griffin and Patton Oswalt can get away with using similar languages or demanding certain high schoolers be harassed and doxxed purely because of their MAGA hats and suffer NO punishment at all. I left Twitter in the beginning of 2020 and never looked back.
Exactly!
Twitch.
Balanced? Chris literally used the same propaganda and lies the corporate media used to slander Trump supporters. He's just another money grubbing Establishment tool.
This is the only peaceful interaction seen between chris and sween
Can we just talk about the fact that we aren’t even a month into 2021 yet, and Chris has already uploaded 25% of the amount of videos he did in 2020
Edit: I just said 25% to be hyperbolic, but I checked and did the math and he literally has uploaded 23.52941176470588% of the videos he did last year
This Year So Far: 4 Videos
Last Year: 17 videos
(Assuming none of his vids got taken down or privated)
Now you've done jinxed it
Yeah shut up or he'll leave again
he'll probably be banned off youtube in a weeks time
@@Toefoo100 pls don't jinx it
Idk why but that small, completely unrelated interaction with Sweeney was profoundly sweet.
Seeing genuine interaction on this decrepit platform is like coming up for air after being waterboarded
“And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
-Maxine Waters
Incidentally I think younger Dem aligned people have a hard time looking at that stuff and pointing it out because they only get their news from CNN and The New York Times. But had Trump said that stuff? Oh my God he'd have been public enemy number 1 even on Fox News
@@GuardianDarkAngel
I think it's more like that a lot of younger people aren't reading the news. They're in their own respective echo chambers on Twitter, on Tumblr, wherever. These echo chambers create their own filter bubbles that reaffirm whatever the group believes and nothing else. They are, for all intents and purposes, radicalized by a combination of their in-group beliefs and algorithms promoting things they'd find relevant. And we all know where the MSM leans as far as their political alignment goes.
@@GuardianDarkAngel Lol, most left wing young people definitely have other main sources for news than old school MSM networks. Many of those sources I can personally tell you are very critical of the Dem establishment. That's the thing, leftists DO NOT blindly tow the party line in the same way so many conservatives do. Not to the same extent. Leftists are motivated by ideology, most Republicans over the last four years have only been motivated to SERVE DONALD TRUMP and "win".
@@WinterReflections their sources are random Twitter pages and buzzfeed lol
@@WinterReflections there's no difference between the "Two parties"
in fact, they're one party, the anti freedom party.
It is annoying how many people on the left forget we’re supposed to be against monopolies when it comes to tech just because Silicon Valley has done a good job of marketing itself as progressive
@bodd boward If you are at all on the left, as this comment was originally targeted towards, then orange man unironically IS bad. Very bad. Just because you recognize that tech companies can also be bad does not make their enemy your friend. Anyone who considers themself on the left but then thinks "hey, these tech companies hate Trump, so maybe he does have a point" is probably not on the left to begin with. That man is antithetical to the vast majority of left-leaning ideals.
@bodd boward yeah left say right bad and right say left bad. Now you understand politics in the US
@bodd boward I disagree, taking no side from my view is bad because if things are bad for some people then they get worse when no one does anything about it. Like you would like to take a stand against big tech or the left because of the harm you perceive them to do. If you were truly and completely neutral, I doubt you would take the time to leave these comments or even watch these kinds of videos. But, to be fair, I am very partisan and I don't see that as a bad thing so you and I would probably disagree on a lot. Anyways, have a good one.
@bodd boward as a leftist, orange man bad because his beliefs and the bills he signed into law fundamentally contradict my beliefs on how the world should be most of the time (anti trans rights, cutting taxes for the rich, striking public healthcare funding, xenophobic bill proposals, keeping occupation abroad, not banning drone strikes, etc). Nothing to do with "the media" who I also disagree with most of the time but slightly less so than trump and the republicans
Edit: also leftist isn't a "side" to me, Commies arent on my team because authoritarian governments are inherently bad, it's just easier to say "leftist" or "libertarian socialist" or something like that than listing all of my beliefs about the world. I can't speak for other people but I hope this is how the majority of people use that kind of phrasing
Exactly!
Chris Ray Gun, the perfect example of how being somewhat Bipartisan just gets you hate from both sides
The curse if the fence sitter.
Also this will bring him now hatred from the right wing than the left, because he implies Trump is still a horrible president, so people think he is in favor of Biden. Yes, I know, people are extremely mentally challenged and most will only remember whatever information that aligns with their ideals and forget what contradicts them...
Chris isn't really bipartisan.
@@deejnutz2068 well he leans in both political directions and has views where he would agree with either side. So by definition, he’s bipartisan as hell. As he stated at around the 11 min mark and throughout the vid, the cultural differences in each party should not sway your opinion, but the policies in the representative of each party. Andrew Yang would’ve been a much better choice for the dem prim. And trump, along with Biden, was bought through the elections. But that last part of course is just my opinion. Tha
@@jfk_was_afk9597 got example of him being bipartisan? The 11 min mark just sounds resonable, but that isn't partisan in either direction.
Walking in the middle of the road just gets you run over.
Damn, Tom Sweany was in a video without being abused. Chris is making progress :0
Nah he was abusing him off-camera for real.
*or being the abuser
Chris has learned kindness during quarantine
"I don't feel comfortable with super rich people having control of polices " that applies to like every politician in office no? They all make bank
But we can’t vote them out of control, which is also why we need term limits for government officials.
@@loreng6077 Exactly--all of them including Congress, the Supreme Court, and State level, etcetera!
Twitter:bans trump for inciting violence
Also twitter: child porn doesn't violate our guidelines
Kinda blows my mind that this is a partisan topic.... It seems like it should be a generally agreed thing that social media is the new public square and has too much power.
The Democrat party is becoming less liberal and more authoritarian. They have no problem using what power they have to silence their political opponents. Many on the Left are clamoring for the passing of hate speech laws so that people are punished for saying things that are deemed to be “hateful”.
@@britishyankee961 yea I wish we had the choice to freely say the n word to black people. Bunch of snowflakes.
@@britishyankee961 that's not a Democrat issue, that's a America issue.
These big tech companies aren't just censoring conservative views, they're censoring any view that doesn't fall within their narrow scope of policy, this also means every left-wing opinion that doesn't fall within their narrow-spectrum of left-wing opinion is also bannable. these tech companies aren't working for the Democrat Party, they're working for their own self-interest.
