David icke bitchute

We will keep fighting for all libraries - stand with us! Search the history of over billion web pages on the Internet. Capture a web page as it appears now for use as a trusted citation in the future. Uploaded by trapexit on January 3, david icke bitchute,

Martin Sellner, a leading figure in the white nationalist Generation Identity group who has been banned from the UK and US on security grounds, was also near the top of the list. Icke has more than 39, subscribers on his BitChute channel, while Sellner has 14, and Tommy Robinson is on 26, It was among dozens of posts allegedly promoting Robinson, as well as other far-right extremists, antisemites and conspiracy theorists. But Hope Not Hate researchers found videos supporting terrorist groups, including 86 for Isis — including its own propaganda — and 23 National Action. It also identified a further 93 videos supporting other groups and individuals linked to international terrorism, including al-Qaeda ideologue Anwar al-Awlaki and the neo-Nazi AtomWaffen Division. Videos seen by The Independent also include shootings, violent attacks and targeted harassment against named individuals. The report called for mainstream social platforms to stop its links being shared, and for police to investigate any content that violates British law or terrorism legislation.

David icke bitchute

I very strongly feel that we should be very careful to avoid adopting a legalistic attitude towards freedom of speech. That is, I am opposed to the argument that private corporations are not bound by the first amendment, and therefore it's okay for them to suppress content. I agree that they're not bound by the first amendment I don't claim to understand the nuances of the "platform" laws so I won't address that , but that's different from saying that we as a society should want our private platforms to engage in such censorship and suppression. Booting people off of platforms merely reinforces their pre-existing beliefs, and further radicalizes them. COVID has added the additional element of this new concept of "disinformation". The argument is seductively simple: "being exposed to this information could lead you to engage in patterns of behavior that harm society. Many may disagree, but I think we need to throw out this concept of "disinformation" entirely. I don't believe in fighting "bad ideas" by suppressing them, I believe in shining a light on them. Let the truth fight for itself. And of course now comes the classic counter-argument: that the evils of disinformation possess a virality that makes them spread far more easily than the truth, being that truth is nuanced and difficult to acquire whereas bad information is seductively simple. I won't address that argument here but personally I think it's a very dangerous way of thinking. We do not have the time, through our own actions or not, for quiet contemplation and retrospection into deep topics.

Section does not require that YT or any other service be neutral. Well thats my point, they werent forced underground. Let them radicalize.

.

I cannot connect to bitchute. They really do want to silence us. God, help us. Another demonstration of retrograde action - we could almost believe they are trying to sink their own ships! No reason to get up in arms everyone should have known this was coming. Just keep spreading the info.. I just tried "bitchute.

David icke bitchute

The UK's media watchdog has launched a formal investigation into a TV network's broadcast of an interview with conspiracy theorist David Icke about coronavirus. Ofcom acted after London Live screened the programme on Wednesday evening. The regulator received more than 40 complaints following the broadcast. It follows YouTube's introduction of stricter misinformation rules after a later interview with Mr Icke by the same team was streamed on its platform.

Jackerman official website

PureParadigm on May 4, root parent prev next [—]. Thanks for signing up to the Morning Headlines email. Nihilist anti-positivism. If you think people are sheep and believe everything they read online, then certainly at first pass it sounds like censoring what they see is the right move. That would be really convenient, but it's still as complicated as anything. An archive of videos from the BitChute channel "davidicke" from That YouTube's recommendation algorithm is so psychopathically ammoral that they had to rig it several months back not to suggest conspiracy video after conspiracy video should have been the alarm bell. More data came in and they revised their position. YouTube has the brand recognition, but simply hosting video online isn't that hard. The first amendment is a legal principle with clear implications, limits, and enforcement mechanisms. Admittedly, YouTube doesn't censor to the extent that China does, but whenever you have censorship you open the possibility of censoring life-saving speech, which may be controversial at the time. The challenge is getting that principle enshrined in law. There are billion of youtube video, nobody will be able to watch them all. Want an ad-free experience? That's exactly what attorneys for polluters always say.

Twitter has banned the account of British conspiracy theorist David Icke. The action comes six months after Facebook and YouTube took similar action, saying Mr Icke had posted misleading claims about the pandemic. The year-old had about , followers on Twitter.

That oportunity was squandered with these two instances, because despite them not being outright supressed it was not socially acceptable to have a reasonable conversation around them without being labeled racist etc etc. If you're worried about abuse, email us and we'll look at the data. If we want to promote fringe ideas, we should make it easier to organize and elect local candidates, abolish "first-past-the-post" voting systems that encourage a two-party system, and so on. Ubiquity: if a community is small enough or in a limited setting, it is okay to censor things. Extremely paraphrasing, ryankemper's original comment was something like "We shouldn't let private companies decide who to boot off. I think that we have seen an unprecedented campaign to propagate the belief that the "mainstream media" is untrustworthy. That we should ignore how the courts and first amendment law actually works? It was among dozens of posts allegedly promoting Robinson, as well as other far-right extremists, antisemites and conspiracy theorists. Newspapers were a pretty strong filter of information and therefore could have some kind of 'rough' credibility, biases notwithstanding obviously. You should bother reading it and what it links to. If anything, history shows that eventually, censorship will only allow the lies of those in power. By far the most dangerous and most widely spread "information" in this pandemic has come from the same authorities that are being allowed to decide what is so-called correct and what needs to be censored. Even now WHO haven't fully reversed course, they have only stopped anti-recommending face masks as hard. I'm speaking merely from a framework of, "is this the kind of society we want?