Censorship on YouTube

Scroll to see replies

No that wasn't my claim. It was part of it. And not all of their videos were censored. Some videos have been taken down. And some of their interviews. Just because you can see some videos online this doesn't mean anything..

The 🦆🦆🦆 argument is reserved for Mr Burton..

What videos have been taken down by Youtube?

Original post by Lucifer323

That's certainly not evidence. Videis, links, and articles online, don't constitute any evidence as far as I am concerned.

So an article in a peer-reviewed journal wouldn't count as evidence because it was published online?

Reply 441

Lucifer323

Original post by Iñigo de Loyola

What videos have been taken down by Youtube?

So an article in a peer-reviewed journal wouldn't count as evidence because it was published online?

No, you didnt understand this one well. Peer-reviewed publications are considered a good source of information and be regarded as evidence or at least a good source. Either online or as paper.

In contrast all the above sources of infirmation claimed here such as videos, random websites, links from websites or articles that are not backed by anything other than the personal views of the authors, are not good sources of information.

These 'sources of information' are used quite often by religionists who want to prove the existence of God for example. They use videos and links from Religious sites and from elsewhere.

Reply 442

Napp

Original post by Lucifer323

Er yes they are.. there are innumerable highly respected blogs run by experts, academics and wonks that serve as sublime sources. Even an undergraduate knows this...

Reply 443

Lucifer323

Original post by Napp

Er yes they are.. there are innumerable highly respected blogs run by experts, academics and wonks that serve as sublime sources. Even an undergraduate knows this...

I am clearly not talking about such exceptions in comparison to the volumes of rubbish online.

Coming back to a question you asked a couple of replies back. The scientists I was talking about were censored on YouTube and were given much less time on TV just because they were applying common sense.

That were very critical of lengthy lockdowns as they alleged these can cripple the economy. They were critical of the fact that healthy people don't need to self-isolate or being locked for several weeks without any reason. That were critical of how the Governments were handling the pandemic and with the way entire populations were terrorised by the media.

They suggested what common sense dictates and what their training and knowledge allowed them to say. I.e healthy people to go about their lives with caution, such as social distancing, good hygiene measures, face masks where needed, and isolate & shield care homes and those who are over 65 and with underlying medical conditions.

So censorship happened because of politica reasons. Finally the Governments realised that this was and still is the best way to tackle the issue.

(edited 3 years ago)

Reply 444

username4406682

Original post by Lucifer323

I am clearly not talking about such exceptions in comparison to the volumes of rubbish online.

Reply 445

Napp

Original post by Lucifer323

Clearly you are or you wouldnt talk in absolutes. You said all of said mediums are rubbish, that statement is rubbish. There are innumerable respectable blogs and other such websites where people speak from their opinions.

Well they werent censored on Youtube (theyre still there) and by your own admission they appear on tv ergo you're being dishonest.

Good for them. Many people are and they arent silenced either...

You have yet to show where it happens. Literally the only "evidence" here is your claim, that is it. Ergo there is no evidence...

Reply 446

Lucifer323

Original post by Napp

I didn't say that all mediums are rubbish. Good blogs and sites may exist but are very few in comparison with the rubbish online.

I certainly don't conduct myself with opinions from blogs or internet sites and videos.

As for those who appeared on TV there is a huge difference in terms of how much time some scientists were given in comparison to others. The disporpotionality indicates that there is a political direction in terms of what is allowed.

Accusations of dishonesty are not really correct. Some of their interviews were removed and some videos were taken down as well as given much less time on television.

Reply 447

Lucifer323

Original post by Pinkisk

It is so sad reading the hate and bitterness in many of the replies that people are writing in response to your comments, which are always polite. Your arguments are inviting. Theirs build nothing but walls between themselves and their opponents. It is no wander that they support authoritarianism in the form of censorship. Their rhetoric is unable to win people over. It is alienating. So they spread their beliefs by way of the sword.

Your temperaments speak for your intellectual capacity and for what you stand for and theirs for their intellectual capacity and for what they stand for.

I hope that this comment would inspire them to change, perhaps adopt a more friendly approach to their discourse. This comment is mostly directed at those that are here for genuine reasons, not those driven in their arguments in this thread by personal vendettas.

Hi Pinkisk,

There seems to be some personal vendettas between users long before I joined here in February 2020. There is also a misunderstanding that because they can go ranting in one thread then the same is true for all threads either created by myself or by other users.

There was some genuine discussion and I was really interested in your debate with SHallowvale eventhough the initial argument in regards to censorship was expanded quite a lot in all directions.

Likewise with all other arguments in relation to the censored scientists on YouTube and the reasons behind that form of censorship.

Clearly some of the users here try desperately to prove me and whoever else they don't agree with, wrong, and intellectually incapable of forming arguments or debating.

Clearly censorship is an issue and it has always been an issue especially when scientists are involved.

Reply 448

Lucifer323

Original post by 1st superstar

and how do you think that police will react to this will they say "an X incident has occurred and there is a link on Twitter proving who the suspect is, but oh well we will just ignore this Twitter post as it doesn't constitute as "evidence"". You can't provide evidence for your claims simple.

Do you think this is a valid argument? There is a distinct difference between a claim made and supported by videos and links just as I have described, in contrast to an incident that may have happened and it has been discussed I'm social media. What you are describing are 'reports' and not evidence.

I will repeat this again. Videos and links don't comstitute evidence for any claims made. They could be under circumstances sources of information..

Now the Police can use CCTV evidence prosecute an individual as the closed circuit system has the ability to record people and situations.

@DiddyDec and 1st superstar

So, my way is to not depend on videos, links, and internet sites. And I don't use links. You have both argued that If someone doesn't have links, he/she couldn't make any arguments or debates and he/she is not credible. But that's a flawed position.

Now if you don't agree thats fine with me. If you think that you don't have much else to say then you don't have to be in this thread at all.

One last comment is in regards to religion and the debates there. Of course I will require scientific evidence and proof for arguments such as the existence of God or miracles. But scientific evidence has nothing to do with what you call 'evidence' here. Which is nothing more than online links and videos, which I don't use.

That's my way

(edited 3 years ago)