any websites where i can livestream with complete freedom of speech?
Any websites where i can livestream with complete freedom of speech?
Aiden Morales
Other urls found in this thread:
un.org
twitter.com
Ryan Garcia
i want to be able to livestream so i can better work on social skills
Jayden Russell
Your racist tirades will get you banned everywhere, rightfully so.
Noah Hernandez
Mason Scott
You can stream on any mainstream website for that without losing your free speech. Getting booted off of a privately owned platform for violating their rules didn't rob you of your freedom of speech and it's funny that imbecile niggers such as yourself degrade the actual value of freedom speech, which is to openly talk about your political/religious believes without getting imprisoned, by claiming it grants you the ability to be an autist that throws around insults with no repercussions.
These repercussions aren't getting imprisoned either.
Michael Cox
A million times this.
I love the irony of these Americans being all MUH FREEDOM OF SPEECH SAVE ME DONALD TRUMP:((((((( when some alt-right shithead gets rightfully banned and should have been banned years ago, but when it's something that they support like that bakery that didn;t want to do gay cakes they're suddenly big libertarians that believe that private organisations are free to do what they wish.
Jace Rodriguez
The alt tech are the answer.
Meaning Gab, BitChute and Minds.
Bitchute being the new youtube.
Dunno if they support streaming yet, tho.
Xavier Ortiz
>Muh private owned businesses can do what they want, how dare you criticize them!
Oh look, it's this cop-out again. Who wants to bet these are the same kind of people who think bakeries should be forced to cater to gay weddings?
Joshua Watson
Insults fall under the category of freedom of speech, you censorious fucking commies.
And the big media corporations have no right to act like publishers and censor the shit their users post when it suits them, and then act like platforms that are not responsible for the content on them when it suits them in other occasions (aka for example, not being liable to be sued for copyright infringements etc).
They cannot have it both ways.
Besides, Google and other big tech giants are basically propped up by the state anyways. They are anything but "private corporations", unless you think that private corporations should be basically partially tax funded extensions of the surveillance system that the government runs.
Juan Howard
>Who wants to bet these are the same kind of people who think bakeries should be forced to cater to gay weddings?
I think bakeries can refuse to bake gay cakes or whatever else they decide, as much as youtube or twitch can ban users for whatever they decided, just as long as the rules are spelled out for them which they are.
It's not an issue of youtube now being a big corporate giant, any small dick-ass forum populated by 15 people has its own rules that you agree to follow when you post there. Even Jow Forums has rules.
Evan Scott
>They cannot have it both ways.
Youtube clearly states that you are responsible for your own content, so yes it clearly goes both ways.
Look at what's written on the bottom of Jow Forums.
>All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
Cooper Parker
>lol you triggered safe space weenies have to follow the rules of private companies
>religious baker doesn’t want to bake a gay cake? omfg fucking bigots need to be shut down you can’t deny sevice to anyone
Idiots on display
Jason Turner
>Youtube clearly states that you are responsible for your own content, so yes it clearly goes both ways.
Yeah, and then they turn that around by actively censoring people anyways.
Hence the issue. Either individual users are responsible for their posts, and can get sued etc by parties their shit might offend, while the platform itself is neutral OR the platform does the screening and censoring for content that is not approved.
They cannot have it both ways.
Evan Sanchez
the internet is not a public utility sweaty
Jayden Moore
>Yeah, and then they turn that around by actively censoring people anyways.
They're not turning anything around, they clearly state that harassment & hate speech are against their rules.
Cameron Cook
Bakery can do what they want
Takes a pretty shit business owner to turn down fair business though
This depends on if you want to say "the thing is Hitler did a lot of very good things and represented some qualities we might even want in modern politicians," or if you want to say "blacks aren't people"
For the former just carry yourself well. For the latter just carry yourself off a bridge
Michael Roberts
Both harassment and "hate-speech" are vague newspeak terms that don't mean jack shit. They are blatantly used to silence political opponents. For example, Jared Taylor was banned from Twitter despite him never harassing anyone or publishing "hate-speech", his crime was simply being an advocate for the right of white people to continue to exist.
