Talk Radio Banned from the Platforms of YouTube for Criticising Lockdowns
Scroll to see replies
@ByEeek
You do realise why Talk Radio was banned? Or why YouTubers are banned sometimes or videos are taken down.
You do realise why Talk Radio was banned? Or why YouTubers are banned sometimes or videos are taken down.
Original post by Lucifer323
@ByEeek
You do realise why Talk Radio was banned? Or why YouTubers are banned sometimes or videos are taken down.
You do realise why Talk Radio was banned? Or why YouTubers are banned sometimes or videos are taken down.
Yes - they break the community rules and standards as set out clearly by YouTube. But like all things in life there are grey areas and sometimes things fall through the gaps. The social platforms are in a fight to stave off regulation and have a tricky balancing act to perform. On the one hand, if they allow too many conspiracy nutjobs to put forward their views they risk being regulated. But on the other hand if they start editing their platforms they become a media outlet and not a platform and end up being regulated, something they don't want.
Original post by Joleee
is there a link to tell/prove the story of the OP so i have something substantial to argue against?
It was all over the net for a couple of days. Just a simple Google search will verify it.
Why do you have to argue against??
In this case if you argue against means you are preoccupied and in favour of censorship. Is this what you have learnt in the School of Law?? I think you said you have studied law of you are studying law.
Original post by ByEeek
Yes - they break the community rules and standards as set out clearly by YouTube. But like all things in life there are grey areas and sometimes things fall through the gaps. The social platforms are in a fight to stave off regulation and have a tricky balancing act to perform. On the one hand, if they allow too many conspiracy nutjobs to put forward their views they risk being regulated. But on the other hand if they start editing their platforms they become a media outlet and not a platform and end up being regulated, something they don't want.
In this particular case an entire Radio Station was taken down for a couple of hours.
What was the community rules that they broke?? What conspiracy nutjob are you taking about??
Maybe this Radio Station is doing something that most other media ought to do, i.e criticising the Government fiercely for their failures and omissions?!
As far as I see they have given platform to several scientists and health experts who have been excluded from the mainstream for no other reason other than they are against lockdowns, against the measures, against the paranoia and hysteria propagated by the mainstream, and against the entire campaign of fear.
That's hardly conspiracy nutjobs as you say or hardly any rules broken.
The nonsensical arguments that we are all at risk and we are all going to die had to be challenged and they have been challenged very well by several scientists and others not only in the platform provided by Talk Radio but elsewhere.
As I have told you earlier the entire campaign is based on fear and terror, as well as in the fact that most people are irrelevant with science and public health matters, and can be easily manipulated.
On another note it is ok for those who are affluent to be ok with lockdowns or you who are getting normally. But not find for those who their jobs have been cut, reduced, or lost in general.
But I forgot... You have claimed that it's better to loose your job rather than die or imcapacitated... As everyone is at the same risk according to you...
The wrong stuff and the usual wrong and unsubstantiated arguments.
@TCA2b
@Megacent
@PilgrimOfTruth
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Joleee
is there a link to tell/prove the story of the OP so i have something substantial to argue against?
For second time, I am intrigued why do you have to argue against?! Are you their solicitor?? If you were and they paid you then fine by me.
Original post by Megacent
When those doctors, nurses, and virologists have lied through their teeth, can you blame people for not trusting them?
Thank you for making my point more effectively that I ever could!
It seems like only yesterday that Comical Chris was saying we'd have 4000 deaths a day. Now he knew that figure was false when he said it, it wasn't a good faith error or estimate, he deliberately and knowingly lied to the public. Why should people trust a known liar?
Wrong.
It was a prediction of the worst-case scenario, not an absolute claim.
If Gary Lineker predicted that Spurs could beat Marine by 10 goals, would you call him "a liar who shouldn't be trusted" because they only won by 5?
Presumably you also believe the US election was stolen, the vaccine contains a microchip and aircraft vapour trails are used to spread mind-controlling drugs?
Original post by Lucifer323
However they have done a good job by giving platform to many scientists that the mainstream has excluded.
Breitbart gives a platform to political commentators that the mainstream has excluded.
Did you have a point there?
Original post by Lucifer323
Social restrictions are fine up to a certain degree and of course vaccinating the elderly and the most vulnerable. But there is a difference between social restrictions and lengthy lockdowns.
People seem willing to accept restrictions until they have to abide by them, and people trivialise the pandemic when it doesn't affect them. It is simply self-interest.
"Lengthy lockdowns" are "social restrictions".
I mean the collateral damage of these measures hasn't been assessed well.
Yes it has. Which is why the government is resisting the levels of restriction that the scientific experts are demanding. They consider the impact on the economy and people's quality of life (ie. votes) to be more important that minimising infection rates and fatalities.
This is a big issue that the Covidiot conspiracists seem to ignore. The government is not imposing restrictions, they are resisting them. If they thought it wouldn't affect their electability they would have no restrictions (apart from to protect themselves) and let the virus take its course.
