A couple days ago, a gun channel was taken off youtube. Youtube shortly restores it and says it was taken down because it was thought to have violated the Google+ TOS, but it turned out to be nothing. Several other youtubers and fans expressed their concern, considering the highly suspicious timing and Google's already widely known stance. Tonight it was taken down again. Is this pure stupidity, or flagrant censorship?
Youtube can do what it wants with its content. Its run by people with opinions whether you agree with them or not and they also have the right to exercise free speech even if that means removing material they disagree with.
They sure do. And I have the right to criticize them. The ability or the freedom to do something does not make it an excusable action.
The controversy here isn't whether or not youtube has that right. It's whether or not it is a place where different opinions and different channels can coexist and grow there, together. If youtube decides to play thought-police, I am sure the suppressed voices will outsource to other websites-- vimeo, dailymotion, whatever. Some of that outsourcing is already taking place thanks to this fiasco.
ok so whats the problem then? youtube is not the only outlet for free speech. Again the website isnt federal domain. just as vimeo and the rest are not. I'm not sure what the big deal is here. if you don't like it then don't support youtube. Its kind of like saying you are pissed your friend wont let you smoke in his house, because hes a non smoker and well its his house. I don't see the point in your anger here.
YouTube isn't really comparable to a single individual's house. It's more like if one company owned most of the houses in the world, just as YouTube is most of the video as far as I can see, and they forbid you not only to smoke but to talk about smoking, in any of those houses, including yours if you rent from them. And monitor you so they can kick you out if you say the S word. It's their property. They have the right, and it's in the lease that it's totally their decision. Should they?
I haven't followed the issue and know little about it. It may be justified. It may be an innocent mistake. But it is not unreasonable to object to a company's policies, and even to try to have them changed. Surely businesses aren't above criticism simply by not being government agencies.
I agree with that.
Actually no, he's pretty good-natured. That's why his fans and friends are baffled that it's him, and not someone more offensive. Most of his videos are just having fun with guns or general safety/information videos. He does touch on second amendment stuff, but he doesn't froth at the mouth at all.His channel is the place to go if you have questions about firearms.
Are you sure he didn't violate the TOS? I'm not. Who reads that document?
Well then, there you have it. Not sure what the controversy is.
The first half of this video explains it pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CsKGy1VEEQ
He says 1:30 in that he doesn't know all the circumstances. It doesn't explain anything... It's hearsay...
The only ones who really know what's going on are Hickok and YouTube. When they make a video about what transpired then you'll have something to talk about.
Maybe you should pay more attention... I posted a video that shows Wranglerstar is echoing Hickok.