Respectable number of subscribers but needs more. it's a great channel.
Seems the US ranking is somewhat stagnant now, but thankfully global traffic is growing as fast as ever.
Perhaps censorship of the site is targeted at those in the US?
Not good enough of course, but pretty amazing when you consider all the censorship.
Isn’t there some way to make the sites more integrated?
Strangely, the US rank has dropped slightly over the last few days and domestic growth appears to have stalled. Fortunately, global traffic growth has more than made up for that and shows no signs of slowing.
Yea, twice (and one one occasion right after Hitler).
In the previous case to this, one of the alleged Muslim rapists was a police officer!
If guilty, then surely the biggest Islamic rape gang yet?
Fake news. Today's ranking is 458
That's for a different election though.
"Facebook will stop automatically flagging or removing a small subset of content attacking Americans, men, and white people, a spokesperson for the company confirmed to Business Insider. In addition, the platform is changing its hate speech algorithm to be more sensitive toward attacks on Black people, Muslims, Jews, LGBTQ people, and other minority groups, Facebook confirmed."
Yes, if I had dementia.
I think some videos do get stuck like that fairly early on, I recall it happening a few years back. If it's still "stuck" in a few hours then they're definitely messing with it.
Article text now added
Trans children should not receive controversial puberty blockers unless they understand the risks, according to a landmark High Court ruling, as judges warn that most teenagers cannot give their consent.
The ruling means that children who wish to undergo gender reassignment can now only legally consent to taking puberty blockers if they are able to understand the “long-term risks and consequences of the administration of” the drugs.
The case had been brought against Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, which runs the UK’s only gender identity development service (GIDS) for children, by Keira Bell, a 23-year-old woman who began taking puberty blockers when she was 16 before “detransitioning”.
She said the clinic should have challenged her more over her decision to transition to a male as a teenager.
The legal challenge was also brought by a woman who can only legally be identified as ‘Mrs A’, the mother of a 15-year-old autistic girl who is currently on the waiting list for treatment.
Advertisement At a hearing in October, their lawyers said children going through puberty are “not capable of properly understanding the nature and effects of hormone blockers”.
They argued that there is “a very high likelihood” that children who start taking hormone blockers will later begin taking cross-sex hormones, which they say cause “irreversible changes” and that the NHS Trust offers "fairytale" promises to children because they are unable to give their consent to the sex-change process.
However in the judgement handed down on Tuesday, Dame Victoria Sharp, sitting with Lord Justice Lewis and Mrs Justice Lieven, said that children under 16 needed to understand “the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment” to be able to consent to the use of puberty blockers.
The judges said in their ruling: “It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers.
“It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”
Advertisement They added: “In respect of young persons aged 16 and over, the legal position is that there is a presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment.
“Given the long-term consequences of the clinical interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment.”
During the High Court hearing in October, the Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust - as well as University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust, to which Tavistock refers children and young people experiencing gender dysphoria - argued that taking puberty blockers and later cross-sex hormones were entirely separate stages of treatment.
But, in its ruling, the High Court said: "It is said therefore the child needs only to understand the implications of taking puberty blockers alone ... in our view this does not reflect the reality.
"The evidence shows that the vast majority of children who take puberty blockers move on to take cross-sex hormones."
Advertisement The court added that both treatments were "two stages of one clinical pathway and once on that pathway it is extremely rare for a child to get off it".
Speaking outside the Royal Courts of Justice after the ruling, Keira Bell said she was "delighted" with the High Court's ruling, adding that “common sense has prevailed”.
"This judgment is not political,” she said, “it's about protecting vulnerable children."
A statement was also read on behalf of her fellow claimant, Mrs A, which said: "I'm relieved to hear the court have understood and agreed with our concerns about... treating children and young people with puberty blockers."
Their solicitor Paul Conrathe said the ruling was "an historic judgment that protects children who suffer from gender dysphoria".
He added: "Ultimately this case was decided on the facts that were known by the Tavistock.
"Ironically - and as matter of serious concern - despite its international reputation for mental health work, this judgment powerfully shows that a culture of unreality has become embedded in the Tavistock.
"This may have led to hundreds of children receiving this experimental treatment without their properly informed consent."
Advertisement In response, a spokesperson for the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust said: “The Trust is disappointed by today’s judgment and we understand that the outcome is likely to cause anxiety for patients and their families.
“Our first duty is to our patients, particularly those currently receiving hormone blocking treatment and we are working with our partners, University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, to provide support for patients concerned about the impact on their care.
“The Trust is seeking permission to appeal the judgment, and in the meantime, confirms its ongoing support for the review commissioned by NHS England being led by Dr Hilary Cass.
“We will update our statement once we know the outcome of today’s further court proceedings.”
Lui Asquith, from the trans children's charity Mermaids, said the ruling was a "devastating blow for trans young people across the country”.
“We believe very strongly that every young person has the right to make their own decisions about their body and that should not differ because somebody is trans.
"The court today has decided to treat trans young people differently to every other child in the country.
Advertisement "We believe that we're entering a new era of discrimination, frankly. We see day in, day out at Mermaids the positive impact hormone blockers can have on some trans young people - in all honesty, they can save lives.
"They allow some young people to be able to go outside, engage in society, go to school, and we're now in a position whereby those young people are not necessarily going to be able to access it.
"We're entering a new era of experimentation, that experiment being what happens to trans young people who need hormone blockers who can't get them."
This is pretty huge. Brexit Russia hoax was almost as big in Europe as the Russia hoax in the US. Both now totally debunked.
Amazing how many parallels there are between Trump’s election and Brexit.
Presumably there will be something similar for indigenous Europeans?
You shouldn’t support asshole companies who support evil people and have evil politics. However, it doesn’t seem necessary to boycott a company just because of their failure to support something/someone or because they don’t agree with your politics 100%.
I know most comments will be "cancel your TV bro".. so what, we're expected to live in the woods away from "woke" society now?
You should cancel the MSM, but there's still far more content to watch than you can get through.
Things went south about 15 years ago, but that still gives you 95% of all movies up until 2005 to choose from. There's all kinds of creators on youtube putting out quality and non-woke content on a regular basis.
If comedy is your thing, there's all kinds of gems from the 60s-90s (and early 2000s) and they dont' half seem refreshing compared to today's material.
TV can be a real time waster, and TBH it's not great for your brain nor your health to watch it too much, so in some ways it's a blessing - I'm now at least more productive and active since everything went to shit.
Keep your TV, just ditch today's MSM.
That case is very slightly different in that Nissan target black customers and Nissans are very much the car of choice for many black people.
Obviously it's completely wrong for brands aimed at black people to be so racist against white people. However, it's arguably even worse in the other 95% of cases when the brand in question isn't even focused on black customers.
Link isn’t working for me, so here’s an archive for any with the same issue: https://archive.is/ZFJ1d
But it didn't move in the slightest over the entirety of September - I'm sure there was absolutely no suppression of the site back then
Something I've noticed about these cases is that the English courts often see sense on appeal, whereas the slightly different Scottish legal system simply doubles down most of the time.