Original post by Lucifer323
It was all over the net for a couple of days. Just a simple Google search will verify it.
Really? Imagine a Muslim had made a claim about Islam and said that in response to your request for verification. You'd jump all over them.
Burden of proof, dear thing.
In this case if you argue against means you are preoccupied and in favour of censorship.
Suspending a membership because of breaching the club's rules is not "censorship".
Original post by Lucifer323
In this particular case an entire Radio Station was taken down for a couple of hours.
Wrong. TalkRadio continued to broadcast to the nation without interruption. It was only their YouTube channel that was suspended.
No one has the right to a YouTube channel in the first place. Once they have one, they do not have the right to post whatever they want.
Original post by QE2
Wrong. TalkRadio continued to broadcast to the nation without interruption. It was only their YouTube channel that was suspended.
No one has the right to a YouTube channel in the first place. Once they have one, they do not have the right to post whatever they want.
No one has the right to a YouTube channel in the first place. Once they have one, they do not have the right to post whatever they want.
Yes, this is what I meant by 'taken down' in the context of their YouTube Channel. Their YouTube Channel was suspended for a couple of hours. I think it is clear from what I said and the title of the thread.
Talk Radio has been criticising the Government for the way it has handled the crisis, continuously, and despite the fact that they don't belong to the left of the political spectrum.
They have interviewed several scientists who obviously hold different views in regards to the matter.
Original post by QE2
Breitbart gives a platform to political commentators that the mainstream has excluded.
Did you have a point there?
Did you have a point there?
I don't know what Breitbart is by the way.
In addition I am not into social media at all. I don't have Facebook or Twitter accounts. I am from the old School.
I am not very good with scientists been excluded from the media or given little time in comparison to others or their videos taken down or any combination of the above.
In an older thread we discussed the same thing. The case of Dr J.Ioannidis from Stanford for example who you don't see in the mainstream at all. A top and very credible scientist who has argued against lengthy lockdowns as catastrophic. He is the one who made one of the most important reviews in relation to the fatality rates and his work is published in the bulletin of the World Health Organisation
'Infection fatality rate of Covid19 inferred from seroprevalence data'
Far from a conspiracy theorist as some users here have claimed before and far from a nutjob or a Covidiot.
Original post by QE2
People seem willing to accept restrictions until they have to abide by them, and people trivialise the pandemic when it doesn't affect them. It is simply self-interest.
"Lengthy lockdowns" are "social restrictions".
Yes it has. Which is why the government is resisting the levels of restriction that the scientific experts are demanding. They consider the impact on the economy and people's quality of life (ie. votes) to be more important that minimising infection rates and fatalities.
This is a big issue that the Covidiot conspiracists seem to ignore. The government is not imposing restrictions, they are resisting them. If they thought it wouldn't affect their electability they would have no restrictions (apart from to protect themselves) and let the virus take its course.
"Lengthy lockdowns" are "social restrictions".
Yes it has. Which is why the government is resisting the levels of restriction that the scientific experts are demanding. They consider the impact on the economy and people's quality of life (ie. votes) to be more important that minimising infection rates and fatalities.
This is a big issue that the Covidiot conspiracists seem to ignore. The government is not imposing restrictions, they are resisting them. If they thought it wouldn't affect their electability they would have no restrictions (apart from to protect themselves) and let the virus take its course.
Lengthy lockdowns are extreme measures that have the potential to damage the fabric of society as we know it. Several scientists have argued against lengthy lockdowns on the basis that the damage they create far outweigh any benefits.
The World Health Organisation doesn't recommend lockdowns as far as I know.
The Government is ludicrous. There is no doubt about this. However the epidemic cannot be dealt with us hiding in our homes indefinitely. Social restrictions are fine but not lengthy lockdowns.
For the epidemic you need a very good health system, very good primary care, good overall health for a large number of the population so they can develop natural immunity, good medicines for those who have been infected and are in the high risk groups so they can get clinical relief and their lives can be saved, and vaccines.
It seems that the message is that vaccines are the solution, when in reality they are part of the solution.
There is a something wrong when scientists and health experts are placed in the group of conspiracy theorists and vaccine denialists. I mean apart from not being true, is also ridiculous.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by QE2
Really? Imagine a Muslim had made a claim about Islam and said that in response to your request for verification. You'd jump all over them.
Burden of proof, dear thing.
Suspending a membership because of breaching the club's rules is not "censorship".
Burden of proof, dear thing.
Suspending a membership because of breaching the club's rules is not "censorship".
There is a difference between Muslims making their usual claims that cannot be substantiated and challenged and the case in hand that can be verified very easily.
Here is a link but it is needless.. I chose RT as a source to avoid choosing British newspapers that belong to the right or left..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/uk/511559-youtube-removes-talkradio-lockdown/amp/
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by Lucifer323
Yes, this is what I meant by 'taken down' in the context of their YouTube Channel. Their YouTube Channel was suspended for a couple of hours. I think it is clear from what I said and the title of the thread.
