Please log in to view images

« prev   random   next »

4
0

List of people and sites banned or demonetized for political reasons from Wordpress/Twitter/Facebook/Instagram/Google/YouTube/Pinterest etc

By Patrick follow Patrick   2019 Jun 8, 9:24pm 2,446 views   87 comments   watch   nsfw   quote   share    


The requirements to be listed are:
1. to have been banned or demonetized from Wordpress/Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/Google or other anti-free-speech sites
2. to have a website which is not on one of the intolerant corporate/liberal sites and has content

Alex Jones https://alexjonespodcast.com/
Anne Marie Waters https://www.forbritain.uk/
Ben Shapiro https://www.dailywire.com/authors/ben-shapiro
Brigitte Gabriel https://www.actforamerica.org/
Candace Owens https://candaceowens.com/
Dylan Louis Monroe https://www.dylanlouismonroe.com/q-web.html
Heartiste, aka Roissy https://gab.com/heartiste and https://archive.is/zvx8C
Jesse Kelly https://thefederalist.com/author/jessekelly/
Laura Loomer https://lauraloomer.us/
Live Action https://www.liveaction.org/
Milo Yiannopolous https://www.dangerous.com/
Natural News https://www.naturalnews.com/
Paul Joseph Watson https://www.bitchute.com/channel/9WF6N0ecQ55u/
PJ Media https://pjmedia.com/
James O'Keefe of Project Veritas https://www.projectveritas.com/ and https://search.bitchute.com/renderer?use=bitchute-json&name=Search&login=bcadmin&key=7ea2d72b62aa4f762cc5a348ef6642b8&query=project+Veritas
Sargon of Akkad (Carl Benjamin) https://www.bitchute.com/channel/hPBWLRZXgklG/
Scott Adams https://blog.dilbert.com/
Soph https://www.bitchute.com/video/68KM8MPvTA75/
Stephen Crowder https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/
Tim Pool https://www.timcast.com/
Zero Hedge https://www.zerohedge.com/

Please add more in the comments. I'm watching this post and will add them up here.

« First    « Previous    Comments 48 - 87 of 87    Last »

49   mell   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 16, 8:47am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says
Quigley says
I’m starting to understand the mindset of the willingly brainwashed. They want above all, to make sure that people around them understand the world in the same way they do. They want to share the same illusion, delusion, or fantasy as everyone else. And they know that the best way to achieve this is to hold hard to whatever ideology that Authority is preaching, then shame and denigrate anyone with a different viewpoint.
It’s not that they disagree with you, it’s that they really want everyone to think the same way, and find it offensive when other narratives are put forward.

You see, other competing narratives break their shared fantasy about the world into tiny pieces! Rather than relaxing with a comfortable fantasy, they’re suddenly thrust into a world of unknowns, of multiple interpretations, and many possible definitions.

This is why it’s so impossible to convince one of t...


Don't be delusional. Nobody got banned ever who didn't break the law. People left on their own volition mostly because Patrick didn't give them global mod rights or because a few of their personal posts were flagged.
50   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 16, 10:28am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says
Don't be delusional. Nobody got banned ever who didn't break the law. People left on their own volition mostly because Patrick didn't give them global mod rights or because a few of their personal posts were flagged.


By law, you mean the made up rules of the website owner? Again, that's exactly what Twitter, Facebook, Pintrest, etc. say.

How is it not 100% hypocritical for Patrick to complain???
51   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 16, 10:36am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says
If Twitter can block users for their perspectives, then bakers can refuse to bake cakes based on perspectives, no?


Yep, the Supreme Court ruled on that one I'm pretty sure.

HonkpilledMaster says
Nope, a TV channel that isn't a user-based social media can't censor users by definition: One-way communication


Yes, an apple isn't an orange. So what? A TV channel can only allow certain viewpoints to make it on their airwaves, thereby censoring content. Same as youtube.
52   NoCoupForYou   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 16, 10:41am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says
Yep, the Supreme Court ruled on that one I'm pretty sure.


It sure did! It ruled that Government Employees working with activists trying to entrap bakers is wrong.

joeyjojojunior says
Yes, an apple isn't an orange. So what? A TV channel can only allow certain viewpoints to make it on their airwaves, thereby censoring content. Same as youtube.


