216
Youtube T&C's - this is crazy (media.patriots.win)
posted ago by Loc12 ago by Loc12 +216 / -0
Comments (13)
sorted by:
11
Groundpounder 11 points ago +11 / -0

Archive for future Nuremberg trials

2
karn 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fuck that, I want to put them in death mazes full of traps you have to dodge and at the center of the maze is a box containing Hillary's 33,000 deleted emails instead of an exit.

8
YaharaRiver 8 points ago +8 / -0

It's LIES. Even propaganda was only supposed to be exaggeration of the shiny side, NOT LIES. This is crime leading to manslaughter. YT is a direct accomplice.

5
Totally_Not_FBI 5 points ago +5 / -0

They are essentially implying that they are qualified medical professionals. Can they be sued for malpractice?

5
Totally_Not_FBI 5 points ago +5 / -0

And what qualifies youtube to set these standards? By setting these rules they are effectively stating that the opposite of all these forbidden claims are true.

1
SHILL_DETECTOR 1 point ago +1 / -0

I guess if you have a way to censor people then you become some kind of God with the power to censor truth.

4
chuckachookah 4 points ago +4 / -0

"Content that promotes prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or WHO"

Let's break this down...

FIRST... it is documented that the WHO is captured by the CCP Chinese government. There is ample proof:

Conclusions:

  1. The WHO is captured by the CCP Chinese government
  2. YouTube cites the WHO as a primary source for information.
  3. Therefore, the result is: YouTube following the commands of the Chinese government.

YouTube's T&C should be invalidated or circumspect (at best) regarding the WHO as the cited authority.

So, it would appear that YouTube is relying on "local" health authorities

Facts:

  • That guideline linked to a study (https://www.idsociety.org/practice-guideline/covid-19-guideline-treatment-and-management/#toc-14) and the study throw the "data uncertainty" and potential "publication bias" as the basis for not recommending ivermetin, but the actual data and conclusions for Inpatient and Outpatient is stated as follows:
  • "Persons receiving treatment with ivermectin rather than no ivermectin may trend toward increased symptom resolution and viral clearance"; and
  • "there may be a trend toward mortality reduction, avoidance of progression to severe disease, and viral clearance at day seven"

Conclusions

  1. At best, the San Mateo County health officials have published two health updates that cite Ivermectin
  2. One guideline points to the effectiveness of Ivermectin. The other points to a study that is cautious about using Ivermectin, but also concludes it "works".

I know, you know, and everyone knows YouTube is full of shit. But, even the basis they are citing contradict their stated policy.

AND, more broadly, by citing "local authorities" as the rule and guide for YouTube policies, every YouTube user and viewer will be subject to the whatever the laws, rules, guidelines, or social mores of San Mateo county, California. It goes without saying that San Mateo county shouldn't be setting the standard of what is/isn't acceptable in other parts of the US or the world for that matter.

2
YaharaRiver 2 points ago +2 / -0

Thank you for all your work & organization. Since the San Mateo regulations are being imposed without consent upon the entire country, even the whole world, does that not broaden their crime for having crossed state lines and international boundaries? That would open the door for every police department ON EARTH to pursue them with a claim for murder. YES MURDER. Withholding life-giving elements is no different than withholding air from someone by smothering them with a pillow.

2
chuckachookah 2 points ago +2 / -0

Maybe? I'm not a lawyer. I'm just trying to make sense of their own rules.

These rules are pretty bogus on their face. HCQ findings have been confirmed effective, and Ivermectin has multiple on-going studies, all of which are showing dramatic results, and the accumulation of which will (or should) resolve any current concerns of "data uncertainty" (which simply means, we need more data to confirm the resutls).

But, it's the language they are picking and choosing. That's the real "crime" here.

For example, They removed Bret Weinsteins and Dr. Pierre Korry's videos by labeling them deceptive practices and provide a similar statement that they would only accept content approved by "the CDC, WHO, or local health authorities".

The "or" allows YouTube to effectively enforce "laws" made by: a non-governmental organization (the WHO), a national agency (the CDC), or local health authority (the San Mateo County Health Department)

The first two are in place to address pandemics, but the third --the local authority-- is not. Like, at all. When a pandemic breaks out, NO ONE goes to a county health authority to get the scoop. NO ONE.

As a matter of scale and just some common sense, information about a WORLDWIDE pandemic should not ever come from a county, no matter what country.

Now, of the two "qualified" agencies that are set up to deal with a pandemic, there is substantial and documentable concerns about their credibility:

  1. The WHO has ZERO respect for the rights of US Citizens, broadly and specifically. It's an international body, so even when given the benefit of the doubt, does not have a US citizens interests in mind. Now, consider the fact that, as my previous post has shown, the WHO has been and continues to be unduly influenced by a nation-state (CCP China). It has hidden China's culpability of the very types of disease that the organization is trying to address. That is... they have lost their own credibility. Period. End of discussion.
  2. The CDC, meanwhile, appears to be in the midst of a full-bodied spasm of regulatory capture.

Put the "Trump Factor" aside. From the Fauci emails alone, we can see that the CDC has known since February of 2020 that this disease didn't come from bats and they lied to leadership and the American public. And lied. And lied. And lied.

Now, put their lying aside too. There has been an active campaign by the CDC to suppress two known and safe treatments that showed immediate promise --HCQ and Ivermectin. This was done SO THAT the Emergency Authorization Use for the experimental genetic therapies would be approved.

This was a profit-driven motive. And, since the CDC is a government agency and not-for-profit, it is clear why they made these decisions. BECAUSE THEY ARE CAPTURED by Big Pharma!

Need proof...who is receiving billions and billions for producing a liablity free injection? Yep. Big Pharma.

Simply put, there is "no money in" HCQ or Ivermectin, even though either would have annihilated SARS-COVID2 within 90 days if implemented last March.

So, ALL THREE "AUTHORITIES" that YouTube cites and continues to cite have clear conflicts and/or can't meet the scope of providing a truthful assessment about the topic.

YouTube can make whatever rules they want, but all corporations, in any state that they domicile (i.e., headquarter) have to abide by the laws of our country and that necessarily includes on constitutional and civil rights.

I think a case can be made that YouTube preventing information about alternatives treatments have deprived US Citizens of information that is provided by infrastructure the American taxpayer has paid for (i.e., the backbone of the entire internet was funded by us). Seems like if you have a loved one that is sick from the vaccine, legal action should be pursued.

4
stealthboy 4 points ago +4 / -0

The Ministry of Truth in action. They will TELL you what is true, and you cannot question it.

4
megxit 4 points ago +4 / -0

archive and sue.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
SHILL_DETECTOR 2 points ago +2 / -0

These people are going to get what they deserve.