nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Gemma not taking enforced retirement too well

[Deleted User]

She's permanently on twitter now tweeting links to wacky stories from a few years ago and every single conspiracy theory she can get her hands on

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Stephen15

Blueshoe wrote: »

YouTube have deleted the Iconoclast channel without warning. 200k subs. Only one view or opinion is allowed.
Bitchute is the only place for non mainstream news

Edit: way of the world also deleted by YouTube overnight.

Hopefully they'll be put back like Black Pigeon Speaks

Kimsang

Blueshoe wrote: »

YouTube have deleted the Iconoclast channel without warning. 200k subs. Only one view or opinion is allowed.
Bitchute is the only place for non mainstream news

Edit: way of the world (100k subs) also deleted by YouTube overnight.

This happened few weeks ago? And both were back within a day?

I just checked both, they are up and running on youtube.

Although both google and youtube seem to be shadow banning these channels, they do not show up in relevant searches including keywords & are no longer promoted or recommended.

Blueshoe

Kimsang wrote: »

This happened few weeks ago? And both were back within a day?

I just checked both, they are up and running on youtube.

Although both google and youtube seem to be shadow banning these channels, they do not show up in relevant searches including keywords & are no longer promoted or recommended.

Iconoclast gone completely
Way of the world on a back up channel

Have a look on twitter

Kimsang

Blueshoe wrote: »

Iconoclast gone completely
Way of the world on a back up channel

Have a look on twitter

I noticed on twitter a few weeks ago their channels were down for a day, but I don't use twitter.

Here are there youtube channels

Way of the World

Seems they are both the normal channels with all their legacy videos uploaded? All seems normal to me what am I missing?

Sorry I saw the channel similar to iconoclast<edit>

Annasopra

Stephen15 wrote: »

Not my opinion but I will support any workers who try to better their lot regardless of nationality

You're having a laugh. You'd happily deport all non Irish born workers if given a chance.

Blueshoe

Kimsang wrote: »

I noticed on twitter a few weeks ago their channels were down for a day, but I don't use twitter.

Here are there youtube channels

Iconoclast
Way of the World

Seems they are both the normal channels with all their legacy videos uploaded? All seems normal to me what am I missing?

That Iconoclast one has only 2,500 subs.
The way of the world one only 11k . It's a back up channel.

Both were deleted without warning.

Ha Long Bay

Stephen15 wrote: »

Hopefully they'll be put back like Black Pigeon Speaks

Can I ask who is they? It looks like one guy trying to make a few quid. "Dan, 27, from Sunderland, England is a prominent right-wing “YouTuber” known as The Iconoclast."

From https://www.politicalite.com/exclusive/uncovering-the-iconoclast-meet-the-lad-from-sunderland-whos-taking-on-the-mainstream-media-with-a-new-magazine/

I don't agree with accounts being blocked or deleted without reason but usually it's caused by something that breaks the T&C that users sign up to.

The biggest issue I have is the ability of users on these platforms being able to block\censor any people that comment on the content that dont approve.

It shuts down debate and reasoning and creates a dangerous vacuum. I am sure I have said before this is why I only use Boards for discussion as even if I don't agree with an opinion I can at least hear and discuss it.

Bringing this back to Gemma as the thread was intended to focus on this is her primary tactic so you are left with an echo chamber of views due to this behaviour.

[Deleted User]

Kimsang wrote: »

How so Dubbie? If you show me evidence, i'll quite happily change my mind. So far all I've been told is...

Try reading back some of my posts you half quote,. If you grew up as you claimed you may also know a few of the faces. But then again even if you don't a bit of intelligence and actual experience would be evidence.

Btw kimmie was an auto correct by the phone, but hey I've been called worse than Dubbie.

Stephen15

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You're having a laugh. You'd happily deport all non Irish born workers if given a chance.

If they break the law or are surplus to requirements and are not Irish citizens then yes they would have to be deported nothing to do with where they are born

Blueshoe

john4321 wrote: »

Can I ask who is they? It looks like one guy trying to make a few quid. "Dan, 27, from Sunderland, England is a prominent right-wing “YouTuber” known as The Iconoclast."

