Bitchute blocked due to terrorism? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 02:23:12 am
content: I just saw the Contacting Telstra Support About Blocking Bitchute video and I heard of some sites being blocked in certain countries weeks ago but now I see they are using terrorism as an excuse after from what happened with the Church shooting.https://twitter.com/davidleyonhjelm/status/1107797978557771776Quotehttps://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2019/03/isps-in-au-and-nz-start-censoring-the-internet-without-legal-precedent/QuoteThey haven't blocked it in my country yet and they seem to work okay.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 02:55:29 am
content: It isn't a block like a full on court order, as with pirate bay etc. Telstra removes those domains from their DNS. However the sneaky thing is that telstra modems have locked DNS settings and so you have to rely on other methods.Telstra has so far double down on this course of action and I will eventually be moving away from Telstra services entirely due to this.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 02:57:56 am
content: Optus also have locked DNS settings on there modems, easiest solution is grab a router that you can set the dns on, and treat the modem as a modem via the WAN port.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 02:59:03 am
content: It makes you wonder why they want to hide what happened in New Zealand so badly.What of it is so damaging to let the public witness. It's not a call to glory, it's not an advertisement for violence. It's terror, pure and unadulterated, something that needs to be there for people to understand, to understand the sheer inhumanity that people are capable, and to learn how to be different, today and tomorrow.The constant and varied need of entity A to shut up entity B is something I will never understand. Information, in any form, and in any capacity should not be censored from those who wish to see it.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 03:05:34 am
content: If such sites acted responsibly and actually worked towards removing the video which shows in graphic detail from a 1st person POV a gunman at close range murdering 50 innocent civilians, men, women, children, indiscriminately and with abhorrent callous detachment, then such actions would not be necessary.In NZ the video has been rightly classified as objectionable material.We do not need to have this video available, and we should do everything we can to eradicate it from being available to the public, it does nothing except to give this evil person the exposure which he wanted.I live in Christchurch.

author: John B
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 03:07:33 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on April 13, 2019, 02:57:56 amI do have a spare Netgear router. So the telstra modem is plugged into the ADSL line, but then connect another router to the telstra modems WAN port?

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 03:09:52 am
content: If something is Illegal, they are well within there rights to limit access to it,just like a torrent site.things get hidden from the average user all the time, google really doesnt like returning results older than 10 years old. yet most people would not know this.To John, Connect the telstra modem to the netgears WAN port, and all your devices to the netgear not the telstra.Edit:Sorry, correction for Halycon, Infringing copyright goes against the terms of service for the connection, not Illegal,

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 03:15:03 am
content: I live in the US. It's not a newsweek without people dying, just in my local area alone. Yet we still document it, we still inform people, and in this situation, we have a relatively rare and complete first person archive of the event.People all over the world are told to fear violence, and fear those who create it, but there grows an issue when you start to fear something you do not know, and cannot see. This video, and other like it show people what exists in the world, and I cannot think of a better way to explain to people exactly why it has to be stopped.This should absolutely not be kept out in the open, it's not something that should be normalized either, but to censor and banish it from the public because it's something we're not proud of is wrong, and just hides people away from the truth.Quote from: Rerouter on April 13, 2019, 03:09:52 amIs it illegal? The act of creating it most certainly is but the tapes of what happened in New York on 9/11 are not only available to see, but are heavily documented for all to understand, know and remember. I myself have studied them to great length, to gain myself an insight as to what really goes on in the world.Even if it was illegal, it's not the job of the ISP to limit access to it, it's the job of the responsible jurisdiction to find and prosecute the distributor. If this is how you want to frame it, I see it as companies then simply taking justice into their own hands.

author: sleemanj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 03:28:15 am
content: Quote from: Ampera on April 13, 2019, 03:15:03 amSo we should allow any "relatively rare first person video" of anything to exist publicly accessible online because these things happen and should not be "hidden". I think most right thinking people would be hard pressed to say that they would support that view without exception.No. Some things are are simply abhorrent and objectionable and the only reasonable and responsible thing to do is to work to remove them. There is NOTHING that the general public can usefully derive from this video. NOTHING. Archive it for criminal justice and for the Royal Commission of Inquiry, the public will find nothing of use to them in it.This is not war documentary where justification of ensuring the public know what is being done in their name can be made, this is a video by a terrorist acting alone made to garner fame and incite hatred and violence.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 03:35:54 am
content: I will at-least set the baseline here, Australia is not the US, NZ is not the US, if you see someone with a gun without a good context its seen as danger, not the normal,creation or distribution of terrorism propaganda is Illegal in Aus, and I assume the same for NZ, and fairly heavily policed. The way to have a gun for most of Australia would be with a hunting licence, if you ever use that gun to threaten someone, your license is revoked and your black listed for some time.Even the news here will not generally show any video media where you can see someone dying. this is the norm, b roll of the incident and investigating, fine, but not the direct article, which is better off in the hands of the relevant authorities.So the reason for the removal would be for distribution of terrorism propaganda, the police or someone in the government would have issues take down notices for the specific topic,