Not at all. The TV produces it's own content, doesn't allow people to start accounts and upload videos about makeup, twerking, old Gary Numan music videos, or SJWs to their 8PM timeslot.
53   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 16, 11:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

mell says

Don't be delusional. Nobody got banned ever who didn't break the law. People left on their own volition mostly because Patrick didn't give them global mod rights or because a few of their personal posts were flagged.


@mell is exactly right.

No one got banned for their views, ever.

The only bans have been for deliberately personally insulting other users over and over. And spammers, but they are robots as a rule.
54   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 16, 11:08am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says
How is it not 100% hypocritical for Patrick to complain???


Easy, it's because Twitter and other corporate sites ban people explicitly because of their points of view.

That is absolutely never done on patrick.net.

I welcome all opinions here, unlike Twitter.
55   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 17, 2:20pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Apple Bans Gab from App Development After Company Makes Antitrust Case to DOJ

Tech giant Apple banned the developer account of free speech-focused social media network Gab, preventing the company from creating apps for iPhones and other Apple devices, shortly after the startup submitted a complaint to the Department of Justice about Big Tech’s anti-competitie business practices.

Breitbart News spoke with the CEO of Gab.com, Andrew Torba, about the company’s recent developments. As Torba wrote on Twitter, the free speech social media platform recently submitted a complaint to the DOJ which it hopes will spark an investigation into the business practices of the Masters of the Universe in Silicon Valley. Gab aimed to question if these firms were acting in a deliberately anti-competitive manner against smaller “alt-tech” businesses, and Apple’s recent actions may have proven Gab’s point.

SEE: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2019/06/17/apple-bans-gab-from-app-development-after-company-makes-antitrust-case-to-doj/
56   joeyjojojunior   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 17, 3:47pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says

Not at all. The TV produces it's own content, doesn't allow people to start accounts and upload videos about makeup, twerking, old Gary Numan music videos, or SJWs to their 8PM timeslot.


Don't be silly. TV networks buy content, just like youtube. This should be obvious when shows move from one network to another.

Patrick says
@mell is exactly right.

No one got banned for their views, ever.

The only bans have been for deliberately personally insulting other users over and over. And spammers, but they are robots as a rule.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Your moderators absolutely banned people by disabling their ability to post because of their political views.

Patrick says
Easy, it's because Twitter and other corporate sites ban people explicitly because of their points of view.


They ban people because they violate their terms of service, just like Pat.net claims to do. Either sites can have their own rules, or they can't. Which is it?
57   mell   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 17, 6:32pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Your moderators absolutely banned people by disabling their ability to post because of their political views.


That's a lie. And you know it. Plenty of left wingers still posting incl. yourself. Why carry on a lie?
58   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 17, 7:02pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Bingo.

Please make a point (not about any other user) and see if it gets banned.

It won't.
59   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 17, 8:17pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Scott Adams demonitized on YouTube whenever he mentions the "fine people" hoax, referring to the Charlottesville confrontation where a woman died as a result of a white nationalist running her over with a car. After the attack the quote from Trump everyone refers to is "There were good people on both sides," but if you listen to the whole quote he condemns white supremacists.
60   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 17, 9:30pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

joeyjojojunior says

They ban people because they violate their terms of service


Sometimes no reason is given. Scott Adams recently noticed every time he posted a video that mentions the "fine people" hoax, in reference to Charlottesville demonstrations, his video is demonitized for no given reason. What other reason could it be, besides his conservative views?
61   NoCoupForYou   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 17, 11:14pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

All of PJMedia (!?!) and ZeroHedge are banned from Pinterest, as well as Live Action, one of the top pro-Life orgs in the nation.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-13/pinterest-is-latest-tech-company-drawn-into-u-s-culture-wars?srnd=markets-vp
62   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 18, 6:53am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Thanks @HonkpilledMaster I added PJMedia, ZeroHedge, and Live Action in the original post above.
63   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 18, 6:56am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

I think it's valid to include demonetized people.

It's still the same intolerant globalist corporate liberals working to slow or stop the free exchange of ideas.
64   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 18, 7:09am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Lol, because they somehow could never just stick to making a point, but deliberately repeatedly insult the other users.

You know it's true.
65   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 18, 7:22am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Demonetized is banned from making money.