It's also worth noting that both parties have become increasingly authoritarian. The right consistently tries to take away basic human decency by opposing gay marriage at every step, completely ignoring the existence of trans people, mistreating undocumented immigrants (which regardless of what you think about them coming to the country, they shouldn't be thrown in literal cages), a group of them literally tried to overturn a democratic election, and the right-wing party has been doing the same type of censorship on left-wing opinions for decades, they just think it's okay because they're socialists (even if it's not actually a socialist political stance)
The left has used many of the same tactics, although arguably they've been much less successful in the realm of government. None of those hate speech laws have really passed, and the ones that have are so neutered as to be ineffective, so it's primarily corporate businesses that are doing the censorship, and these companies wouldn't have this much power if it wasn't for the fact that both parties support an economic policy that incentivizes Mega corporations are unaccountable to anybody but themselves.
They're a government enforced monopoly, getting the government more involved wouldn't make it better, it make it worse.
Spengebab Swagpants your straw man is so weak, it’s worse than the house the 3 little pigs made
I would love to hear your thoughts on the opinion that these Tech companies are acting as publishers while still reaping the benefits of being a platform, as in they're not liable for the content uploaded to their sites, and yet seem to be inconsistent when using their TOS to take people off their platform.
Section 230 does not define a distinction between platforms or publishers that limits their benefits of being a platform. It simply allows them to decide their own content moderation policies. Stripping them of these protections would simply mean more ‘censorship’ not less as they would be more strict out of fear of being held liable for the posts on their platforms.
@@prismane6410 perhaps it should be legally defined then
@@prismane6410 They've been double dipping for a while. It needs to be defined so they cannot use loopholes.
@@scribbles1424 The funny thing is that 230 directly defines a platform and publisher, just everyone's too fucking lazy or bought off to enforce it
I agree with that!
Felt like the bans were kind of bandwagoning. Felt like every social media didn’t want to take the first step but as soon as one did they all followed
Keep in mind that all of these bans happened immediately after the capitol was besieged and after Trump incited violence and spread dangerous misinformation. That alone may have been the driving force for all of these social media companies to ban him
@@brendankendall41 For sure but felt like they wanted to get rid of him for a long time but were too afraid to be the first company to de platform the sitting president at the time
They're in kahoots. All the big tech companies. Every single one. Then you go to "fact check " something on Google, only to realize that Google is also in on it, and now control what you think.
@@privateuser7 That's a cool conspiracy and all... but do you have any actual proof, or are you just pulling that out of thin air?
@Mario mario That's literally exactly what they did, though. Lol
Damn Chris you’re spoiling us in the new year. Actually giving me hope for 2021. Hell, maybe even JonTron will upload.
Mabey, just mabey, we can only hope.
JonTron is dead, Steven Segal killed him with magic Aikido from across the globe for daring to mock him....all while sitting comfortably in a chair because he can't walk 5 steps without getting winded.
Hey now, let's not get crazy.
a jontron upload is even rarer than christmas :)
@@YourPrivateNightmare Your comment is perfect
Amazon is about to lose a lawsuit against parlor, for dropping their contract. Parlor is going to try to use the Sherman anti-trust law as well, claiming they dropped parlor to help Twitter, who is also in a contract with Amazon.
Parler violated the terms of their contract so they have no case.
@@icemachine79 If they did, so did Twitter who AWS also hosts. The problem is that it's literally a legal double standard. Amazon's case in itself is that Parler was used to host organization of violence (or something to that effect) arguing that their platform was responsible for the content thereon. If that were true, Twitter would be responsible for the CP and violent organization on *their* platform which AWS also hosts and should have been dropped, too.
@@AlexofAwesome Nope. Twitter was making good-faith efforts to address the problem while Parler flat out refused.
@@icemachine79 good faith doesn't hold up in court
@@jimmyjohnjoejr Actually, it does.
We need an Internet Bill of Rights and the fact that no politicians are running or promising on one is really disturbing
Very Disturbing, A Internet bill of Rights for the whole planet, there are rules already such as Rule 63 or rule 34
There are politicians calling for one, they just aren't getting voted in because they get no media coverage and the internet suppresses them.
Why would you expect the government to uphold a new Bill of Rights when it flippantly disregards the existing one? Not to mention you need to get it past them, and they aren't letting the plebs gain more rights, they need to take them away.
Also the government would make the situation worse by integrating Silicon Valley into the DC bureaucrats, two of the worst types of people with power. And nothing in Silicon Valley is not a private business, they accept too many government benefits and privileges.
Disturbing but far from surprising. Jack, Zuck, Cook, etc all give millions to Congress so they can run their monopolies free of consequences.
since when does Chris make jokes? everything he says is to be taken as serious as possible
yeah he actually att3mpt3d su1c1d3 700 times it was not him being sarcastic.
Remember when he actually for real totally broke into a nursing home and set all the minority newborns ablaze seriously actually?
@@phantomtrak6007 clearly you dont know what a nursing home is. LMAO Its not a place where they keep newborns ya Rando. Nursing homes are where elderly people get care, you're thinking of a Nursery in a hospital. big FAIL + nowhere near comical
This isn’t the first time that big tech completely unpersoned someone, don’t forget what happened to Alex Jones.
This is the first time that it has happened to a significantly powerful member of government, which shows that they have authority over the speech of every person regardless of power. Alex was just a guy, Trump was a president.
@@eggverseoffficial7976 Yep, sad but true!
Sweeny is just doing his job as Chris' caregiver to check on him so he wasn't off his rocker
If sweeny is checking up on you then you KNOW some shit is up
“Wanted to get like, proper videos out”
Yes, proper videos about the important topics...
Oh course! Important topical issues like why is the Resident Evil Vampire Lady makes me feel funny!
"proper video" of "pelvic meat go up". Superb content
VAMPIRE MOMMY MILKIES!!!!
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.”
GOT reference?
But Trump can't keep getting away with this shit.
I'm afraid of my last braincells dying when he talks
Twitter did try fact-checking his lies, yet the right considered that hindering his free speech too.
George RR Martin by Tyrion Lannister.
One of my favorite quotes
oh god he's evolving...
he's consistently uploading
Not evolving. Adapting. He's (pressumably) in lockdown and needs money. He has no choice but to upload more
The year is still young.
