If you guys think Youtube is breaking the law or the constitution or whatever, why don't you call the cops?

If you guys think Youtube is breaking the law or the constitution or whatever, why don't you call the cops?

Oh right, what they are doing is perfectly legal.

Welp, you Ayn Rand loving faggots made this bed, now lie in it.

Attached: bkf7qyln3ejz.jpg (960x960, 30K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner
litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-vs-criminal-cases-key-differences.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No one said they were breaking the law you raging faggot

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

>government funded kike organization bans right wingers
>hah, bet you like communism now
No, I just hate jews for jewing even more now. Sage for spam thread.

>The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town.

>The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

>In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.

Okay, call the police then.

I'm sure they will go put a stop to YouTube.

I'll wait here.

Nobody fucking said they were breaking the law or constitution, they're just scummy as fuck and we need a newtube.

There's literally hundreds of posts saying that right now. Go to any of the youtube threads.

Hell, there's someone in this very thread implying what they are doing is illegal.

>(((Ayn Rand)))
Imagine my shock

Attached: 7002752018217.jpg (3500x3000, 2.35M)

It's just communist screeching for more censorship thinking this will turn us communist somehow.
Not the first time Youtube has shoad channels.

Capitalism and communism are two sides of the same Jewish coin.

Attached: 1559691748895.jpg (950x750, 267K)

>If you guys think Youtube is breaking the law or the constitution or whatever, why don't you call the cops?
Because the cops only protect the rich.

>Oh right, what they are doing is perfectly legal.
Says who?

>Okay, call the police then.
>I'm sure they will go put a stop to YouTube.
>I'll wait here.
Do you even know how the police operate you stupid faggot?

Why do you support YouTube doing what its doing?

Is it because you're a communist faggot or simply a Jew?

>Because the cops only protect the rich.
Well, at least you understand that much.
>Says who?
If the cops won't arrest you or write you a ticket for breaking a law, then it's not much of an illegal act, is it? By refusing to prosecute a crime, the police tacitly admit it's not a crime. You don't even need a lawyer.

But I thought they are breaking the law? Why won't the police get involved?

To teach you an important lesson about capitalism. As long as a corporation owns your labor, you will never experience freedom, including free speech.

You need to be an interested party to get into a lawsuit against then. If you are the owner of a channel, then you could actually sue then for it.

Yep

You’re either addressing a strawman or that Crowder intern who was spamming the fuck out of the board today.

Attached: B1E63A71-7B1C-4322-B4EC-01C94BE23135.jpg (1242x532, 221K)

You’re thinking of crony capitalism, goober.

>But I thought they are breaking the law?
They're violating the constitutional rights of the people.

>Why won't the police get involved?
Because this is a legal issue, not a criminal issue.

>To teach you an important lesson about capitalism.
Communism is just as Jewish and anti-White as Communism.

>As long as a corporation owns your labor, you will never experience freedom, including free speech.
We'd have even less speech under Communism. At least via Capitalism, we have some power to do something about this.

Flag every video that has Carlxs Mxza in it.
Flag every video that is produced by V0X.
Flag every video that has Stephxn Colbxrt in it.
Flag every video that has anyone pulling for the leftist censorship.

Flag multiple times.
Flag for violence.
Flag for hate.
Flag for terrorism.
Flag for everything.

Don't say, "that's the left's tactics, we're better than that."
We are better than that, but we no longer have a choice.
This has happened because you let it.
Don't forget Milo, Alex, Mumkey, etc. You are next.

>You’re thinking of crony capitalism, goober.
Capitalism in an all-White nation could possibly work. The problem is capitalism inherently puts making money before the people.

You realize the guy at youtube reading your flags just has to push a single button and your flags no longer work right? He reads 2 or 3 fake flags from you, and then poof, IP shadowbanned for false flags.

first of all its stolen tech
second it jews who have illegal monopolies with zcozy jew gov backing, inflation, and are in bed with rigging and brainwashing the publi denying the public a free an open access and debate of truth....thirdly its a syndicate of illega, immoral, and satanic propounding of illegal things all for satanic judaics


self gas

They are not violating the rights of the people. They are a non-governmental entity and can do whatever the fuck they want.

You, on the other hand, clearly know nothing and should probably kys and that alone would help make America great again.

Attached: eyu66hkbi3w21.jpg (674x433, 24K)

>You realize the guy at youtube reading your flags just has to push a single button and your flags no longer work right? He reads 2 or 3 fake flags from you, and then poof, IP shadowbanned for false flags.
So you admit that youtube censors indiscriminately and unfairly? Yet you're defending them...

>They are not violating the rights of the people.
Censoring people for saying things they don't like is absolute censorship.

>They are a non-governmental entity and can do whatever the fuck they want.
The Constitution applies to them you fucking retard.

>You, on the other hand, clearly know nothing and should probably kys and that alone would help make America great again.
You faggots don't care about making america great again. you hate america and you hate White people existing.

the commie cannot convince anyone so he has to resort to spam

>puts making money before the people.
Fuck “the people”. I’ve met “the people” and they’re all cunts.

Attached: 012FFA16-7E44-4766-AD06-CF213E2BAE51.jpg (667x1000, 246K)

>Fuck “the people”. I’ve met “the people” and they’re all cunts.
Well you clearly care more about money than the existence and welfare of the people, that makes you anti-White.

Again, the more you post the more you show you clearly don't know anything.......

Since they are not the government, they can do whatever the fuck they want. You really want to hurt them, then don't use them.

The Constitution does not apply here, because it is a document for governments, not private businesses. Again, it doesn't say that businesses can't "censorship", only that it's against the law for the US Gov't to do that.

I hate stupid cucks who don't know shit yet act like they do. Please, you should just stop posting now because you're stupidity is showing.....

Attached: 1548941516126.jpg (590x680, 50K)

>welfare
They get welfare, speaking of. Stop acting like people are just dropping dead in the fucking streets.

lmao die of hunger

>They get welfare, speaking of. Stop acting like people are just dropping dead in the fucking streets.
Whites are killed all the time by niggers.

>YouTube is adding caste, which has significant implications in India, and “well-documented violent events,” such as the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting and 9/11. Users are no longer allowed to post videos saying those events did not happen, YouTube said.
HAHAAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
>9/11
>well-documented violent events
>well-documented
HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>They're violating the constitutional rights of the people.
Which right is that again? Are you talking about the part where it says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"

>Because this is a legal issue, not a criminal issue.
Okay, then sue them. You have an airtight legal case after all. You don't even need to hire a lawyer. It's cut and dry isn't it?

>Communism is just as Jewish and anti-White as Communism.
That's not really an argument, even if you changed the words to make sense.

>We'd have even less speech under Communism. At least via Capitalism, we have some power to do something about this.
But there wouldn't be any government to restrict speech under communism?

I'm not defending them, I'm just pointing out capitalism is inherently anti-freedom. Individual freedom cannot exist under a capitalist system. Any argument against youtube is inherently an anti-capitalist argument, so it's very easy for a communist to point this out by playing devil's advocate and showing that capitalist logic is flawed. You can't demand regulation and also deregulation and still have a coherent philosophy.

That idiot above is saying "Let's just use Youtube's reporting system against it!" but in reality, it will have no effect as long as Youtube is the one in control, and that's what he needs to realize. The content creators should own youtube, not some guy in a suit who "bought stocks"

>Since they are not the government, they can do whatever the fuck they want.
So under your reasoning, a corporation can enslave or murder a person?

HAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHA

HAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

...they already do....

HAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

HAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

youtube pls

The government does both. Slavery is still legal according to the constitution, as long as it's "punishment for a crime."

>Which right is that again? Are you talking about the part where it says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech"
The government exists to protect the rights of the people. When their rights are infringed the government is to step in and protect the people.

>Okay, then sue them. You have an airtight legal case after all. You don't even need to hire a lawyer. It's cut and dry isn't it?
Well that's the problem now, the only way one can have proper legal representation is with tons of money. the monopolies have it. the average person doesn't.

>That's not really an argument, even if you changed the words to make sense.
The Jews are anti-White. Therefore their ideologies are anti-White.

>But there wouldn't be any government to restrict speech under communism?
It's cute how you trust Communists to tell you the truth.

>why don't you call the cops?
wasn't supposed to be funny but I just died laughing. some retard has probably already done this

Attached: 1557220254130.jpg (540x526, 27K)

>...they already do....
Name one corporation that literally enslaves and murders people.

[spoiler]inb4 planned parenthood[/spoiler]

>I'm just pointing out capitalism is inherently anti-freedom.
And Communism is even worse.

I guess it's national socialism for the win.

>don't agree with speech
>first reaction is to call the cops
typical commie. We'd rather make our opinion known to the entity and bend them to the will of the people and not just use a giant boot to stamp out the opposition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Corp._v._Tanner

Attached: 1552150961434.jpg (640x960, 80K)

Yeahman, fuck big government, give me big government.

>The government exists to protect the rights of the people. When their rights are infringed the government is to step in and protect the people.
So you don't actually have a single constitutionally protected right being violated, just your feelings.

>Well that's the problem now, the only way one can have proper legal representation is with tons of money. the monopolies have it. the average person doesn't.
But you claim to be right? Surely you just go in front of a judge and say "Marsh v. Alabama" and then ask for a billion dollars right? After all, it's not like legal rights depend on being argued in court, you seem pretty sure of yourself without having gone in front of a judge.

>The Jews are anti-White. Therefore their ideologies are anti-White.
Not an argument.

>It's cute how you trust Communists to tell you the truth.
A communist government is like saying bald hair color. It's a nonsense phrase. It has nothing to do with truth or lies, it's just basic logic. How can a classless, government-less society have a government?

> muh private corporation can do whatever it wants

Enter anti trust lawsuits

And these faggots think they're winning xD

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 131K)

National Socialism is just capitalism, but someone you like is in charge. Changing the guy holding the whip won't free you.

i would slit your throat if I had the chance

“You can be unethical & still be legal, that's the way I live my life” - Mark Zuckerberg

....you're running a real close second....

Attached: 1545673253765.jpg (720x720, 51K)

But that would be violating his constitutional right to a trial, which you are legally forced to give him since all government restrictions apply to private individuals, right?

Attached: Screenshot_2019-06-05 - 4chan.png (1901x611, 225K)

Jewtube banning people only indicates that the ideas of the Jew cannot compete with the ideas of the right. If their ideas and positions had any merit, they’d let the facts speak for themselves, this doesn’t happen though. The Jew is nervous and on its last hand and it’s beautiful.

>I have no idea how the legal system works: the post

Attached: 1542950771339.png (1296x1458, 217K)

Who was that directed at? The police have nothing to do with a civil court case.

it was clearly directed at you because you clearly don't know how the legal system works.

YT is doing nothing wrong - they can police their own system by their own rules.

There isn't a fucking thing the gov't can do about it.

Attached: 635316349428205581.jpg (512x288, 31K)

So you *DO* think the police are involved in civil cases? Please elabourate. This ought to be good.

They are - that's never been a question.

However, what YT is doing is completely legal and there nothing cops can do about it and there are no lawsuits that would survive any intelligent challenge.

Attached: missing brain.jpg (464x464, 26K)

They are not. The police are involved in *criminal* cases, not when you sue a company.

This is a good thing. Nazism is a shit-tier ideology.

“I have a message to the Neo-Nazis, the White Nationalists and the neo-Confederates. Let me be just as blunt as possible: Your heroes are losers. You’re supporting a lost cause.

Believe me, I know the original Nazis. I was born in Austria in 1947, shortly after the Second World War, and growing up I was surrounded by broken men. Men who came home from the war filled with shrapnel and guilt, men who were misled into a losing ideology. And I can tell you that these ghosts that you idolize spent the rest of their lives living in shame. And right now, they’re resting in hell.”

- Arnold Schwarzenegger

Attached: rs-180639-481673993.jpg (2144x3192, 742K)

Obligatory message to trigger the commie bastards that hate my country and my flag on this board.

To everyone else, please ignore.

>corporations are too powerful
>why don't you like corporations having this kind of power?
I'm embarrassed by the number of mouth breathers in this country.

Attached: 1557618566158.jpg (604x340, 49K)

How is it a civil case? I thought it was illegal.

A civil case means it's perfectly legal, but there are damages to be paid.

Educate yourself.

litigation.findlaw.com/filing-a-lawsuit/civil-cases-vs-criminal-cases-key-differences.html

>A civil case begins when a person or entity (such as a corporation or the government), called the plaintiff, claims that another person or entity (the defendant) has failed to carry out a legal duty owed to the plaintiff. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are also referred to as "parties" or "litigants." The plaintiff may ask the court to tell the defendant to fulfill the duty, or make compensation for the harm done, or both. Legal duties include respecting rights established under the Constitution or under federal or state law.

>Individuals, corporations, and the federal government can also bring civil suits in federal court claiming violations of federal statutes or constitutional rights. For example, the federal government can sue a hospital for overbilling Medicare and Medicaid, a violation of a federal statute. An individual could sue a local police department for violation of their constitutional rights -- for example, the right to assemble peacefully.

i.e the first amendment, among others.

Arnold is a brainwashed PC cuck just like the rest of modern Germany. He's a Roid-head and a race-traitor: hitting that maid squatamollin raw. Fuck him and Fuck you.

Attached: 3rd_reich_boy.jpg (480x514, 50K)

It's a civil suit not criminal faggot.
Learn 2 laws

Hitler was one of the greatest speakers, beloved by fascists all over the world. But in that bunker, knowing how much harm his party had done, he knew no amount of clever words could save him from the world's judgement. Nazism was a failed experiment that lives on in the minds of hollow men with worthless souls. Follow your leader, he's waiting for you in hell.

Attached: Nazi Punks Fuck Off.png (911x887, 49K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

To those that say "the first amendment does not apply to private entities", it does in Silicon Valley California, where Google is.

>State constitutions provide free speech protections similar to those of the U.S. Constitution. In a few states, such as California, a state constitution has been interpreted as providing more comprehensive protections than the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has permitted states to extend such enhanced protections, most notably in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins.[199] In that case, the Court unanimously ruled that while the First Amendment may allow private property owners to prohibit trespass by political speakers and petition-gatherers, California was permitted to restrict property owners whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum (often shopping malls and grocery stores) from enforcing their private property rights to exclude such individuals.[200] However, the Court did maintain that shopping centers could impose "reasonable restrictions on expressive activity".[201] Subsequently, New Jersey, Colorado, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico courts have adopted the doctrine;[202][203] California's courts have repeatedly reaffirmed it.[204]

>California was permitted to restrict property owners whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum (often shopping malls and grocery stores) from enforcing their private property rights to exclude such individuals.
>California's courts have repeatedly reaffirmed it.

Buttfuck time, Google. Bad luck for choosing to base yourself in San Fransisco, though deliciously ironic.

He was talking about the corporation, you dipshit.

Nazism believed in economic control.

Argentina doesn't sound half bad