The Sargon of Akkad thread

Malone

Pelican
Gold Member
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Thersites said:
Translation, Kim is waiting for the right moment to screw over Youtube. Everything is being setup and ready for launch day for the killing blow.

Ridiculous. There's basically 0 tech barrier to entry for a Youtube clone these days. The problem is that after you launch your clone, you're still not Youtube. (See Vimeo, minds, whatever other ones.)

To say that Kim Dot Com is getting ready for the knockout blow is laughable. At best he'd have a competitor, a small one.

The only thing that can kill YT right now is itself.
 

Thersites

Kingfisher
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Malone said:
The only thing that can kill YT right now is itself.

More specifically when YT kills itself when it becomes full blown echo chamber of SJWism and incompetence. It current success comes from its ease of use, popularity and ad revenue it gives to its creators to help make more content. YT will destroy itself regardless of the warning put out by the creators on the website as they plead with management at its current trajectory.

I'm not expecting Kim to roll out anything in the near future or go through with his threat of making a new site. Its wishful thinking on my part for me to get a laugh. If he has all the parts available to make an easy to use website similar to YT, he maybe able to pull it off. Maybe.
 
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Are there not any popular alternatives to youtube right now that aren't as leftist?

Anyone who is tired of Twitter should check out GAB.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Any serious threat to Youtube will simply have their app tossed out of GooglePlay and the AppleStore. The grounds will be "does not do enough to protect users from hatespeech".

The tech monopolies get broken up with anti-trust suits or they dominate forever.

There will be no serious grassroots competition while the hardware is fundamentally intertwined with the software for the average schmuck pulling a phone off a shelf at Kmart, jamming a sim card in it and wanting to watch funny dog videos.
 

Suits

 
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Aurini said:
Before I suggest a solution, let me address a false argument: the "Free Speech only applies to the government, lol!" No, it's been long established case-law that you can't be denied vitals services based upon your political opinions (H/T Matt Forney):

The reality is that U.S. law already has a precedent for forcing both edge providers like Google and Twitter as well as ISPs to allow any and all speech on their platforms, making net neutrality completely unnecessary. Contrary to the leftist/libertarian argument that these corporations can ban whoever they like due to the “free market,” the Constitution establishes set limits on how private entities can behave towards those who use their property.

In 1946, the Supreme Court decided the case of Marsh v. Alabama, in which a Jehovah’s Witness was arrested for trespassing because she was distributing religious literature in Chickasaw, Alabama, a town that was wholly owned by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation. Marsh argued that because the town’s roads and sidewalks were the only means by which she could exercise her freedom of speech—and because the town of Chickasaw had been open to public use in all other respects—the trespassing arrest violated her rights under the First Amendment.

In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Marsh’s favor. Justice Hugo Black decreed that private entities do not have the right to ban speech on their property if they happen to own a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. Black also argued that the more that private entities open their property up to public use, the fewer rights they have to control or ban what people do on that property.

So no, what Google is doing is not legal.

If Google is clearly violating your constitutional rights, then sue them.

If you can't find a lawyer in the US willing to take on a landmark free speech case pro bono, then your case is pretty weak.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Styx is one of the few who has been extremely correct about what is happening, and predicted that this kind of attack was imminent....and that would be directed against EVERYONE who is competing with the legacy media.

Notably, progressive sites (the kind run by actual progressives, not neocon shills with identity politics) like TheInterecept are also coming under more aggressive media attack the past month or so

What this means is that they're panicking because it means they're losing the battle.
 
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Leonard D Neubache said:
Any serious threat to Youtube will simply have their app tossed out of GooglePlay and the AppleStore. The grounds will be "does not do enough to protect users from hatespeech".

The tech monopolies get broken up with anti-trust suits or they dominate forever.

There will be no serious grassroots competition while the hardware is fundamentally intertwined with the software for the average schmuck pulling a phone off a shelf at Kmart, jamming a sim card in it and wanting to watch funny dog videos.

That is what happened to GAB with Apple.
 

demolition

Woodpecker
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Thersites said:
Malone said:
The only thing that can kill YT right now is itself.

More specifically when YT kills itself when it becomes full blown echo chamber of SJWism and incompetence. It current success comes from its ease of use, popularity and ad revenue it gives to its creators to help make more content. YT will destroy itself regardless of the warning put out by the creators on the website as they plead with management at its current trajectory.

I'm not expecting Kim to roll out anything in the near future or go through with his threat of making a new site. Its wishful thinking on my part for me to get a laugh. If he has all the parts available to make an easy to use website similar to YT, he maybe able to pull it off. Maybe.