He's too powerful to control.
Good take. I'm a free markets sort of guy, but the social media thing is rather concerning. You shouldn't be banned before you actually break ToS on a platform. Really unsettling precedent.
The worst part is the selective enforcement. You heard about Twitter claiming child pornography wasn't against TOS, and it took the FBI itself intervening to actually get them to take it down. Same with the Antifa people who for the longest time were permitted to make death threats and incite violence without any repercussions while people who posted crime or covid statistics got immediately nuked off platform. If you're a platform, you can't be selective in your enforcement of TOS. If you're a publisher, you very much can be sued for illegal stuff that was permitted on your site.
These social media companies that act like publishers should not have Section 230 protections.
@@shred1894 This! Exactly this!
@@shred1894 that’s the point I hoped he brought up. If the policies were equally enforced then I don’t think that we’d be having the extreme decisions we see today. However, I don’t think lefties are capable of seeing this point
@@gabrielonibudo5710 We are capable of doing that, it's just the retarded communists that have a problem, I'm ready to discuss whatever you want, just in a civil manner.
I personally don't understand this ideology. Donald Trump is the best possible person to be silenced, so who else will this possibly effect? Normal people with no power? I think everyone is overreacting, as if one day every social media platform is going to silence some random, unimportant civillian
"Voicing this concern about big tech is dogwhistling to the right" dogwhistle these nuts lmao, I'm with you there Chris, Zuckerburg and others have too much power
Haha lmao.
Except people were already voicing concerns over the power of big tech. It's the _timing_ and the _context_ of these particular "concerns" that make them suspect.
@@icemachine79 why can't you be glad you have more support for those concerns, are you really that petty that you'll turn away support for your cause just because they're "right wing", get out of here idiot. Right wing support (from libertarians) for restrictions on big tech have existed for over a decade, and was at its highest when Alex Jones was banned in a similar way to Trump, I know I was suspicious of big tech before he was banned, but it became obvious then that this is what the future would bring.
This is why you have a neolib in charge now who's going to bring you back to the bush era by the time he's done, well done you owned the right and yourself at the same time, and your closer to ever to a one party state, but at least you owned the right, right?.
@@wisereaper4747 Because I doubt your sincerity. Alex Jones and Donald Trump abused the platforms they were given and banning them was the correct decision regardless of who had the power to make that call. But somehow, that point keeps getting lost amongst all the whining about "censorship."
@@icemachine79 well then you're an idiot, I doubt your sincerity, you care more about you own "side" then sorting out issues with big tech, how long have you been on this site, 2007? and you still behave like a child.
And I can tell you why, its because your statement is so ironic, everything you've posted shows zero self awareness over the issue and makes it obvious you only care because it isn't you censoring people. "When the ban people I don't like then big tech gud, when they ban my friend big tech bad". Both Trump and Alex did not deserve being depersoned, and you are deluded to think so, many on the leftists with power have posted far worse (not that I want them depersoned either) yet most are still on those sites, so just piss off you overgrown child, you disgust me with your faux concern over genuine issues that you want to gain politically from
Jesus" this might be Chris's most productive year ever!
2020 has been a hell of a year, honestly 2021 doesn't even feel like a different year, it just feels like a longer 2020
The lack of interest in genuine policy has been an issue that's vehemently bothered me about politics rn. Idk if it was always like that to some extent but I feel internet culture wars have really exacerbated the issue. It seems more about decorum nowadays than anything else.
When one side is only interested in slandering the other as racist and evil, you’re not going to get a lot of thoughtful conversations about policy.
I've had actual discussions that were effectively:
"What don't you like about Trump?"
"He's a fascist"
"Based on what policies?"
"...what?"
@@britishyankee961 The right wing is just as guilty. You guys scream “radical” and “communist” at any other opinion that’s different than yours.
@@angelgjr1999 I agree but I definitely feel like when people on the left do it they get more mainstream support. Like when the MSM wants to encourage guilt by association, they rarely target those on the left.
I feel like social media has definitely exacerbated the problem, but I think part of the reason is there has been a sustained effort in media and education, to get everyone into politics.
This is done with a lot of moral grandstanding and guilt tripping, implying as if you are morally bankrupt if you're not interested in politics etc. You simply have to use your voice even if you have nothing of vaiue to say etc.
Which leads to many inexperienced or sheltered or academically uninterested or just plain low IQ people getting involved with politics without the research, life experience and knowledge of different perspectives etc.
Plus I dont know about you but I don't remember celebs similar to Cardi B advocating for political candidates etc 20 years ago lol.
That was the calmest interaction between Sween and Chris I’ve seen.
Ah yes cuz the hotness of resident evil 8 was a more proper video then what this is going to be.
Are you kidding me resident evil waifus are a much more pressing issue
Yes
Correct
Big tiddy vampire GF always takes priority
I think modern politics have been evolved into “well this will help my side, screw it if it violates my ideals.” And I’m talking about both sides.
It was always like this sadly
And also assigning ideals to others and saying they contradict the ideals you decided they have.
More "both sides are bad" BS. Right wingers advocate for genocide and conspiracy theories that's why they get banned. When the left get's banned is because they actually threaten the system (like Antifa).
@@horuslupercal392 Yeah, *That's* what Antifa did *Threaten the system*
Give me a fucking break
@@horuslupercal392
You are proving OP's point. Your ridiculous, unfounded rhetoric is exactly the problem with our country's discourse, and the larger digital social sphere today.
I had the same reaction when all social media outlets banned Alex Jones.
Also notice how what Alex says and said is coming true? Like how chemicals have actually turned frogs and fish gay.
It’s almost like... the government is censoring the truth and fabricating evidence as to why it needs to be censored?
@@loreng6077 this is so headass it's fucking hilarious. The problem wasn't just that Alex Jones said "they are turning the frogs gay" (which is pretty much completely incorrect but if I am being charitable it's more like greatly oversimplified), it's that he tried to somehow use that as evidence that the boogie man people (globalists, communists, whatever name he wants to use for the shadow people at the time) are doing the same thing to humans (which completely ignores the differences in biology between humans and amphibians/fish) and also perpetuates the false belief that sexual orientation or gender identity (you can never tell which one they are talking about because they don't really understand the differences) can be changed in humans using hormones and the like which again completely ignores scientific evidence and implies that gay people could be "changed back" or something stupid like that. Also ignores the fact that he sells snake oil in the form of bullshit supplements to gullible people online so that they can increase their "male vitality" or that he encouraged harassment of the families of mass shooting victims. Anyways, there's really no use in my comment because to you I am probably a government shill who is working as part of a psyop anyways.
