Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Apparently... he wasn't immune to censorship...

I can't watch the video. Player issues. Tried different options as well :(

 

Edit ; update.. apparently I am being censored and I can't see Youtube videos now.

Edit2: It was a update thing for some reason... (only causing issues with Youtube... wonder what was that)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By Kendo 2
      Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship (official whitehouse.gov link)
    • By Kendo 2
      U.S, Senator Josh Hawly (R Missouri) has introduced a new bill which specifically addresses the question of 'big tech' companies like FaceBook, Google and Twitter being either platforms or publishers.  In a nutshell, Twitter claims immunity under Section 230 of the Commutations Decency Act (1996) and they censor users at the same time.  Sen. Hawly proposes that they are either a utility (like AT&T) or they're a publisher; they cannot be both.  The bill also addresses algorithms used by search engines (like Google) that skew search results or otherwise manipulate searches.
      PDF of the Proposed Bill
      Article From FOX News
      Article from CNBC
    • By Kendo 2
      The title of this video interested me and while watching it I had an epiphany as to why NSFWMods is the way it is.  Partly by design and partly by happy accident, the site isn't attractive to regressive Leftists and SJWS.  And this is a good thing.
      Here's the video; and as a litmus test look at other game sites you're familiar with to see if anything talked about applies.
       
    • By Kendo 2
      In an AP wire report, a Supreme Court ruling on Monday 20.06.2017 reaffirms that 'offensive speech' is Constitutionally protected free speech.  The unanimous 8-0 ruling is a major victory for those with dissenting opinions.  Basically the ruling boils down to 'you might not like what I have to say but I have the right to say it' AND the U.S. Government doesn't have 'speech' as defined by the Constitution.  Not only will this affect trademarks as in the context of the case, but the ruling can also be applied to state and local governments trying to enact 'no hate speech' or 'anti-cyber bullying' legislation.

      MY OPINION
       
×
×
  • Create New...