From https://www.politicalite.com/exclusive/uncovering-the-iconoclast-meet-the-lad-from-sunderland-whos-taking-on-the-mainstream-media-with-a-new-magazine/

I don't agree with accounts being blocked or deleted without reason but usually it's caused by something that breaks the T&C that users sign up to.

The biggest issue I have is the ability of users on these platforms being able to block\censor any people that comment on the content that dont approve.

It shuts down debate and reasoning and creates a dangerous vacuum. I am sure I have said before this is why I only use Boards for discussion as even if I don't agree with an opinion I can at least hear and discuss it.

Bringing this back to Gemma as the thread was intended to focus on this is her primary tactic so you are left with an echo chamber of views due to this behaviour.

I lv watched that Iconoclast channel for a while. Never saw anything that could be described as racist or whatever reason was given for the ban. It was an out and out right wing channel alright but that shouldn't be a reason to ban it. Should it?

I'm actually a bit taken back by it as I never really listened to the outcry about YouTube banning channels as I had presumed they must have been in violation of their terms but I actually watched a good few of his videos and didn't see anything over the top at all.

Whether you believe me or not makes no difference. The channel is gone now

Kimsang

john4321 wrote: »

don't agree with accounts being blocked or deleted without reason but usually it's caused by something that breaks the T&C that users sign up to.

Actually by most accounts, especially after what Pewdiepie did, Youtube are removing these 'controversial' creators because of the vocal woke minority that petition the sponsors. (or at least was demonetizing them)

That's why Youtube's T&C are so vague, so they can implement them when it suits.

hetuzozaho

Kimsang wrote: »

That's why Youtube's T&C are so vague, so they can implement them when it suits.

What's the law around all that stuff actually. Do youtube and twitter have to cater for people they don't want to cater for?

Ha Long Bay

Kimsang wrote: »

Actually by most accounts, especially after what Pewdiepie did, Youtube are removing these 'controversial' creators because of the vocal woke minority that petition the sponsors. (or at least was demonetizing them)

That's why Youtube's T&C are so vague, so they can implement them when it suits.

I think yourself and Blueshoe missed the point of my post. I know nothing about why them channels were\are blocked and not trying to debate it. I just made the comment that it is usually for breaking the T&C of signup.

I wanted to open up a more open conversation about social media in general and how it can become an echo chamber if you are only fed one side of a conversation especially without narrative.

Blueshoe

hetuzozaho wrote: »

What's the law around all that stuff actually. Do youtube and twitter have to cater for people they don't want to cater for?

I doubt it. They can delete as they see fit I presume. It's their company and platform after all

ILoveYourVibes

john4321 wrote: »

I wanted to open up a more open conversation about social media in general and how it can become an echo chamber if you are only fed one side of a conversation especially without narrative.

Correct ..i watch blair white and the young turks ..i wouldn't want to BE either of those people though.

Blueshoe

john4321 wrote: »

I think yourself and Blueshoe missed the point of my post. I know nothing about why them channels were\are blocked and not trying to debate it. I just made the comment that it is usually for breaking the T&C of signup.

I wanted to open up a more open conversation about social media in general and how it can become an echo chamber if you are only fed one side of a conversation especially without narrative.

I agree. Iv heard it said that Facebooks algorithm for example will build a feed for each person depending on what they search for and like. So you obviously will only ever see what you are interested in and will be oblivious to everything else. You end up in an echo chamber. Facebook can influence your opinion over time

hetuzozaho

Blueshoe wrote: »

I doubt it. They can delete as they see fit I presume. It's their company and platform after all

Is it that straight forward yeah? Always hear people harping on about how they police the platform. Like it's more than a company and some kind of right for all.

ILoveYourVibes

Blueshoe wrote: »

I agree. Iv heard it said that Facebooks algorithm for example will build a feed for each person depending on what they search for and like. So you obviously will only ever see what you are interested in and will be oblivious to everything else. You end up in an echo chamber. Facebook can influence your opinion over time

I am not on FB but my youtube feed (or whatever its called ) is schizophrenic!

hetuzozaho

Kimsang wrote: »

That's why Youtube's T&C are so vague, so they can implement them when it suits.

Are there similar platforms that implement things your way? Could you link to them.

Blueshoe

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Is it that straight forward yeah? Always hear people harping on about how they police the platform. Like it's more than a company and some kind of right for all.