@@TheCyanSqueegee considering the chemical in question that he was talking about has been banned for use in the EU, I thi k it's safe to say that it's not safe in general to use and thats probably more in line of what he was saying
@@livexlink1742 Well I personally think it takes a little too much mental gymnastics to get from "they're turning the frickin frogs gay" and the implication (which I mentioned earlier) that the same is being done to humans to "these chemicals we are adding to the ecosystem may be harmful to wildlife and cause little understood biological changes to links in the food chain". One is a statement expressing a valid concern and the other is a completely oversimplified and attention grabbing soundbite used to sell scam products. But you do you.
Honestly this is probably the best most nuanced opinion that's been shared on this topic. The only criticism I have is the idea that an election could be stolen is delusional. I personally do belive trump lost but that doesn't excuse the mishandling of the political process to reach that decision. Pennsylvania disregarding its construction should have been enough to trigger increased oversight or something more whether there was fraud or not. Honestly whether there was fraud doesn't even really matter so much as the response that was shown to the accusation. This whole "most secure election in history" narrative was such a weird counter that it did raise some red flags for me. Its like someone accusing me of stealing 20 dollars from them and I reply that I couldn't have done that because I am the most honest person in the world. I might not have stolen 20 dollars but its still a really off-putting response. I really hope Chris sees this, I would be very curious for his response.
I just wanted to say its really nice to hear an opinion on the election that admits there are genuine reasons to be suspicious but also doesn't immediately jump on it being 100% stolen. It seems like whenever skepticism is brought up about this election the immediate reaction is to strawman the guy bringing it up as a conspiracy theorist.
@@jaybuzzton453 Exactly right. I don't even like Trump, but I still think the way the democrats reacted to republicans asking for recounts was weird.
R: Can we get a recount and check the signatures to make sure there was no fraud?
D: I don't think you should. It will probably only change the result by a few hundred votes.
R: No, you're misunderstanding. We want to check for fraudulent votes by checking the signatures.
D: YOU WON'T FIND ANYTHING SO THERE'S NO POINT!!! SHUT UP YOU CRACKPOT CONSPIRACY THEORIST!!!
R: What about these dead people on the voter rolls? Can we check if votes were sent in in their names?
D: Why? They're dead, they can't have voted.
R: What I'm trying to say is that if they're still on the voter rolls, someone could have pretended to be them and cast their vote.
D: DEAD PEOPLE CAN'T VOTE!!! YOU'RE WORSE THAN ALEX JONES!!!
Innocent poeple don't deny audits
Also, it would have made the transition of power so much calmer had they actually properly looked into the whole case. Like no better way to prove Trump and his followers wrong than having a conservative supreme court dunk on their lawsuit live on air.
@@jaybuzzton453 I personally think that Trump would’ve lost due to his COVID response anyways. I also think that the social media/news network monolith are extremely bias towards the left and against Trump, thus making the election unfair (votes not made in an informed manner with sound judgements) but that isn’t an election fraud and the votes are still valid. I don’t know if there’s an election fraud or not because I do see those “evidences” were refuted every now and then and I can accept that Trump lost. However, a thorough investigation would surely be appreciated and that fact that there isn’t one shows that they either don’t really care about the truth or that they don’t care about giving people a proper explanation: do what I say because I say so. The issue here, though, is how the left-social media alliance is so powerful they can basically control the narratives and hold the power to deplatform political enemies.
"The technocratic oligarchy deigns you as unfit for personhood, be removed to your squalor, serf."
Our scope has been so narrowed to a single elected official that we've missed every advance towards control over the public square until it was too late.
The Grand Hispanic Wizard has graced us with many videos this month!
I appreciate the callout over the breakdown of left/right discourse in the past several years. It really has become so polarized over the stupidest things, and I personally have been called every kind of name for holding opinions that aren't all strictly left or right. Whatever that means.
I mostly agree with everything you said here, especially the point you made about social media being the new "public square". So wouldn't you agree that large social media networks should have first amendment protections? Leaving the TOS of "what you can say" up to the companies basically allows them to dictate what is free speech. Lmk what you think about this
The United States constitution does not apply to any country that is not the US. The internet is available to most countries in the world, not just the US.
@@Zachary- Agreed, but most social media corporations are based in the US, and I think the US has pretty good law 4egarding free speech, so why not use it as the standard?
@Stone Cold not an argument.
Colin Kaepernick is being openly promoted by multibillion-dollar International conglomerates that use slave labor which is willingly ignored by the left because of corporate controlled wokeness.
Meanwhile the very people that you just accused of trying to censor Kaepernick have been censored themselves by the people of promoting Colin Kaepernick.
@@cuntdracula1 Except Colin has literally been canceled and kicked from multi -billion dollar conglomerates.
Agree with literally everything? You can't form your own opinion? I listened and yeah he made some good points but not everything as a lot of it was lacking of any real research but I don't assume that of many youtube political channels, a lot of them like Chris do basic research like most people and believe they have the whole story mapped out when every issue is so much more grey than at first glance. It's been almost a year since this video and some of what he's said isn't correct anymore. I guess my advice is never go into a topic thinking the case is closed, in time everything that can be proven differently.
I'm glad that you have an actually nuanced take on this and are able to see different reasonings. Well thought as always, chris!
I think it’s scary when the ones who have more power right now are the CEO’s and executive boards on these social media companies and not the government officials.
When you can outright censor the President of the Untied States, thats is a level of power anyone with a functioning braincell should be terrified of
Do people forget they did the exact same thing to Alex Jones? This aint new, and it aint going away
Sad but true!
Is it sad?? Lmao I am not dying on the hill of Alex FUCKING Jones.
it’s scary how they can just remove someone from the internet and people thank them
I mean, that certain someone is disliked by majority of people
@@alvarezrodriguez4163 he was also the president at the time, meaning we as a country voted him in... if they can do this to the POTUS imagine what they could do if they decided they no longer wanted someone like u on the internet
@@Nick-rm3mb that's how society works!