A big part of the problem is advertising. Advertising on the internet is literally controlled by Google and Facebook, who have eaten any competitors and are relentless in destroying any potential threats to their duopoly. Since almost all internet platforms are ad supported, this gives them power of the purse over everything you see. YouTube is already a money-losing enterprise (although, like Hollywood, I don't trust reports of precisely how unprofitable it is. YouTube likely earns a small profit for Google even if this is shuffled in to Google/Alphabet's other properties).

Regardless, how will another video-sharing site succeed? GAFA (Google/Amazon/Facebook/Apple) can simply pull the ads that power anything they don't like and kill off its profitability.
 

DarkTriad

Ostrich
Gold Member
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Tytalus said:
Well... I think Im Going to move on to proton mail. And get rid of as many Google apps as I can.

It isn't even protest, it's self defense from future attacks.
 

DarkTriad

Ostrich
Gold Member
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

"A YouTube spokeswoman recently admitted that some videos were being removed in error, attributing it to teething problems caused by their recent hiring of 10,000 new human moderators.

“Newer members may misapply some of our policies resulting in mistaken removals” admitted the spokeswoman. “We’ll reinstate any videos that were removed in error.”"

Maybe if they didn't engage in such virulent discrimination against alternative viewpoints in hiring then their moderators wouldn't be so biased. On the other hand, this is probably exactly what they were intended/trained to do.
 

DarkTriad

Ostrich
Gold Member
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

AWright said:
https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones/status/970130051910991873
"The Alex Jones channel with billions of views is frozen. We have been told it will be deleted tomorrow and all 33 thousands videos will be erased. We just set up this new page subscribe if you want to see what the SPLC wants censored.."
Alex Jones channel is being deleted.

Well now we know why Alex Jones was kow towing so bad on previous issues. They've had him by the balls the whole time.
 

rpg

Ostrich
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Where is the DOJ? They should be breaking up the youtube monopoly.
 

Easy_C

Peacock
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

No....this thing with Alex Jones is bizarre. He’s been free from any kind of censorship or serious attacks in stark contrast to people like Roosh, Milo, etc. almost so much so as to lend credence to him being controlled opposition or a useful idiot.

That all changed VERY fast the moment Infowars started attacking the Douglas school shooting narrative. It was like a switch got flipped overnights the moment they started digging on Hogg.

I wonder if that means they stepped on a rabbit hole that needs further exploring,
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

DJ-Matt said:
Sidney Crosby said:
Are there not any popular alternatives to youtube right now that aren't as leftist?

Roosh and others have started uploading copies to BitChute:

www.bitchute.com

These are valuable alternative options, but the term alternative in this case is not synonymous with equal. In pre-1990 terms it's the equivalent of being blacklisted by print media conglomerates and deciding to run your laser printer night and day to keep a few thousand people on snail-mail updates. In pre-2000 terms it's like having your web-site shut down and being forced to distribute your message through an extensive email list which can only grow by word of mouth.

What is genuinely needed is a landmark case through the SCOTUS that establishes whether places like Youtube are "First Ammendment Zones" or not. If not then that needs to be established firmly because Youtube wouldn't be able to have it both ways. If Youtube is not just a massive and ongoing open-mike night then they are fundamentally liable for every video posted, which should open them to roughly a metric shit-ton of slander suits.

Technically if some whack-job from Portland posts a video which levels slander against Roosh (for example) then Youtube is liable, since they specifically claim ownership of all content anyway and functionally they're the ones broadcasting it. It would be the equivalent of a free-to-air television station broadcasting a recording of a homeless man levelling slander against whoever and thinking they could wash their hands of it "because we're technically not an affiliate of that homeless man".

No dice. I think that the only power the little guys have to at least bring these digital megacorps to heel is to toss law-suits at them for everything.

Google has already been successfully sued for slander a number of times in many regions and districts because their search page turned up a result with associated text from some podunk blog that claimed "person x did y". It didn't matter that nobody at Google penned the article that the search engine dredged up. The words turned up on www.google.com/etcetcetc so Google was found liable, which is perfectly fair when you think about it.

If some podunk blogger wrote an article titled "Leonard D Neubache raped a dog" then nobody but the readership would see it. But Google allows for that podunk blog to spread slander merely by searching for "Leonard D Neubache" and even if nobody was searching for a dog-rape story, the first return on page one would be the words "Leonard D Neubache raped a dog".