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 03:42:26 am
content: Quote from: John B on April 13, 2019, 03:07:33 amYou can also manually set your DNS server on your client PC's in the network settings. It will override the DNS provided by your router's DHCP server.On the subject of blocking URL's in Australia, I've noticedAussie Broadbanddon't carry on with such nonsense. To-date, they are yet to block Bitchute and other sites which Telstra, Optus and others have decided to block.Quote from: Rerouter on April 13, 2019, 03:09:52 amTorrent sites nor merely downloading copyrighted content from torrents isnotillegal in Australia.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 03:49:24 am
content: Then of what use do the tapes for 9/11 have? It was one of the most abhorrent days in modern history, yet there are museums and documentaries about that.Of course I agree for the need for exceptions, I never said there weren't any, I'm just saying that this is not one of them. This video is of historical importance, a major terror attack, something that people should remember, and not forget.There are videos that serve no historical purpose, where the benefit to the viewer is not in learning about and remembering an event, and the detriment is purely to the people who had to suffer to make the videos.This is history, documented as well as reasonable, and for the same reasons we teach children about the holocaust in schools, and big production companies make documentaries about 9/11, it's important that this stuff is not just recorded, but available to be viewed and learned from.Quote from: Rerouter on April 13, 2019, 03:35:54 amYou are correct, the US is not New Zealand nor Australia, but this conversation is not about guns. What the laws do and do not say are also not what is being debated here, it's if ISPs are justified in taking that action into their own hands, irrespective of police order. I do not know if it is illegal or not in Australia, the word of whatever law you refer is to say, and it's up to the courts (or whatever entity is responsible for handling these sorts of requests in your jurisdiction) to decide if this applies, not the ISPs.As far as I am aware in the US, it is legal to share recorded videos of terrorism, I can walk into the NY State museum and see 9/11 footage. I'm not sure if I'd see this as propaganda. I did not watch the video myself, but irrespective of whatever sort of things he said, that is the absolute LEAST of what should even be of concern here. Having understandable and acceptable qualms of allowing public access to views of strong human suffering and death is one thing, but the censorship of someone's views and opinions, regardless of how nefarious they may be, is violating a key human right.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 05:14:50 am
content: Quote from: John B on April 13, 2019, 02:55:29 amMe too, I'm gone, moving to Exetel.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 05:19:15 am
content: Quote from: Rerouter on April 13, 2019, 03:09:52 amThe video is not illegal in this country. Telstra took it upon themselves to play censor and block sites containing it, they werenotdirected to do so by the government or any law enforcement agency, they just wanted to virtue signal.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 06:49:49 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 13, 2019, 05:19:15 amI find it surprising given that it will inevitably piss off some customers.Quote from: sleemanj on April 13, 2019, 03:05:34 amDude, just admit already that you have never been on LiveLeakThe Internet is absolutely full of gore. There are videos of torture and brutal executions in third world shitholes, gang violence (including third world gang violence, 'nuff said), ISIS execution videos which certainly do actively promote violence and terrorism too, gruesome accidents, animal cruelty, all sorts of stuff.And it hasn't been there just since yesterday. Whole forums exist dedicated to collecting and commenting on such videos.Or maybe it's not violence but politics of unorthodox persuasion that bother you? Worry not,we have you coveredtooIt's all there and it will stay there because there are as many people who want to watch it as there are those who want it not to be watched.Quote from: sleemanj on April 13, 2019, 03:05:34 amIn the Liberal Democratic West, your Internet watches you!Quote from: sleemanj on April 13, 2019, 03:05:34 amIf you care about limiting exposure, read also about Streisand EffectAnd understand that there are millions of people who have already realized 10 years ago that censorship is a thing on the Internet and download everything remotely "interesting" that they see. This video will keep being reuploaded everywhere for years to come as long as there is any interest in it.

author: stj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 07:20:33 am
content: NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator EEVblog for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.An optional additional explanation is:

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 08:22:59 am
content: Quote from: magic on April 13, 2019, 06:49:49 amNot the least bit surprising. It'sverytrendy these days for companies to virtue signal their "social justice" credentials, often at the financial and reputation expense of the company. Such thinking has infected modern corporate culture.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 08:25:07 am
content: Quote from: magic on April 13, 2019, 06:49:49 amAnd you can easily find that stuff on Youtube, no need for Liveleaks or other sites.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 08:31:23 am
content: Quote from: sleemanj on April 13, 2019, 03:05:34 amBut making itillegalto posses or watch is one step too far. You can go to jail in NZ simply for linking to this video let alone possessing it, or the "manifesto". That isinsanity. You cannot run a functioning society trying to play whack-a-mole.And in an insane ironic twist the NZ government will actuallysell youthe manifesto they have banned!QuoteHaving entire sites banned because of this video and people fighting over freedoms is precisely what he wanted. SoQuoteMy condolences for your governments actions that will come back and bite you one day when they censor and declare illegal to posses information thatyouwant to access.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 11:19:49 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 13, 2019, 08:31:23 amthe same goes for childporn, I don't think there are many that object to that.But banning whole sites is not the way to do it

author: splin
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 12:24:05 pm
content: Having made that difficult first step, it's a much smaller step to start blocking sites that host content critical of Telstra's business practices and competence - including EEVBLOG.

