41–50 of 55 posts
Yeah the eu should really be worried. When masses of people have no shame or fear hiding sympathy for obviously terrorist actions then there’s a massive massive issue at hand and thats not a YouTube or tiktok video. Thats a power vacuum that will manifest itself in grotesque ways in the coming future. The dark forces to be are only beginning to realise it.
All of that applies to Israel too so what’s different?
The Hamas content is valuable to show exactly what Hamas is. Censorship of this material is wrong.
Indeed. Consider this video, for example: https://twitter.com/Natsecjeff/status/1397186381756125184 This is certainly Hamas-created propaganda. I could see it inciting someone to join the cause. Yet it reveals that Hamas proudly digs up water pipes donated as humanitarian aid, to turn them into weapons of war. Is society better off if the government prevents this video from being shared?
Whatever their motives, I don’t see this ending well for them. It seems as though Israel has decided this is the end of Gaza, and I believe they are sufficiently infuriated, motivated, and emboldened to accomplish their goals.
[1] https://rumble.com/v3ol4sj-pure-censorship-eu-sends-musk-war... [1] https://rumble.com/v3odrq7-system-update-159.html
Yeah the eu should really be worried. When masses of people have no shame or fear hiding sympathy for obviously terrorist actions then there’s a massive massive issue at hand and thats not a YouTube or tiktok video. Thats a power vacuum that will manifest itself in grotesque ways in the coming future. The dark forces to be are only beginning to realise it.
So you don’t like it when the brown people do the killing? All of that applies to Israel too so what’s different?
Stated purpose of law: prohibits advocating genocide. Actual effect of law: prohibits preserving evidence of genocide. I know there’s, broadly speaking, a difference in how freedom of speech is defined in America versus Europe. The (slightly inflammatory) description above is why I personally find the “European” definition distasteful.
On a slightly different legal note, it's not entirely clear to me what evidential value videos uploaded to YouTube have. Providence would be tricky to establish.
Does anyone know if YouTube videos have ever been used as legal evidence in court before?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Because Facebook is so entrenched in what they offer that Google tried and couldn’t put a dent into them. I'd say it's because Google was so inept at trying to do so, the way TikTok wasn't. Also I wonder why such brands like Nintendo, Mitsubishi, General Electric, Ford Motors, Philips, Siemens, etc all exist for a century or more, and likely will for another century. What kind of secret have these tech bros discove…
BS on Google just didn’t try hard enough. All those companies are continually changing their product. Google, sells ads people chose to look at. Facebook sells data people chose to give. These are not diverse models.
So they have to make do with GMail, that lacks the network effect of social media.
Stated purpose of law: prohibits advocating genocide. Actual effect of law: prohibits preserving evidence of genocide. I know there’s, broadly speaking, a difference in how freedom of speech is defined in America versus Europe. The (slightly inflammatory) description above is why I personally find the “European” definition distasteful.
A publication platform is not an archive. Those videos don't just disappear if they aren't uploaded to YouTube. They aren't as accessible to absolutely everyone of course. On a slightly different legal note, it's not entirely clear to me what evidential value videos uploaded to YouTube have. Providence would be tricky to establish. Does anyone know if YouTube videos have ever been used as legal evidence in court befo…
Incriminating YouTube videos have been admitted in criminal courts many times; e.g.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109698/Gary-Johnso...
https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/crime/2013/09/11/court-c...
https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/9-AUTHENTICITY/9.14... (page 4)
https://www.occriminaldefenseattorney.com/blog/youtube-used-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't write ambiguously, then.
Thats ambiguous for you for some reason. Pretty clear for anyone else - or perhaps anyone else outside the eu, which kinda strengthens my point of view. Nonetheless Palestine rights are moot for the coming century, but thats a different topic.
And it's only terrorism, until the oppressor gives up. Then it's a libration movement, or whatnot. Bunch of anti-colonial, liberation movements in Africa and elsewhere also weren't pretty.
Palestine's rights are not moot at all. They are as relevant as ever, maybe even more so, because now they're violated much more than before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A publication platform is not an archive. Those videos don't just disappear if they aren't uploaded to YouTube. They aren't as accessible to absolutely everyone of course. On a slightly different legal note, it's not entirely clear to me what evidential value videos uploaded to YouTube have. Providence would be tricky to establish. Does anyone know if YouTube videos have ever been used as legal evidence in court befo…
You don't necessarily need to know who the video's author or uploader is. It may be sufficient to see what is depicted, when, and where. Incriminating YouTube videos have been admitted in criminal courts many times; e.g. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109698/Gary-Johnso... https://www.dispatch.com/story/news/crime/2013/09/11/court-c... https://www.nycourts.gov/JUDGES/evidence/9-AUTHENTICITY/9.14... (page 4…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Screw everyone who wants to enforce their sovereign laws when you do business on their turf? That seems a bit shortsighted.
While I agree with the idea of your comment: Whose turf is the Internet?
This is also why bulletproof hosting never ends well.