@@alvarezrodriguez4163 brainwashed
@@Nick-rm3mb bruv they've been doing that the whole time. I'm just mad it took them so long to remove Trump
This raises an important debate: should we consider online speech a human right?
I believe so. Saying something another group doesn't like still holds consequences like in real life. By limiting what and where people can talk, we will continue to promote extremism on both sides.
We can actually see the consequences of limiting online speech by taking a look at the capital hill rioting. The far right have been pushed out of any conversation because they're banned from major social media. So where are they now? Pushed out of the mainstream they're in their own pockets where they share extreme ideas until everyone is redpilled. They can only be pushed further into the dark, never removed.
The left has issues as well. Reddit as an example, if your opinion is contrary to the 'hive' or whatever is the more popular group on a sub, you will typically be downvoted and removed from the discussion. Now we have an echo chamber of ideas that in certain areas are becoming extreme as well. BLM riot promotions are left up while being more extreme and damaging than what occured recently (for clarity, I'm not advocating the CH riot nor any BLM riots, none of these should have happened period).
In the older days of the internet, when everyone could say as they pleased and there was no control over the discussion, at least both sides could interact and share ideas. On free speech websites today, open discussion from both sides still flourishes, much unlike the big popular destinations.
Ultimately I'd like some guidelines to maybe assist the flow without too much outside influence on open free speech discussion. What are your thoughts on online speech as well as on what I've said?
Only if everyone was posting with his real name and picture.
@@PzkpfwV following that thought, how do we implement it? Do you think we should all have mugshots like ID cards? To what extent do we allow creativity and individualism to come out through our picture? Hats, etc.? Is there someone monitoring all these pictures? Are they safe... Or even real?
I'm going to presume the idea is to hold others accountable for what they say, so correct me if I'm wrong... I think it sounds fine, you're probably not going to hear antisemitists ranting anywhere, but like I presented in my comment above you aren't going to remove them this way, we're only going to deplatform and encourage these people to act elsewhere. Maybe a government controlled social media hub would be better while allowing other creative outlets? Is the main hub mandatory in this case?
If we did implement this, how do we protect the people using it? Hackers have continued to show that nothing is sacred and everything is taintable.
No
Internet access itself is not even a human right. Also nobody should be obligated to host you or provide you with an outlet. You might as well say book speech is a human right and my rights are being violated if a publisher rejects my book.
I agree, but only applicable to companies that enjoy 230 protections.
Agreed but I think the double-standard should be looked at to. You had politicians that openly, blatently, endorsed riots (to the point of paying for their bail) over the last 8 months but no punishment from them.
Yeah I was watching that from Australia and I was like "wait, it that... is that _legal_ for politicians to do in the US? Aren't they rallying a rioting mob against their opposition? How isn't that illegal?!"
So... it _wasn't_ legal but no one got in trouble for it? WTF is going on in the US?! Your country is becoming more insane by the day!
The difference is that their words weren't one of the main causes for the riots, and they didn't bring negative PR to twitter
Other people in government have called for violence much more openly and not gotten banned
@bodd boward this comment is... Impossible to comprehend. I can't tell if you're trying to be ironic or not. Good job dude
Besides that, although hilariously incompetent, the "attack on the Capitol," has far more merit as a protest against the government than the months of neighbourhoods and people's shops and livelihoods on fire in order to "own the system." Yet you'd borderline be banned for not supporting Black Lives Matter.
I guess protesting is all fun and trendy unless you're actually dealing hits to the people you're meant to be protesting against. People are dumb.
@@Zakjuh yes
@@Zakjuh The problem here is that you're equating people protesting police brutality with people storming the capitol because their guy lost an election.
The BLM protests began peacefully and only turned violent when it was met with more police brutality. The protests at the capitol also started peacefully, but got violent after it was riled up by the president and his cronies pushing baseless lies.
BLM was never meant to be a direct attack on the democracy of America.
@@jimmyjohnjoejr I mean, if you read it with the exaggerated language and emoticon at the end, you kind of can.
"The communists at amazon" - some reporter a while ago
Shouldn't have to remind you that the only Communist leader that wasn't a billionaire by our standards at some point in their life before taking a leadership position was Stalin.
Unless you view Stalin as a great leader
Communism is and has always been an oligarchy.
Source: Armenian.
@@tigran914 what about the Spanish republic? Isn't any auth ideology an oligarchy? What about libcom?
@@utternon-cents9136 Would need to read up a bit more on Spanish 30's to give a reasonable answer but as far as the first paragraph of wiki is concerned probably not.
Right wing authoritarianism is a monarchy so not really an oligarchy technically same result really though.
That said libcom (I'm assuming you mean Libertarian Communism) is an oxymoron. Communism by its nature is Authoritarian. It's literally calling yourself a libertarian authoritarian.
All examples of libcoms are just authoritarians who want to destroy the current system to institute their own authoritarian system.
As far as I'm concerned lib left is pure anarchy with no system in place to manage an economy. Lib right is much the same but the market being the system that manages an economy.
You could argue lib left is socialism by democratic choice. Except at the end of it all 51% chose for the other 49%
That in itself is Authoritarian.
100% of people will never agree. Hence why communism/socialism is by its nature authoritarian.
Socialism is a less absolute authority but the whole concept is taking something that doesn't belong to you and "redistributing" it.
That's authoritarian.
Most systems aside from a capitalist system with an elected leadership is basically an oligarchy.
Edit: correction most modern systems
Monarchy doesn't really fit an oligarchy.
Edit 2: Read a bit further into the wiki.
"it should have arranged for regular parliamentary elections and adjourned. However, fearing the increasingly popular opposition, the Radical and Socialist majority postponed the regular elections, prolonging their power for two more years."
Yeah that shit was an oligarchy.
@@tigran914 I think you fundamentally misunderstand Anarchism and its relation to Communism. Unfortunately the theory behind both is far more extensive than I can accurately go into detail on in a youtube comment so I won't even try. But if you would like to understand this better I highly recommend reading at least some of "Conquest of Bread" by Peter Kropotkin. Here is a link to a relevant section: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch3.html
@@utternon-cents9136 first thing Spanish ancoms did was they established concentration camps, so there is that
Idgaf one way or the other about Trump. But them being able to remove a sitting president like this, even after he made sure his speech was legal by "weasel-wording" it, as you say, is completely f'd.