This is a case where we need more law suits, not less. Death by a thousand cuts, even if the plaintiffs only break even. This is even open to serious abuse. Start an anonymous channel and spread slander on the back of a trending issue on behalf of your fellow thought-criminal, allowing them to instantly start litigation proceedings.

In time Google et al would be begging to fire their censors in return for First Amendment protections.
 

kamoz

Kingfisher
Gold Member
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Easy_C said:
No....this thing with Alex Jones is bizarre. He’s been free from any kind of censorship or serious attacks in stark contrast to people like Roosh, Milo, etc. almost so much so as to lend credence to him being controlled opposition or a useful idiot.

That all changed VERY fast the moment Infowars started attacking the Douglas school shooting narrative. It was like a switch got flipped overnights the moment they started digging on Hogg.

I wonder if that means they stepped on a rabbit hole that needs further exploring,

Interesting observation. I don’t keep up with good ol’ AJ too much but a couple weeks ago (Here) I was very surprised to see the MSM virulently attacking the crisis actor conspiracy, to the point that I now believe it might carry some legitimacy where I didn’t consider it before. This coupled with the follow up of companies like Facebook cracking down on this “conspiracy” for the good of all these helpless people.

If this stuff didn’t matter they wouldn’t be giving away their position like this so readily. There are bigger fish to fry. In recent years the boldness of the elite has been staggering, largest of which is the migrant invasion of Europe. The fact that they are rushing is probably better for us in the long run but it still makes me nervous not knowing why.
 

demolition

Woodpecker
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Leonard D Neubache said:
DJ-Matt said:
Sidney Crosby said:
Are there not any popular alternatives to youtube right now that aren't as leftist?

Roosh and others have started uploading copies to BitChute:

www.bitchute.com

These are valuable alternative options, but the term alternative in this case is not synonymous with equal. In pre-1990 terms it's the equivalent of being blacklisted by print media conglomerates and deciding to run your laser printer night and day to keep a few thousand people on snail-mail updates. In pre-2000 terms it's like having your web-site shut down and being forced to distribute your message through an extensive email list which can only grow by word of mouth.

What is genuinely needed is a landmark case through the SCOTUS that establishes whether places like Youtube are "First Ammendment Zones" or not. If not then that needs to be established firmly because Youtube wouldn't be able to have it both ways. If Youtube is not just a massive and ongoing open-mike night then they are fundamentally liable for every video posted, which should open them to roughly a metric shit-ton of slander suits.

Technically if some whack-job from Portland posts a video which levels slander against Roosh (for example) then Youtube is liable, since they specifically claim ownership of all content anyway and functionally they're the ones broadcasting it. It would be the equivalent of a free-to-air television station broadcasting a recording of a homeless man levelling slander against whoever and thinking they could wash their hands of it "because we're technically not an affiliate of that homeless man".

No dice. I think that the only power the little guys have to at least bring these digital megacorps to heel is to toss law-suits at them for everything.

Google has already been successfully sued for slander a number of times in many regions and districts because their search page turned up a result with associated text from some podunk blog that claimed "person x did y". It didn't matter that nobody at Google penned the article that the search engine dredged up. The words turned up on www.google.com/etcetcetc so Google was found liable, which is perfectly fair when you think about it.

If some podunk blogger wrote an article titled "Leonard D Neubache raped a dog" then nobody but the readership would see it. But Google allows for that podunk blog to spread slander merely by searching for "Leonard D Neubache" and even if nobody was searching for a dog-rape story, the first return on page one would be the words "Leonard D Neubache raped a dog".

This is a case where we need more law suits, not less. Death by a thousand cuts, even if the plaintiffs only break even. This is even open to serious abuse. Start an anonymous channel and spread slander on the back of a trending issue on behalf of your fellow thought-criminal, allowing them to instantly start litigation proceedings.

In time Google et al would be begging to fire their censors in return for First Amendment protections.

Indeed. The Communications Decency Act section 230 protects websites such as YouTube from lawsuits so long as the proprieter is not taking an active role in editorializing the content of what is said. Since Google is now editorializing, they can and should be held liable.

Now the downside is that Google has a lot of lawyers so most suits against them would not be successful. It would take a coordinated barrage to really succeed against them. However, in a country full of activist judges I am sure there are enough who are hungry to stick it to the big dogs that they'd lose quite a bit in the defense.
 

NightVale

Sparrow
RE: Google Disables Sargon of Akkad's Account Without Warning.

Sargon's back and is saying it the takedown was most likely due to a secondary channel he had. He didn't fight some BS copyright claims a year ago.

It's a nice little reminder to keep things as separate as possible so you can't be taken down with a single blow.
 
Top