But I updated the title to explicitly include demonetized, thanks. I want to be accurate.
67   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 18, 5:47pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

FROM February 2019,

Jesse Kelly, C.J. Pierson & Former Army Ranger, Kris Paronto: These are just a few of the people who were banned on Twitter for little or no reason. The latest victim of the banning craze is Dylan Louis Monroe, creator of the Deep State Mapping Project, to map the posts of Q-Anon, or just Q.

SEE: https://mojomorning.blogspot.com/2019/02/who-is-dylan-louis-monroe.html
68   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 18, 5:50pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

HonkpilledMaster says


BRING BACK TEDDY ROSSEVELT, the only President to break up the BIG corporations and he only served one term, a great man, a great President and we need another one just like him to do the same thing. These corporations get too big and they control everything.
69   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 18, 5:53pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
by banned I mean has to have their comments checked by a moderator.


One could argue this is not the same as being banned.
70   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 18, 5:58pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
demonetized does not equal banned.


True. However, it is like sanctions. Sanctions are not a hot war, but they are a form of warfare and can lead to a hot war, as they did in WWII with Japan. In the same way, demonitization is a form of harssment which like sanctions, hurts both parties involved, YouTube and the user, but play at, 'This is going to hurt you more.'
71   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 18, 6:05pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

And I would like to say something in Patrick's defense. This is the most open forum I have ever had the pleasure to post my acidic rhetoric on this platform and when Patrick made the word "you" red, it helped to raise my consciousness, in that it called my attention to the fact I was making an ad hominen argument, and not addressing the issues. It helped to make my arguments stronger and made me remember I was writing about another living breathing human being who deserves respect just for being alive in this crazy world.
72   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 18, 7:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Thank you Will. I really do appreciate your kind words.

I hope other people will post their acidic rhetoric here as well!
73   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 18, 7:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

@WillPowers ^^
74   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2019 Jun 18, 7:40pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Shared illusions can be a powerful social device to make people feel connected to each other.


Did you come up w this on your own? Fabulously accurate. I see it more treacherously than you though.

Jonathan Haidt has the same conclusion as you, but he calls it righteousness. He suggests the more irrational the righteous virtue signal, the higher the group loyalty.

Since group cohesion is more important to daily life than rational thought, he suggests the human instinct to be righteous is partially designed to shut down rational thought... and we get an awesome shot of dopemine if our righteous behavior is cheered on by our tribe.

Jung once wrote "people don't have ideas, ideas have people".

Prof Peterson says, "it's past time in humanity's evolution when we can ever again accept violence to support an ideology".

The antifa, extreme leftists, 3rd wave feminist, and I assume the white nationalists as well (though via censorship I have no idea what those guys are staying these days) are all stuck in a virtue signalling righteous group bonding fantasy.

If left to fester, it always leads to mass murder . These people need to be publicly laughed at until they wake up from the fantasy.

Violence would make them more certain of their own delusions. Would never work
75   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 18, 7:52pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

CBOEtrader says
Jonathan Haidt has the same conclusion as you, but he calls it righteousness. He suggests the more irrational the righteous virtue signal, the higher the group loyalty.

Since group cohesion is more important to daily life than rational thought, he suggests the human instinct to be righteous is partially designed to shut down rational thought... and we get an awesome shot of dopemine if our righteous behavior is cheered on by our tribe.


Wow, this does a lot to explain pervasive and unremitting Islamic violence as well.

They certainly are doing it for their tribe.
76   CBOEtrader   ignore (7)   2019 Jun 19, 4:07am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Patrick says
Wow, this does a lot to explain pervasive and unremitting Islamic violence as well.


Yeah Haidt blew my mind with his ideas.

I'm impressed Quigley came up w a similar idea. That's some deep shit
77   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 19, 5:12am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

WillPowers says
RafiMaas says
demonetized does not equal banned.


True. However, it is like sanctions. Sanctions are not a hot war, but they are a form of warfare and can lead to a hot war, as they did in WWII with Japan. In the same way, demonitization is a form of harssment which like sanctions, hurts both parties involved, YouTube and the user, but play at, 'This is going to hurt you more.'


I'd actually say demonetization is banning on services like youtube. Especially if they were actually making good money. There's no longer an incentive to create the content if you get shit and YouTube can still collect the ad revenue 100%. So the content creator will essentially ban themselves, because it's not worth it to post their content there. Or go elsewhere with the content.