In other words, it's about the precedent, not the (former) president.
@@Retrah22 Exactly!
Should his status as a sitting president have protected him from twitter's moderation?
“Prostate tickled by the cold baby arm” wtf did I just hear 😭
A free thinker
An analogy
A poem.
I was trying to listen to your arguments but I couldn't stop looking at the shadow cast by your carefully constructed jawline
Loving the dedication to more uploads my guy, but don't get burnt out. I'd rather a delayed Chris, than a broken one
Aye bet, glad to hear a nuanced viewpoint.
Same. He speaks facts.
"oh, you have shouted at this person? my, you might KILL that person, let's put you in jail preemptively"
Minority report in a nutshell
@@alvarezrodriguez4163 pretty much
Acctually they didnt "wait this long" they nuclear optioned in the past. Alex jones for one
2020: a complete crapshow
2021: hold my beer.
2022: stares intensely as boss music amplifies
@Don't ask me you’re assuming that there is going to be a 2022?
2020, the sequel
I agree with most of your points but there's one you made that my dad has a compellingly strong argument against: if you want the internet to be regulated, WHO will put the regulations in place? The big government guys we don't trust who are in bed with these big tech companies anyway?
We the people. If the founding fathers, who were technically just normal people, could establish our nation and it's laws then we should be able to do the same for the internet.
Honestly most people just want equal rules for each other. If a large and diverse enough group of people have full viewing rights to moderation I feel like you wouldn't run into half as many problems as you currently do.
That's a terrible idea. The public square would then be controlled solely by mob rule, and the ethics of a mob are fluid, emotional, and rarely rational. The people who genuinely have unpopular, but not immoral opinions would have their speech restricted all the time.
@@RandomBrick13 I proposed a set of rules decided on by the people, not mob rule. It's like having laws against theft. Punishing a thief based on preexisting rules isn't mob rule.
Joke's on you. I only get my prostate tickled irl.
"Socialism is when the government does stuff." - Max Stirner 2007
The government should stop doing stuff.
@@unknownvagrant6851 hell yeah, anarchy, baby
Wasn't that a joke by Richard Wolff?
"And the more socialist it is, the more stuff it does."
Spooky
"A genuine issue raised by an incorrect motive is still a genuine issue." Chris I need you to say that a few more times for the folks in the back. Because from where I'm sitting motive has taken precedent over issues and concerns in America. Like I'm a deeply deeply conservative person, probably to a fault, but people like you and I need to seriously address this shit before even being in the same room as one another become some moral or ideological scandal.
I think Chris is being intellectually disingenuous with his entire argument he's okay when the president is banned off platforms even though he didn't break TOs but he's afraid of the implications but he's also supportive of socialism. And on top of that he's okay with calling out the rich as having too much power but everyone's been a lockdown for like over several months and even though he hasn't made many videos I'm pretty sure he makes more money than the average person working and not working because of the lockdowns so when that make him technically rich?
@@dapperwolf6034 quit it. Just quit it
@@lazyboi2373 no I'm going to call at the BS where I hear it.
seems like a lot of liberals are starting to get scared because the thing they advocated for for the good half of the year against orange man is starting to come back to kick them in the ass
@@dapperwolf6034 Just because he has some missteps in ideas or beliefs doesn't mean that he is exempt from having solid points and arguments at other times. Can he get caught in a vacuum at times? Yes. Does he make oversights for a multitude of reasons? Yes. Are his stances perfect in regards to political alignment? No. But for fucks sake if we keep up this status quo of a perfect record being necessary to make valid arguments at all we are only going to dig ourselves a deeper hole. In THIS case he has made one clear grand point in that big tech, and if you want to branch out large scale organizations, have way too much power and are in a position to seriously damage social balance.
@@dapperwolf6034 I don't think I've read something so consistently incorrect before.
The fact that he said "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard", and that he didn't explicitly say "Go break into the Capitol Building", makes a legal argument impossible. Did he contribute to their thinking? Yes, absolutely. Even then, I don't think you can argue that he wanted them to break into the building. You think he was like, "Oh yeah, that would be good. That would accomplish a lot and definitely wouldn't come back to hurt me in any way."
It's basically the legal equivalent of putting your finger very close to someone's face and yelling "IM NOT TOUCHING YOU". Like sure he's not, but he's basically accomplishing the same ends of annoying you.
If touching peoples face were illegal, it would make sense that he not be prosecuted legally for what he did, since he never touched your face, but I would have no problem with a society treating him the same way they would a face toucher. Because, like i said, the end result of what he did is the same as it would have been had he touched your face.
@@franklinbadge1215 You're leaving out the fact that he explicitly told them to be peaceful and then told them to go home on multiple platforms, despite those platforms trying to delete his videos and tweets where he said that. I'm not even trying to defend the guy, or Trump supporters, but the facts are clear, which is why the second impeachment accomplished nothing.
Its nice to see what can only be described as a rational evaluation to this whole mess coming forward.
The fears you bring up should be addressed by everyone, regardless of political background. Big tech has grown out of control over the past decade, as someone who essentially grew up throughout the social evolution of the internet, its become incredibly obvious just how far its gotten out of hand. Despite how big a part of our lives the internet has become, its sad to see just how small its gotten.
Another issue that came out of the aftermath of the riot was the way it was handled in the media. Doesnt matter if Trump was your guy or not, or if you were pro-BLM or not, what started off as protests in Washington 6 months ago and 4 weeks ago, devolved into riots. Riots that ended with violence, destruction and death. But because it happened at the capitol this time and not your city or neighborhood, it was wrong. Suddenly the cops hurt by these rioters were heroes and the rioters were now insurrectionists. It just felt so hypocritical watching it all unfold. Perhaps my views are wrong in that respect, but after watching fires and looting and violence occur throughout American cities for nights on end, I couldnt really find a reason to be any angrier with the capitol riots then I was with any other.