Austin Flores
Right but then the counter argument is that all these mouth-breathing slobberknockers are acting like shouting "NIGGER" in the streets is their right and ability
Despite getting their panties in a twist when people naysay whites...
Oliver Collins
>are acting like shouting "NIGGER" in the streets is their right and ability
It is.
>Despite getting their panties in a twist when people naysay whites...
Wrong. They get angry about the hypocrisy. It is apparently completely ok to hate white people and even wish genocide upon them, but even just saying "nigger" or only stating that you want to live in an ethnically homogeneous neighborhood is somehow morally unacceptable.
Caleb Williams
Both either are or aren't. There's no "but it's a response" shit, adults are expected to know two wrongs don't make a right. That's the problem.
Branding people hypocrites while being hypocrites isn't fighting the good fight, it's looking like a moron.
Joseph Bell
The anti-white bias of the mainstream culture is blatantly obvious m8. And there is no sense in playing by the rules of the people who want you to be exterminated.
Julian Cook
>saying "whitey is evil" is cool
>saying "nigger" is frowned upon and ostracized
Wonder why people don't like this, hmmmmm...
Jonathan Hernandez
>his crime was simply being an advocate for the right of white people to continue to exist
He's white supremacist, that's not the same as "an advocate for the right of white people to continue to exist" which is a dickless non-statement.
Xavier Hill
the former quote, that you made up, doesn't carry hundreds of years of slavery upon decades of systemic oppression on top of it.
Joseph Ross
I dont give a shit whats attached to it! These people WANT US ALL DEAD!
Jason Allen
Not the guy you're replying to, and I've never read any books or researched his platform, but I've seen a couple of his talks and he doesn't seem much more than "an advocate for the right of white people to continue to exist"
But I watched a couple talks like 6 years ago when I was really into Jow Forums, no clue how much he's changed.
Tyler Wright
He's nu-racist or alt-racist or whatever where the doesn't want to LYNCH black people or anything but he definitely believes that they're below Whites and that they should go back to Africa, and also that Whites are unironically oppressed and somehow being put through a genocide.
Carson Peterson
Oh, so you agree with me, you just read into it a whole lot more.
Dylan Turner
How in the fuck is he a "white supremacist?"
He doesn't want to enslave or control non-whites. He simply desires to be able to have a homeland where white people can continue to live as the majority. Is a japanese person who desires to maintain the demographic dominance of japanese people in japan a "japanese supremacist".
No. He simply advocates for the right of white people to exist and have homogeneous communities of their own, where they can rule themselves.
If that makes him a racist, then there is nothing wrong with being a racist, because apparently being "anti-racist" means desiring white people to be subjugated and mongrelized until we cease to exist.
Connor Morris
Just make a new account faggot
>t. never been banned and if i was I'd do that
Jordan Wood
>Is a japanese person who desires to maintain the demographic dominance of japanese people in japan a "japanese supremacist".
Yes. Japan does have a small but vocal minority of people
>If that makes him a racist,
He has a ranking system of which ethnic groups are the best. Maybe not surprisingly, he's a secret weeb and thinks that East Asia is #1.
Andrew Hernandez
>favoring the survival and sovereignty of your own people is racist.
I guess that there is nothing wrong with racism then.
Justin Cox
>muh white genocide
if we're going through a genocide, how come I'm able to just talk around and go to the movies and go to school and fly out the country to go on vacation and vote and do everything and anything I want?
This is one extremely inefficient genocide we're being put through. Almost as if it were just a conspiracy theory.
Parker Allen
The current trends in both USA and Europe will render white people into minorities in their lands within a few generations.
That fits the definition of a genocide.
I want to maintain my homeland ethnically homogeneous. I find the state of USA revolting. I have no loyalty or solidarity towards people who do not belong to my ethnic group.
Ethan Phillips
>UN definition of genocide
Yeah you should go ahead and read it
un.org
Mexicans or whatever coming over and having kids doesn't make it genocide.
>That fits the definition of a genocide.
oh but it really doesn't. It's just immigration.