Mike B being banned from YouTube

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

zimmerstutzen

70 Cal.
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
5,629
Reaction score
682
IIRC Texas passed a law that social media could be sued for damages if it canceled a posting, thread, etc, solely because of it's political nature. Find a texas lawyer and file suit there.

I recently shared a joke photo that said duct tape is not good for everything and showed a roll of duct tape in a toilet paper holder. I got a warning two weeks later that Facebook determined it to be bullying and a violation of community standards. No people or groups were mention or pictured. No further explanation or appeal available.

A year ago, on a tractor facebook page, a fellow posted about a mechanical problem concerning a fuel injection failure. Facebook's computer program plastered the post with a Covid-19 false information notice. One of the hunting and fishing forums I visit. will not let us use the word "balls" in connection with muzzle loaders.

Last fall, a guy posted something that sounded like a stupid thing to do, so I responded, "That would be shooting yourself in the foot." Got me a 30 day suspension., which was lifted, not because of appeal, but because I wrote a letter threatening legal action. Much of this crap would stop, if a state legislature would declare such large media as public meeting places or other determination like a public utility to preserve freedom of speech.
 

manbat

32 Cal
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
29
Reaction score
82
YouTube is in the process of banning Mike
I truly enjoy Mike's videos, but in the grand scheme of YouTube, he's smaller than small potatoes. YouTube is a private company. Pretending that it is, or ever will be a forum for free speech and all ideas is a waste of time. Arguing that it should be regulated flies in the face of free speech and private business ownership.

Business owners are usually smart enough not to walk into the town square and publically state their opinions if they don't want the backlash. It's been that way since the beginning. I feel bad for Mike but unfortunately, it looks like the result is from absolute ignorance on his part and a lack of understanding of what and where the town square is in today's world. Nothing wrong with taking a stand in the town square, but then don't whine about the consequences, and don't be ignorant about the reality before spewing.

Youtube isn't in the process of banning Mike, the people focusing the time/energy to leverage YouTube's rules - whether good or bad - are getting him banned.
 

golden sky

40 Cal
Joined
Nov 5, 2021
Messages
227
Reaction score
120
They are trying to eliminate ALL gun-related content!! I've predicted this!
more than that, they are elliminating alternative fact based truth in competition with the media and medicine and health.. this is bigger than guns. they are stripping future generations of real knowlege, and replacing it with false knowlege thats semi funcionable within the NWO cage
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2022
Messages
46
Reaction score
92
Location
PA
more than that, they are elliminating alternative fact based truth in competition with the media and medicine and health.. this is bigger than guns. they are stripping future generations of real knowlege, and replacing it with false knowlege thats semi funcionable within the NWO cage
1984, ministry of truth.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2022
Messages
33
Reaction score
33
Location
Washington State
Respectfully, YouTube is almost an essential service these days.

But more than this, it is now a voice (or should be) for anyone who wants to engage in lawful expression of opinion. It's critical that it be protected.
Well said, Maillemaker. I wish YouTube could be managed for the public good, but I don't think that would work either. Just look at NPR and USPS. Harvard MBAs have ruined just about everything.

The best thing we can do for Mike is get as many people as possible to subscribe to his channel.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
105
Reaction score
205
That's an accurate assessment/description of their rights as a private Corp. It does not however make it right to use that nearly monopolistic power to muzzle some but not others. Recall a couple of yrs. ago when a 'walk away' movement from f/book to Parler was instituted ? Within a week or two Parler was cut off from it's servers or some such thing by these monoliths, and despite a valiant effort, never recovered and were crushed. So, the user has the right to walk away but their destination is eliminated as they arrive.
 

maillemaker

40 Cal
Joined
Feb 3, 2022
Messages
311
Reaction score
438
I respectfully disagree. It is essential that it be rendered irrelevant through replacement by better, less-ideological alternatives.

I like that MB is relocating to Rumble! I understand that, given the great number of his videos, this must be a daunting task.
I understand what you are saying, but the underlying problem remains, and it is this:

When the internet was new, there was this sense that it would be the ultimate democratization of free speech. Anyone and everyone could have a voice. A voice that would transcend borders.

But what has happened is that nearly every single piece of the internet infrastructure is privately owned. The company that provides you with access to the internet (your ISP). The companies that own the cables that the internet data passes through. The companies that own the servers that host web sites. The companies that own the web sites. On top of this, many of these companies use advertisers to pay their bills, which means the advertisers care what kind of content the people they are paying advertising space for allow.

As we all know, the first amendment only applies to the government. It does not apply to private entities.

And therin is the problem. If you say something that any piece of the privately-owned internet finds embarrassing, politically incorrect, or costs them money, they can and do censor you for it.

You might think you are safe by running to a different web site, but that is a false sense of security. If the sever company hosting that web site doesn't like the web site, they will simply yank their hosting. This has happened to many high-profile web sites already. Or, if the web site charges money, payment processors will yank their service, leaving them with few options for bringing in revenue to keep running.

Then, too, there is the problem that while the web site you run to today might claim to be all for your cause du jour, there is nothing that says that once they grow and get big and start raking in big-dollar advertising money that they might change their mind and shut you down tomorrow. This happens on reddit all the time. Some long-running, uncomfortable-topic, subreddit will get a story run about it in the New York Times or whatever and then the admins on reddit nuke the subreddit due to the bad press and the hit on advertising dollars. As soon as you start costing someone money, POOF you're gone.