Hell, the capitol "riots" resulted in far less damages than the "peaceful protests"
The people in the capitol, for the most part, were just acting like idiots and taking selfies and shit. Not destroying historic monuments. The most destruction they did was taking Pelosi's podium and throwing her papers all over the place
It was genuinely depressing to see so many actual intelligent people bending over backwards to justify the blm riots. I remember when shoeonhead compared them to the Boston tea party, which is so fucking stupid I don't even know what to say. And remember when she was really quiet during the Kyle Rittenhouse incident. And fast forward a few months later and she seems to be horrified at the capitol hill riots. This kind of hypocrisy creates a breeding ground for extremism, because you are basically making a whole group of people feel like their voices aren't being heard.
@@jormilos I mean...they beat a cop to death, injured at least one other.
@@IzzySarru and 60 secret service officers were injured when BLM attempted to storm the White House. Yet, them using regular crowd control techniques back then was painted as an evil act.
Violence isn't the problem, it's a tool. Fascism is the problem.
The Spotify thing I believe is both Spotify wanting to get good PR, and making sure he can't start a podcast and use it to speak to his followers.
He said Shopify not Spotify!
I have to disagree with your first premise (that he egged people on, and knew he was doing it).
Conservatives and Trumps supporters (there's overlap, but they're not the same single group) have a long-standing habit of peaceful protest.
In Jan 2020, 22,000 armed pro-2A protesters converged on the Virginia Capitol to protest the governor's proposed gun restrictions. Despite the anger over the restrictions, the Associated Press said the crowd was peaceful, the mood was almost festive, and there was a single arrest for a nonviolent offence (ironically, wearing a mask in public). When their permit to assemble had expired, they voluntarily dispersed.
In May 2020, armed anti-lockdown protesters "stormed" the Michigan Capitol. They were cleared by security, submitted to temperature checks, and then stood quietly in the public gallery while legally open carrying. The only person hurt in this series of protests was an unarmed woman standing alone in the public gallery. The governor had suddenly decided that, in order to facilitate social distancing, the gallery would only be open to people with press passes. The woman ended up in the hospital. The iconic photo of a man "screaming in the face of security guards" was actually a man screaming between two guards at someone standing behind them. He claims that person was one of the guards who injured the woman.
In Nov 2020, tens of thousands of people gathered in DC to support Trump. By that time, the majority of Trump voters were of the belief that the election was stolen. A lot of people there were chanting "stop the steal". Still, the crowd was peaceful, dispersed on their own at the end of the afternoon (at which point, Antifa began harassing and attacking them as they walked back to their cars and hotels).
The above were angry people, with deeply felt grievances, egged on by their chosen news media and each other, and yes, even President Trump. No one rioted.
Even the infamous "Unite the Right" rallies (both the tiki torch abomination, and the more moderate rally the next day) were peaceful. You know. Right up until they found themselves surrounded by a bunch of armed Antifa who, having stayed outside the police perimeter, had not been made to hand over their weapons.
Estimates of the crowd size at the Jan 6 DC rally range up to 300,000. About 300 people entered the Capitol. The ones who broke through the barricades and pried open the doors were, according to the New York Times, at the Capitol all morning, and did not attend Trump's speech.
And yes, there were Trump supporters among them, but there were at least two far left wing provocateurs in Trump gear. They can be seen in footage congratulating each other on how they "made it happen". Nick Fuentes and "Baked Alaska" were also there. They haven't supported Trump since he proved to not be their longed-for alt-right god-emperor.
To confuse matters even further, there's footage of people walking in casually, past a line of Capitol police who say and do nothing to impede them. These people claim they didn't realize the doors had been forced open, and since the cops said nothing to them, they thought they were lawfully entering a public building. You can even see them walking calmly between the tour ropes. Dumb? Yes. Intent to overthrow the government? No.
There's also footage of Trump supporters shouting, "no antifa!" at a man trying to break a window. When members of the crowd tackle him, the Trump supporters cheer. And footage of Alex Jones and others hollering through a bullhorn to not fall for the bait--they'd been infiltrated by Antifa, and the riot was a false flag event aimed at stopping the objections and painting Trump supporters as violent and dangerous. (Was this the ONLY thing going on? I highly doubt it. But it WAS something that was going on--there's footage proving that.)
And finally, in Trump's speech (and all his promotional materials for the event), it is made clear that Republican congressmen and women were going to be objecting to the electoral votes. Trump had invited his supporters to DC to provide moral support for those Republican objectors--again, this is in the speech and the promo materials.
Even if that endeavor did not succeed in overturning the election, it would provide 10-12 hours to do what no court thus far had allowed to happen--to have the evidence, arguments and merits of Trump's claims read into the public record.
As such, what happened would be the exact opposite of what Trump and Trump supporters would want. It interrupted the two hour debate on the first objection (AZ) about 20 minutes in, and when the joint session reconvened, there were no more objections.
So let's ask, shall we? What did Trump or his supporters have to gain by storming the Capitol? What did they have to gain by misbehaving in any way whatsoever? Consider these questions in the context of how out of character it is for Trump supporters and conservatives to resort to lawlessness, even when they feel they have genuine, pressing, glaring grievances. Also consider that Trump has been pretty consistent in his condemnation of political violence.
What did the other side have to gain? An excuse to impeach Trump, which would, if he's convicted, permanently bar him from running for public office. A media narrative of Trump supporters as violent "cult members", and Trump's Republican "enablers" in congress as dangerous extremists. An end to 10-12 hours of public debate on election irregularities within the first 20 minutes.
And now consider a few ancillary matters. Only about 500 of the 2300 Capitol police officers were on duty Jan 6.
Think about it. There is a rare event planned (objections by both House members and Senators, and the subsequent debates) inside the Capitol building. 300,000 of Trump's most passionate supporters are in DC to protest an election they believe was stolen. The media narrative for the last 4 years has been that Trump's supporters are dangerous extremists. Surely those who'd travel to DC to protest would be the most ardent and unwavering of his supporters, no?
And yet not only did the Capitol Police Chief post fewer than 1/4 of his own officers to protect the building that day, he declined offers of federal LEO assistance in advance of the day.
At 4:17PM, Trump posted a message to his supporters on Twitter, asking them to be peaceful, respect law enforcement and go home. Twitter deleted it half an hour later, and locked him out of his account for the following 12 hours.
I'm sorry, but this shit don't add up.
