Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know what to think here. If you get harassed by US agencies, you might stop posting on the internet, so we wouldn't see anything from them. Simply impossible for us to guess what happens to strangers on the internet, after they post US critical thinking publicly.
That might be true, but these posts have been on reddit/hn for years. You'd think that if there was some sort of effort to harass people making these posts that we'd stop seeing them and/or hear more people speaking out about government harassment.
YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”
131–140 of 298 posts
Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
The right to be drafted and die yes. The rich could literally bribe their way out of conscription.
I was more so referring to the right to vote, run for office, etc. You are certainly not wrong about the other parts though.
Regardless, offices again had property and tax qualifications in virtually all states.
Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”
#133I hope HN doesn’t become the next place conspiracy theories are peddled.
Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”
#134Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”
#135Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely ridiculous - do Americans even know why the country was even founded anymore?
it could be argued it was because people didn't like to pay taxes.
Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”
#136I hope HN doesn’t become the next place conspiracy theories are peddled.
What is the conspiracy theory you see being peddled here? The theory that the video was shadow banned as a result of its content, or the theories presented in the video itself?
Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”
#137I think it important to entertain the possibility that this person is simply lying. I don't see any evidence that backs up his claim that this was intentional and his claim that he was visited by DHS officials is doubtful to me. There's plenty of videos like his on YouTube already, so I can't really imagine this caused a real government intervention. But maybe I missed something.
Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”
#138The shadow ban isn’t even the scariest part of the thread! The Department of Homeland Security confronted him about a video about police brutality: > A few months ago I uploaded a video about police brutality. It showed explicit acts of violence by the police, and it was understandably age-gated. The video was appropriate only for older audiences, but did not break any of YouTube's terms and conditions. > That video…
Also not only reserved to the DHS. There have also been examples of people being under surveillance by the FBI, and ultimately going to jail, over Facebook posts [1]
[0] https://www.dhs.gov/see-something-say-something
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/11/rakem-balogun-...
Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”
#139Just watched the video, read the thread. Here are some thoughts. First of all, the video uploader is promoting a competitor to YouTube. This is not disclaimed clearly. The video goes over criticism to the CIA, which are fair enough. But it takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world. He presents it as "the US is the bad guy and the world would be fair without the C…
> It takes some things as axioms, for example, that only the US are interfering/meddling in the world Where does it claim that? I'm not saying you are lying. I didn't watch it properly so I may have missed it. > It's a bit näive to not see this as anti-government propaganda. I don't know what that means. Are you saying that something in the video is untrue or just that it contains facts that make the US government lo…
All the conflicts are shown as one-sided. Like the Iran one, where he mentions US/CIA interference, but doesn't mention all other players that also wanted to interfere there, because Iran and oil were essential to the global scenario of Cold War (and eventually a not cold war).
>I don't know what that means. Are you saying that something in the video is untrue or just that it contains facts that make the US government look bad? Would you describe a similar video criticizing an enemy of the US government (whether another government, terrorist organisation, or something else) in the same way?
I'm saying the video does indeed make an extra effort to make the US government / CIA look bad indeed. The thing is, looks like there is an editorial choice to make that point, and the video went after it. No wonder it can/will raise eyebrows in the US government / CIA. Which is a completely sepparate problem from youtube/online censoring.
>I think the problem here is if YouTube's goal is to help the government who (according to the author) is Google's customer. YouTube is under no obligation to do anything to help spread the author's video, but they should definitely be criticised for working with an organisation committing horrible abuses and acts of violence.
Indeed. That's exactly what I mean. YouTube is in close ties with the government, and also led by advertisers, they explicitly want to make it more friendly to the most viewers possible. And that kind of documentary is not aligned with that goal, thus will not be promoted.
But it is important to notice the difference between promoting it and hiding it actively. I can't find the video while searching for the exact title.
Re: YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”
#140Speaking as a lurker, this seems basically like what people have been asking for for awhile now including here. I remember seeing numerous top comment chains over the last four years (and of course before that but not here) that all boiled down to very eloquent defenses of censoring fringe thinkers. Who knows, maybe in theory land there's no reason we can't have it both ways. But it seems to me that in the real world…