I don't know specifically what the answer is. From a high level, I agree with Elon Musk when he said that generally speaking, if it's lawful speech it should be allowed. However, I do believe in moderated forums like this one. We would not want someone to come here and start talking about modern firearms and be untouchable simply because their speech was lawful. We certainly would not want anti-gun trolls to come here and take over and be powerless to kick them off simply because their speech was lawful.

I do believe that some kind of "Common Carrier" law must be brought to bear on social media platforms once they reach a certain number of users. Perhaps small niche web sites like this one are exempt from being unable to censor. But if you are on a vast, open public social media platform, like YouTube, or Twitter, or Facebook, or Instagram, then as long as the content you post is lawful where you reside, it should not be able to be censored.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2022
Messages
33
Reaction score
33
Location
Washington State
You all are complaining about privately owned entities. You pay nothing for their services and some users get paid for supplying their content. None of these are under any obligation to protect your "freedom of speech". They can ban and edit any content under their purview.
Yes, no, not really, and sort of. I pay a subscription fee to YouTube so I don't have to see their advertisements. Others pay by watching those ads. We all pay with our private information, which they vacuum up while we're watching. There are limits to how much they can infringe on our rights, but you are right in that corporations are not democracies. They can ban content but they can't edit it, but you give up many rights when you post something there. They can demonetize and change their monetization policy at any time, just like Exxon can raise the price of a gallon of gas to $5 while their costs would indicate a "fair price" is below $4. We can find an alternative, and when enough people move to that alternative they will buy it, and then we'll have to find another.
 

manbat

32 Cal
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
29
Reaction score
82
There are limits to how much they can infringe on our rights....but you give up many rights when you post something there.
No there isn't and sorry, you don't give up any rights when you post on YouTube because you have no rights or recourse on YouTube. Read the user agreement that's a click-through when registering.

We are so all so unhappy with the way Mike B. is being treated and the state of the world. But how many of us had a YouTube account before reading this post that is so distraught over the situation, fed up with YouTube policies, and canceled our individual account as a result?...?....?

Therein lies the reason why YouTube can and will continue its practices, and why the cancelation of poor Mike, if it happens, is a non-issue.

Besides, Mike is likely monetized and making money from YouTube. He doesn't get a choice of adhering to their policies if he wants the cash. Lots of places to post his videos for the good of the BP community for no payment if that was his prime objective.
 

Mustang65

40 Cal
Joined
Jul 6, 2022
Messages
245
Reaction score
422
Location
Colorado
It gets more ridiculous by the day! Makes me angry.

2ceb3841d77a25eeb52e68730e003faa.gif
It's part of the Democrat Regime Censorship!
 

zimmerstutzen

70 Cal.
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
5,629
Reaction score
682
I truly enjoy Mike's videos, but in the grand scheme of YouTube, he's smaller than small potatoes. YouTube is a private company. Pretending that it is, or ever will be a forum for free speech and all ideas is a waste of time. Arguing that it should be regulated flies in the face of free speech and private business ownership.

Business owners are usually smart enough not to walk into the town square and publically state their opinions if they don't want the backlash. It's been that way since the beginning. I feel bad for Mike but unfortunately, it looks like the result is from absolute ignorance on his part and a lack of understanding of what and where the town square is in today's world. Nothing wrong with taking a stand in the town square, but then don't whine about the consequences, and don't be ignorant about the reality before spewing.

Youtube isn't in the process of banning Mike, the people focusing the time/energy to leverage YouTube's rules - whether good or bad - are getting him banned.

However, what you are sadly missing, is that if a liberal group has conspired to act to get certain conservatives ousted from social media through joint and concerted complaints, that is a violation of civil rights under federal law. Liberals lose no time filing civil rights suits. It is time conservatives do the same. Schedule a pre litigation records deposition concerning the complaints and complainants along with the internal documents at Youtube. Then look up the complainants See what the common link is. I'll bet there are all on the same liberal forum of some kind and have all agreed to single him out, even if it is only two or three individuals.

The other thing conservatives are the worst at, is getting together a concerted action to complain and threaten to boycott unless Mike's videos are brought back. Those who scream most get action from some of these social media personnel Use the same tactics as the liberals. Multiple complaints by dozens of people. Frankly, I have no problem with Mike or his subject matter, I just don't care for his videos, but this gets me PO'd.
 

manbat

32 Cal
Joined
Jan 1, 2022
Messages
29
Reaction score
82
However, what you are sadly missing, is that if a liberal group has conspired to act to get certain conservatives ousted from social media through joint and concerted complaints, that is a violation of civil rights under federal law.

Not sadly missing the point, you raise a different point from Mike risking his YouTube payments because he was not willing to adhere/align to their policies. They are paying him, they make the rules and he follows if he wants their cash.

To your point, it's nothing new. No new concept or reality. There are always been better faster, more organized, more willing, and smarter groups that lead the masses. Been that way since biblical times - "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 27, 2021
Messages
120
Reaction score
241
Utreon is also a good alternative and those funding it seem to support firearms and historical preservation. Big gun channels like Forgotten Weapons and C&Rsenal have been singing their praises.
 

Latest posts

Top