Beep
Question , which one is better, trump's onlyfans or the vampire lady ?
vampire lady probably has bigger feet
@@littleunmind564 yo wtf
@@littleunmind564 "probably" as if she wasn't 10 feet tall. Going by most proportions I've seen she would be wearing size 16+ shoes. No way in hell does Trump wear bigger than that
@@who_the_fuck_is_riley5813 yes, we obviously have the clear winner then
100$ Chris has worn that halo jersey for 2 weeks straight
Im in
4:24 Most have updated their TOS to make behavior on other platforms actionable. Patreon was one of the first to do this with "manifest observable behavior".
iiiiinteresting.
I'm just here for the Mass Effect background track.
I'm a simple man, I see a Chris Raygun video, and I watch it.
Hell yeah
God, the Mass Effect music in the background had me nostalgia hard.
I really appreciate your honest assessment of the whole situation.
Question, is the problem more with society's addiction to social media or the companies themselves? Sounds like a little Column A, little Column B...but maybe as a society we need to reject the power social media offers us. (I say this by writing a comment on one of the most powerful social media sites in the world so go figure)
This is what I've thought about too. Social Media isn't a right. Having a platform to share any random thought or idea you have isn't a right. As much as I don't like the Social Media Megacorps, its not infringing on rights to get banned for posting stupid shit on Twitter. Idk, its an interesting discussion tho.
Chris used the word "unpersoned" in passing but was the most powerful description of his point in the video
I like how you give us disclaimers as if we actually have standards.
Censorship should be an everyone issue. We’re straight up going into books like the giver or Fahrenheit 451. One day everything will be banned or censored
Glasses off Tom Sweeny is all kinds of comforting
At least Twitter is getting sued for allowing CP on their site.
What do you mean? They banned Trump and he did all kinds of depraved stuff with Epstein on their island.
They should ban more people like Trump
@@Mastikator Evidence?
@@waterdamagedtextbook9858 The Jeffrey Epstein trial.
@@Mastikator what in it specifically?
@@waterdamagedtextbook9858 the part where Trump is involved? That entire part
Honestly this is a fair point, glad you brought it up
I am a conservative and this was so well spoken I feel like we just had a polite discussion. Its important to know exactly what the other side thinks when the news just shows the worst of whatever side they disagree with. I hope you do more political videos im always looking for the opposite side to just discuss without he hate. A video like this has the power to bring both sides together.
Your not late we are getting so much content chill, ur doing gr8
saying social media IS the new public square is also saying that one is entitled to a twitter account for sake of their freedom of speech. and thats a pretty deep rabbit hole. making access to twitter equal to freedom of speech is whats giving the big tech companies their power. it shows just how reliant we are on them.
I disagree with your framing of the issue. Nobody is saying we should have a "right" to a twitter account, or any specific service. Rather, we need to acknowledge that these media companies are already in *de facto* control of our most important public platforms-the very ones at the heart of public discourse. We have unwittingly put a small number of private companies in charge of our most important communications channels, and now we need to sit down and figure out exactly what to do about it, ASAP.
I would posit that, at a minimum, we need to make the following changes:
1. Clearly delineate between being a publisher and being a platform, and force these companies to choose one or the other. Either they have the right _and_ the responsibility to police all the content on their platform, or they have no right or responsibility to do so at all (outside of the minimum of removing things that are blatantly illegal). And the choice they make must be made clearly known to all.
2. Narrow down and clarify what a _term of service_ can and cannot do. No more vague weasel words and conditions that can be unilaterally altered whenever its convenient for _them_ . No more shutting down of voices for their _views_ , but only for their _actions_ , and even then only if truly warranted. Force these companies to clearly spell out exactly what behaviors are allowed and not allowed, and make sure they stick to their word.
3. Reshape the regulations and structure of the industry to protect freedom of choice and encourage open competition, including ease of entry by newcomers. It should not be possible for a small oligarchy of companies to deplatform a platform, for any reason.
4. Work to foster a culture that truly values freedom of speech as an inalienable right. Push, in whatever ways we can, respect for free speech, not just as a legal doctrine, but as an unquestionable moral value. We need to put real public pressure on any platform that engages in undue censorship, and punish them for even trying.
5 (bonus point). Fix our g'damn broken copyright/intellectual property system. We need to take away the ability for bad actors to (mis)use our legal system as a bludgeon, and put our publicly-shared cultural heritage back into the hands of the people.
It is important to recognize that freedom of speech without access to an audience to hear it is not really free. What good is having the _right_ to express yourself if you don't have the _ability_ to be heard? And remember, it's not just the right of random individuals to speak their thoughts that is at stake, it is _your_ right to engage with those ideas. To consider them. To respond to them. To debate them. To accept them. To reject them. To learn from them and use them to develop your own, unique position. That's why I prefer to call it "freedom of inquiry", rather than "freedom of speech". There's so much more to it than just the freedom to express yourself.
In short, yes, social media really is the new public square, and for as long as it is, we have to ensure that it remains _public_ .
If even the President can be deplatformed that should be a massive red flag on the amount of power big corporations hold..
“I hate the term influencer”
You influenced my fetish when I found out you got shirtless pics online 🤭🥵😍🙌
I missed ten seconds ago when i didn't know this existed
@@zulemaalderete5299 agreed.
Horny jail! Go! NOW!
*bonk*
I wonder what trump is doing with his time now that he’s been cut off from tweeting to millions of people
Probably trying to find a lawyer.
@@E-damnn he doesn’t need one
Golf
@@corbonthec0b he’s being investigated by the Manhattan district attorney and the New York State attorney generals office for financial crimes. And the senate might (probably won’t) convict him. And there are rumors that trump doesn’t want Rudy Giuliani to represent him anymore.
@@corbonthec0b It seems like he does, based on the pending litigation, and Rudy being sued for 1.3 billion by Dominion.
I'm not comfortable with social media controlling our access to society either. So I went outside and met my neighbors.
Gave them some extra veggies from the garden and eggs my uncle gave me. Turns out the old lady next door makes some killer oatmeal cookies.
You’re not cancelled by me Chris thanks for an actually good argument and not just yelling CENSORSHIP, THE FIRST AMENDMENT. I agree
Never seen Chris Ray sweat bullets. Don't worry man, just tell it how it is. What you said is facts, big tech needs to be held accountable as well.
I'm not used to Chris uploading this much...it's scary...but in a sexy way
That Mass Effect music gives me the feels everytime.
Good take, spooky big tech move for sure. The personality behind it makes it too easy a pill to swallow