There are plenty of calls for an internet bill of rights type thing. As it is the giant companies can do whatever they want.

Ha Long Bay

Blueshoe wrote: »

I agree. Iv heard it said that Facebooks algorithm for example will build a feed for each person depending on what they search for and like. So you obviously will only ever see what you are interested in and will be oblivious to everything else. You end up in an echo chamber. Facebook can influence your opinion over time

That's not my point it's not a big conspiracy the way you describe it its about the ability to be able to block people who question an opinion when you post a tweet.

That reply is removed so you end up hearing only the replies you agree with.

Imagine Boards was similar I post something, you reply and I block you and then all you see is a gap in the forum.

Blueshoe

john4321 wrote: »

That's not my point it's not a big conspiracy the way you describe it its about the ability to be able to block people who question an opinion when you post a tweet.

That reply is removed so you end up hearing only the replies you agree with.

Imagine Boards was similar I post something, you reply and I block you and then all you see is a gap in the forum.

Iv misunderstood you then. I'm talking about Facebook and it's feed of videos, news etc to suit an individuals "like" and search history.

Twitter on the other hand like you say gives people the ability to shut out any opinions that you don't like. Essentially an echo chamber. I don't like what you are saying = block.

Boards is a **** fest of argument but at least we can and in some cases have to stand your ground to defend your point. That's how it should be really. If you want to make a claim or point then expect someone to feed it back to you. And more sometimes.

Kimsang

hetuzozaho wrote: »

Are there similar platforms that implement things your way? Could you link to them.

By 'my way' do you mean implement their rules fairly, and have a charter that relies less on subjectivity?

You do agree having such vague rules gives them the right to treat people unfairly.

Ha Long Bay

Blueshoe wrote: »

Iv misunderstood you then. I'm talking about Facebook and it's feed of videos, news etc to suit an individuals "like" and search history.

Twitter on the other hand like you say gives people the ability to shut out any opinions that you don't like. Essentially an echo chamber. I don't like what you are saying = block.

Boards is a **** fest of argument but at least we can and in some cases have to stand your ground to defend your point. That's how it should be really. If you want to make a claim or point then expect someone to feed it back to you. And more sometimes.

Not just argument but discussion the way it should be. In addition it's also a community full of anonymous people who try to help others. For example if someone asks a question they are usually not judged on a username, people just reply and try to help as best they can.

Blueshoe

john4321 wrote: »

Not just argument but discussion the way it should be. In addition it's also a community full of anonymous people who try to help others. For example if someone asks a question they are usually not judged on a username, people just reply and try to help as best they can.

True. There are plenty of threads of just anonymous people talking about all sorts. The majority of threads probably

Kimsang

john4321 wrote: »

Not just argument but discussion the way it should be. In addition it's also a community full of anonymous people who try to help others. For example if someone asks a question they are usually not judged on a username, people just reply and try to help as best they can.

Youtube really has been the best social media platform for free speech, and fair treatment for all, at least until the first adpocalypse. I was so shocked just now to find out about that "way of the world" and "iconoclast" channels had been deleted I had to ask 3 times.

hetuzozaho

Kimsang wrote: »

By 'my way' do you mean implement their rules fairly, and have a charter that relies less on subjectivity?

I mean platforms you don't feel unfairly treated on.

Ha Long Bay

Kimsang wrote: »

Youtube really has been the best social media platform for free speech, and fair treatment for all, at least until the first adpocalypse. I was so shocked just now to find out about that "way of the world" and "iconoclast" channels had been deleted I had to ask 3 times.

Please dont include me in this debate I thought that I had explained my position.

Kimsang

hetuzozaho wrote: »

I mean platforms you don't feel unfairly treated on.

Why are you personalizing everything? Have I expressed that I have been unfairly treated on platforms online?

Youtube changed its T&C in June of 2019 just 2 months ago, so I'm still waiting to see how they implement them.

I do not use other platforms.

Kimsang

john4321 wrote: »

Please dont include me in this debate I thought that I had explained my position.

I didn't and you I believe I understand your position now. I was just expanding upon the points you made and explaining more in depth how they lead to echo chambers. But sorry for any offense caused.