You said "an entire Radio Station was taken down for a couple of hours".
This was false.
Talk Radio has been criticising the Government for the way it has handled the crisis, continuously, and despite the fact that they don't belong to the left of the political spectrum.
And yet the radio station has not been censored or "taken down", so not sure what your argument is.
They have interviewed several scientists who obviously hold different views in regards to the matter.
When they interview these scientists do they clearly state that they are in the minority and are going against the scientific consensus? Do they also have other scientists on to challenge their claims?
Original post by Lucifer323
I am not very good with scientists been excluded from the media or given little time in comparison to others or their videos taken down or any combination of the above.
So you believe that scientists who oppose evolution and support creationism should be given equal time and weight in the media? What about in schools?
Similarly, any scientist who opposes vaccinations? Remember what happened last time?
In an older thread we discussed the same thing. The case of Dr J.Ioannidis from Stanford for example who you don't see in the mainstream at all. A top and very credible scientist who has argued against lengthy lockdowns as catastrophic. He is the one who made one of the most important reviews in relation to the fatality rates and his work is published in the bulletin of the World Health Organisation
Hid work has been criticised by other experts in the field as flawed.
Ironically, you are displaying the confirmation bias of the religionist here. You are ignoring the consensus in favour of the small minority that validates your established conclusion. You should know better.
If you do a News Google for him, you will find dozens of results, including the MSM. This "but the media won't report it" claim is another common fallacy employed by religionists and the right.
Original post by Lucifer323
Lengthy lockdowns are extreme measures that have the potential to damage the fabric of society as we know it. Several scientists have argued against lengthy lockdowns on the basis that the damage they create far outweigh any benefits.
The World Health Organisation doesn't recommend lockdowns as far as I know.
The Government is ludicrous. There is no doubt about this. However the epidemic cannot be dealt with us hiding in our homes indefinitely. Social restrictions are fine but not lengthy lockdowns.
For the epidemic you need a very good health system, very good primary care, good overall health for a large number of the population so they can develop natural immunity, good medicines for those who have been infected and are in the high risk groups so they can get clinical relief and their lives can be saved, and vaccines.
It seems that the message is that vaccines are the solution, when in reality they are part of the solution.
There is a something wrong when scientists and health experts are placed in the group of conspiracy theorists and vaccine denialists. I mean apart from not being true, is also ridiculous.
The World Health Organisation doesn't recommend lockdowns as far as I know.
The Government is ludicrous. There is no doubt about this. However the epidemic cannot be dealt with us hiding in our homes indefinitely. Social restrictions are fine but not lengthy lockdowns.
For the epidemic you need a very good health system, very good primary care, good overall health for a large number of the population so they can develop natural immunity, good medicines for those who have been infected and are in the high risk groups so they can get clinical relief and their lives can be saved, and vaccines.
It seems that the message is that vaccines are the solution, when in reality they are part of the solution.
There is a something wrong when scientists and health experts are placed in the group of conspiracy theorists and vaccine denialists. I mean apart from not being true, is also ridiculous.
You seem confused.
The general consensus amongst scientists and healthcare workers is that there should be more severe restrictions, and they should be imposed for longer.
The government is opposed to this and has tried minimise restrictions.
Original post by Lucifer323
There is a difference between Muslims making their usual claims that cannot be substantiated and challenged and the case in hand that can be verified very easily.
Here is a link but it is needless.. I chose RT as a source to avoid choosing British newspapers that belong to the right or left..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/uk/511559-youtube-removes-talkradio-lockdown/amp/
Here is a link but it is needless.. I chose RT as a source to avoid choosing British newspapers that belong to the right or left..
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.rt.com/uk/511559-youtube-removes-talkradio-lockdown/amp/
You think that RT is not a biased source?
Accuracy in Media called RT "the well-known disinformation outlet for Russian propaganda".
Reporters Without Borders called it "state controlled information"
A study by the Columbia School of Journalism concluded "RT ignores the inherent traits of journalism—checking sources, relaying facts, attempting honest reportage. You’ll find 'experts' lacking in expertise, conspiracy theories without backing, and, from time to time, outright fabrication for the sake of pushing a pro-Kremlin line".
Original post by QE2
You said "an entire Radio Station was taken down for a couple of hours".
This was false.
And yet the radio station has not been censored or "taken down", so not sure what your argument is.
When they interview these scientists do they clearly state that they are in the minority and are going against the scientific consensus? Do they also have other scientists on to challenge their claims?
This was false.
And yet the radio station has not been censored or "taken down", so not sure what your argument is.
When they interview these scientists do they clearly state that they are in the minority and are going against the scientific consensus? Do they also have other scientists on to challenge their claims?
I don't think scientific consensus has been reached in relation to lockdowns. Far from it. Yes everyone knows that these scientists are against extreme measures, including lockdowns. The entire Radio Station was taken down.. from the platforms of YouTube.. And this is explained already in the title of this thread.
Yes, I know what I have said, but that was in the context of the title of the thread.
(edited 3 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