You don't have to like or agree with the content, but some of the good stuff I've seen on youtube is not a cheap production. And even if it is a cheaper production value, there's still a lot of time that goes into it. Outside of podcasts (even some of those have different camera angles, etc) what you see from a youtube video is likely hours of shooting. And then hours of sifting through it and putting it all together. And then you put it on youtube, get a ton of traffic and some revenue that justifies the work. Then BOOM, checks stop showing up because someone's "feelings" were hurt.

I recently did some work with a band at a live show. 3 different camera angles, time-lapse shot, drone footage, board audio and room audio. Just ONE song editing the video into even an average production was 10 hours. That's not including the time traveling and time on site for the show or the $4k of equipment. There's a reason the credits are sooooo long at the end of shows and movies. It's a painstakingly long process and most you tubers are individuals and maybe a buddy putting it together. Maybe quit jobs once they started getting real revenue. So yeah, demonetizing is an absolute dick move.

Good luck telling Anthony Anderson his role in Blackish is racist (it is) and he will no longer receive a paycheck or royalties from reruns. What do people think will happen? It's okay for one but not the other. Scary stuff.
78   WillPowers   ignore (0)   2019 Jun 19, 5:25pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

They're Coming For You Next

Milo Yiannopoulos, disgraced journalist, said this was going to happen to Jordan Peterson.

“They’re going to get you anyway.” “They’re letting you climb higher,” he added. After they were done with Milo, he said they will start with you, meaning Jordan. They will take him down just as they did Milo and he said, “they’ll get you” for “a complete nothing burger.”

Long list of banned conservatives and other voices on social media: https://mojomorning.blogspot.com/2019/06/theyre-coming-for-you-next.html
79   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 19, 9:36pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Thanks! I need to get all those names from the mojomorning article copied to here as well.

The names of everyone banned by the globalists need to be honored and spread widely.
80   FortWayneIndiana   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 19, 10:05pm     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

man they ban a lot of people, mostly on the right.
81   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 20, 6:41am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
which means Google won't allow AdSense ads on the video


You believe this is happening? Why keep the content on your servers then? So you're saying YouTube will make zero dollars because they have a content provider, regardless of adsense, bringing 1 million views to their site? They won't watch any other videos or click ads? YouTube makes money either way and the content provider doesn't.

And regarding the sponsor thing. That's why I said they'll take their content elsewhere. I know companies will sponsor the big YouTube channels, but that's just one revenue stream for these people. They got the sponsor because the content creator started getting YouTube views and subscribers. Would you spend hours and hours creating content, which you used to be paid for, to only have it taken away because people are pussies and have a differing opinion?

It's banning plain and simple in my mind. It's just an opinion on my end, but I think it's closer to a fact than most opinions.
82   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 20, 7:04am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
It's also a company not a government agency. Perfect opportunity for someone to launch a competing company which can set up rules that are selectively enforced.


Commented on another post. You're right. Not going to dispute that. I guess the problem I have is we're in uncharted territory. The vast majority of people looking for video content are going to be directed (by google) to Youtube (google). So google gets to decide, basically, what we should see? From a capitalist point of view, they're a business and can do what they want. But we have monopoly protections in place for this very reason.

I guess I'd argue that google is nearing monopoly level. The fact it's content and not necessarily a physical product is what's scary. People are stupid and just type google.com and believe it's the truth. Like I said, don't have an answer/solution, but I still think it's fucked up.
83   WookieMan   ignore (4)   2019 Jun 20, 7:08am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

RafiMaas says
WookieMan says
But we have monopoly protections in place for this very reason


Lol we are agreeing on 2 different threads.


I know. Isn't patnet great!
86   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 23, 8:39am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

That will absolutely happen with Libra coin.

It's another good reason we should all keep using cash. Sweden actually talked about eliminating cash and making everyone use credit cards for everything.

Credit cards identify you and give intolerant SJWs the chance to completely block your economic life if you are known to have "wrong" political thoughts. Super scary.
87   Patrick   ignore (1)   2019 Jun 23, 11:14am     ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/facebook-libra-must-be-stopped-by-katharina-pistor-2019-06

After years of disregarding privacy, exploiting user data, and failing to control its platform, Facebook has now unveiled a cryptocurrency and payment system that could take down the entire global economy. Governments must intervene before a company that "moves fast and breaks things" ends up breaking everything.

« First    « Previous    Comments 48 - 87 of 87    Last »


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions