At what point do they stop?

Who give a f**k what facebook has to say when they block material they disagree with.
You're clearly a bigger idiot than your prior posts have suggested.

That wasn't Facebook. That was Wikipedia. Not only does Wikipedia state this, but a lot of other websites.

How does this discredit the videos he provided.

I was just saying that it wasn't Facebook. It was Wikipedia. And that I could provide more sources to prove that Bitchute is, in fact, a hotbed for Neo-Nazis, the Alt-right and other racist groups

That may be true but I've found they say that about any platform that respects freedom of speech.

Ah yes. fReEdOm Of SpEeCh. There is a difference between Free speech and Hate speech. Free speech is when you can display right wing opinions in a left wing country, or left wing opinions in a right wing country. Hate speech is when you fly Nazi flags (which for some reason is legal in 'Murica). Hate speech is when you gather people to you and tell them that the Jews are the source of your problems. Remember the 2 angry men with moustaches in 1943?

I'm fine with Free speech. But when it gets extreme, it turns into Hate speech. That's what Bitchute is.

https://mashable.com/article/what-is-bitchute/?europe=true
https://tonyodarg.wordpress.com/2020/12/19/jews-bitchute-nrm-golden-dawn/
https://www.hopenothate.org.uk/2020/07/20/bitchute-platforming-hate-and-terror-in-the-uk/
https://www.adl.org/blog/bitchute-a-hotbed-of-hate?fbclid=IwAR3KrGzyqCwCY56LBJmwdXpytc66CZB3wOl-noeQ_W4cNW2K7uPILvqdO4Q
https://www.techtimes.com/articles/251654/20200807/breaking-twitter-blocks-tweets-from-u-ks-far-right-youtubes-rival-bitchute.htm
https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/bitchute/

And the best thing is, they don't even tolerate all speech! They are fine with conspiracy theories, as long as they are right wing. It claims to be free speech, but there have been multiple cases of left wing posts being censored, but no right wing extremists have ever been censored.

Intresting

I don't really use it so I'm no expert in the matter.

Personally, I use Rumble, Bitchute was just to weird for me.

Instead of censorship of speech that anyone left or right knows is stupid and evil, expose it. Pretending it doesn't exist and hiding it from the public won't convince anyone it's bad

Just curious, I’m going to show you a few of quotes. I’d like to know if you consider them “hate speech”. I did not say these. I do not endorse them. I’m just curious what your definition of “hate speech” includes.

“Oh man, it’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old black men.”

“[Black people are] only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

“Dumbass f–king black people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

Are those hate speech, in your opinion?

Yup. The first one, not so much. The second one, absolutely. Third one, yup.

How about you look into the sources and arguments instead of attacking the platform it's on?

Actually toxicology report confirms Floyd had lethal levels of fentanyl in his system and thus bodycam footage shows he was acting rashly as he was under influence and was saying “I can’t breathe” long before the officers ever touched him. That’s not a right wing fabrication

Don’t give him evidence. He doesn’t want evidence. He wants his hatred and self-righteousness.

Whatever you say dear.

Hey, I won't deny that George Floyd had Fentanyl in his system. What I'm saying is that, from what I've seen, the fentanyl didn't kill him, the cops did. If he hadn't taken the fentanyl, he probably wouldn't have died, but if the cops hadn't done their thing, he probably wouldn't have died. My point here is not that the vandalism was justified, it is that a surprising number of people in Politics have a tendency to dismiss sources as 'communist/leftist/liberal/socialist propaganda without any explanation other than 'Wikipedia is evil', or 'Google censors us Alt-rightists!'. I'm looking at you here Zaklog.

Zero leftists news outlets even mentioned the fentanyl or any of those other important details, they purposely leave them out and ONLY talk about the excessive force from the police. Had the officers not taken unnecessary action, Floyd still would have died anyway within the hour or so. This is important stuff to include that the media is silent on, THAT’S why we’re crying fake news, because they intentionally tell half the story.

I've looked at mainly centrist news articles for this one about the Fentanyl. This is from them alone. I've tried to get as little bias as possible in my results, and here they are: Neither the Fentanyl or the cops killed George Floyd. It was a combination of the two.

And I fully agree that it was a combination of the factors. And that makes it tricky as to how exactly Derek Chauvin should be charged.

Either 2nd or 3rd degree murder, I would say

It is not a lunatic conspiracy theory that YouTube, FaceBook, and Twitter censor right-wing voices. It is fact.

You think YouTube censors right-wing voices? Go onto the search bar and type in 'Why Trump is amazing' Take a look at which videos pop up. Now, unfortunately, I can't say the same for Twitter and Facebook, because I don't use them. A simple way to check is search 'why Trump is amazing', and look at what comes up.

You must not have heard about youtube banning any videos they find about election fraud

No, I haven't.

So because they don't silence *every single video* that disagrees with something they believe, they don't censor at all? You're retarded.

For that matter, there is hard and soft censorship. It is very easy for YouTube to allow videos to remain on their platform, but make sure very few people see them. I should know. It was done to me. One of my own videos used to get massively more traffic than it does now. Then, right around the time of one of their occasional political purges, the traffic from searches and referrals from other videos dropped off dramatically. I am quite certain that people are still interested in the topic, but when they search for it, they're not finding me.

You live in a bubble and clearly only hear what they want you to hear. And you are fine with this. You applaud this state of things because you are a good slave.

So, how many conservative videos (not Trumpist) have been censored?

And finally, you say I only hear what I want to hear. Weren't you the one who was baselessly denying all of the evidence I showed you?

Not all their content, though. Many of their videos are monetized, but there are some that they can't even get to stay on youtube. You have to go to other sources to find some of their videos

Take a look at prager U and their catalog of items not found on youtube. Also, inderect censorship can be done by demonetizing videos. You can still find them, but they will never be recommended to anyone.

Believe me, PragerU was recommended to me for over a month because I watched one video. They are absolutely recommended to people, is all I can say there

And Facebook is a bunch of arrogant, censorious assholes who think they get to dictate what everyone else is allowed to think and say. You’re a good little slave, aren’t you? Never question what your masters say. Always take orders and cooperate.

Ah yes. My good friend Zaklog. I take it you still haven't read the Autopsy?
And hey, you're the one who mindlessly follows whatever the angry man in the white house says, right?

You need more proof? Have it. (oh, and that info from earlier was from Wikipedia)

“Which rule is this?”

I was afraid of this. I was afraid abstract thinking is beyond you. I’ll try again. I’m not talking about a particular rule. I’m talking about the general principle. I don’t steal. I follow that rule, and part of the reason I follow it is that I don’t want it done to me. In addition, I know that, although the rule would be enforced against me if I stole, I also know it would be enforced FOR me if I were stolen FROM.

But why should I follow any particular rule if I know, as a matter of experience, that it will be used against me, but not for me? What good does that do me? Why not ignore it as much as I can get away with?

Depends entirely on the rule.

“ Yup. The first one, not so much. The second one, absolutely. Third one, yup.”

Cool. Here’s the thing: those weren’t about black people. They were about white people. Not only did the scum who run Twitter leave them up, The New York Times hired the bitch who wrote them to their editorial board and defended her for saying that.

I am entirely uninterested in any “moral” standard that can never be used to protect me, only to attack me, and that is what your “hate speech” rules are. In practice, anyone can spew the most vicious hatred of white people they want with no consequences. But if I calmly make factual criticisms of black people, that’s “hate speech,” and I can be silenced, fired, or even suffer violence for it.

Nope. Not playing that game.

If they were about white people, that was still hate speech. It's plain and simple. In some circumstances, people are racist toward white people and suffer no consequences. That is wrong. Plain and simple. No excuses.

If it were about black people, it would still be hate speech. Plain and simple. No excuses.

Hate speech is any form of speech that expresses unjustified violence toward a certain group based on Nationality, Skin colour, Ethnicity, Sexuality, Gender or Religion.

Speech is speech. Violence is physical action. There is no crossover there.

Speech was only speech until Hitler was voted in. Speech was only speech until Stalin was in charge. Speech was only speech until Mao Zedong and Pol Pott were in charge. Hate speech escalates into violence if it isn't stopped. Violence leads to death, injury, and brutality.

I’m just curious. Were you aware that every year in the U.S., twice as many whites people are murdered by black people as the reverse?

From the data I've seen, 6,800 whites were murdered in the US in 2019, yet 7,500 blacks were murdered. So no. Also, 65% of mass shootings have been carried out by whites, 21% by blacks, 10% by Latinos, 8% by Asians, 3% by Native Americans, and 11% carried out by people who's race is either unclear or other.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/251877/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-race-ethnicity-and-gender/

Feel free to give me data proving me otherwise. Just provide it.

“ From the data I've seen, 6,800 whites were murdered in the US in 2019, yet 7,500 blacks were murdered. So no.”

Wow. You’re an idiot.

So you didn’t catch the “by whites” and “by blacks” part?

could you give me the data?

"could you give me the data?"
This is from the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2016. The numbers are consistent, though. On a yearly basis, black people in this country murder twice as many white people as the reverse, DESPITE being outnumbered about 5 to 1. This means the RATE of black on white murder is TEN TIMES higher than the reverse.

So remind me who needs to be careful about hateful rhetoric again?

Thanks for the data

"Also, 65% of mass shootings have been carried out by whites, 21% by blacks, 10% by Latinos, 8% by Asians, 3% by Native Americans, and 11% carried out by people who's race is either unclear or other."

I'd be willing to bet wherever you got these numbers from removed gang-related violence from "mass shootings". Without this arbitrary distinction, blacks are wildly over-represented there as well. They may be underachievers academically, but in the field of murder, no one in the U.S. competes with black people.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/table-43#:~:text=Provides%20the%20methodology%20used%20in%20constructing%20this%20table,was%20reported,%2019.1%20percent%20were%20H

This enough? For your information, I searched 'FBI crime statistics by race 2019'

Yes, everyone you disagree with is Hitler.

Geez, what a self-righteous lunatic you are.

Hey, I only mentioned Hitler once. In fact, I mentioned more far-left leaders than I did far-right leaders. Maybe read the comment before you reply

Okay, I'm going to attempt something foolish. I'm going to ask you to engage in abstract thought.

Make the case for me why I should bother obeying a rule which clearly can and has been used against me, but will not be used to protect me. I'm not talking about THIS SPECIFIC RULE. I'm talking about the case in general. Why should I bother obeying a rule which will only be used against me not for me?

Which rule is this? Racism is bad?

Well that's nice to hear, but in practice, these "rules" are never enforced to the benefit of white people or Christians, so I have zero respect for them.

For that matter, if you want to increase feelings of resentment or hatred, the easiest method is to make sure people can't speak such things freely. People don't stop feeling angry or resentful just because they're not allowed to say it. It's just the opposite. The anger festers and grows into something far worse than it would have been if allowed to be discussed openly.

If I respected your intelligence at all, I'd refer you to William Blake's "A Poison Tree," but I don't, so don't worry about it.

"Well that's nice to hear, but in practice, these "rules" are never enforced to the benefit of white people or Christians, so I have zero respect for them."

You think I can control that? Just because they aren't enforced, doesn't mean you shouldn't respect them.

And yes, there should be therapy for people who harbour unjustified hate against certain groups.

And, another way to increase your feelings of hate and resentment is by saying things like "They live entirely off lies spoon-fed to them by mass media", and "The government is controlling them through the vaccine! Don't get it!"

"Just because they aren't enforced, doesn't mean you shouldn't respect them."

No, f--k that. No way in Heaven, Earth, or Hell that I will respect rules enforced AGAINST me, but never FOR me. That is slavery. And if you think I should be content with that, you are either a slaver or an obedient slave. In either case, not someone I have any reason to respect.

Being an A**hole is legal, doesn't mean you should be one
Being a Nazi is legal (in the US), doesn't mean you should be one
Being a conspiracy theorist is legal, doesn't mean you should be one
Being a Communist is legal, doesn't mean you should be one

" Just because they aren't enforced, doesn't mean you shouldn't respect them."

It's fascinating that you still don't seem to understand my problem. My problem is not that they are NOT enforced. My problem is that they are VICIOUSLY enforced in one direction and completely UNENFORCED in the other.

I absolutely do understand your problem. Remember in the comment when I defined hate speech for you? Then you said that the definition doesn't benefit white people, therefore it is entirely null and void. Then you brought up this argument again.