author: stj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 02:06:05 pm
content: blocking is blocking,next they will block political candidates in the runup to elections.btw, thanks for wiping my last post without explanation - kind of telstra-ish.all i did was link an analysis of the content.

author: Ampera
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 02:35:07 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on April 13, 2019, 11:19:49 amWait wait wait. You're saying child porn shouldn't be banned off the internet? I mean not by ISPs, it should be by the government shutting down the distributors and arresting the creators, but really?The big difference here is that there is no historical, documentative, or really any legitimate value besides perverse sexual pleasure derived from the suffering of children. There aren't many exceptions, but /that's/ one of them. Be careful here though, this was one topic I intentionally avoided as this can spiral well out of control.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 03:07:02 pm
content: Configure a different nameserver (https://www.lifewire.com/free-and-public-dns-servers-2626062) or install a recursive resolver (bind, unbound, ...) with a list of the root nameservers. The latter also helps with DNSSEC.

author: Stray Electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 04:35:39 pm
content: Quote from: Rerouter on April 13, 2019, 03:35:54 amREALLY? Then how far are they willing to take that? It sounds to me in cases like this then it would be illegal to mention it on the news or the internet or even to talk to your family or neighbors and even discuss that it happened. This very thread would be illegal by that rule.From here it sounds like the governments (and some of the news media) of Australia and NZ want to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that these events don't happen. This is the kind of action we've come to expect from the dictatorial Chinese government but not from democratic nations.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 05:49:39 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on April 13, 2019, 03:42:26 amThat works until your ISP transparently proxies DNS which I have occasionally caught ISPs doing. The next step is to direct your DNS requests over your VPN to a trusted source.Some nations have caught onto how ineffective blocking through DNS is and require ISPs to block at the IP level but of course a VPN solves that also until the VPN IP is also blocked. I thought I read that Russia is doing this by null routing through BGP now but have not been able to find the article again.Quote from: langwadt on April 13, 2019, 11:19:49 amThat provides a great example of unintended consequences in the US withteens charged and convicted under various child pornography lawsfor sharing photographs. The prosecutors, legislators, and courts are very proud of their work.How long until the bar for censorship is lowered enough to reach matters critical for public discussion? <sarcastic>It is too bad there are no examples of this happening in the past.</sarcastic>

author: station240
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 06:52:01 pm
content: Blocking entire domains for one piece of content, or multiple copies of said video, is no solution.ISPs in Australia are just too cheap to dedicate a server and staff to actually filtering content.Our government are not helping, being a bunch of useless technophobes.Doesn't work either, as people can easily setup a transparent proxy to serve up the content from a different url/domain.A minimal fix would be to use the "Last-Modified" value in the HTTP headers to at least allow access to videos before the Christchurch incident, that and unblocking the homepage/user account pages.What is probably needed is a central feed for 'proven' objectionable content, specific URLs, which ISPs can ban the instant they are reported.

author: MrMobodies
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 07:06:55 pm
content: Sorry about that so it is not a government block.I see it is just the ISP's that are interfering with their DNS.Not a good attempt if it can be easily bypassed and why bother in the first place.I know the ISP I am with had an opt out service in the past to block certain types content which was blocking work websites but I am not sure whether it was done through DNS.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 07:37:44 pm
content: Quote from: station240 on April 13, 2019, 06:52:01 pmWhat you suggest cannot possibly work because HTTP has been largely replaced with HTTPS where the header information is not available through inspection. Of course a nation like Australia could always regulate HTTPS like they did encryption or require all certificate private keys to be registered with them. Or did they already do that?If the designers of IPv6 had had their way,opportunistic encryptionvia IPSEC would have been ubiquitous by now protecting all connections leaving DNS and IP blocking the only alternatives and HTTPS unneeded. (1) The virtuous national security authorities in the US managed to stop that by controlling the standards committees which was money well spent for them after the Clipper fiasco.(1) I ran an early implementation under Windows 2000 on my home network for a while. It was a little weird seeing routine network traffic like pings, DNS, and SMB being encrypted between machines without having to configure anything. The CPUs of that time limited performance but that would not be a problem now.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 10:08:12 pm
content: Yes, HTTP interception isn't going to fly these days because encryption is ubiquitous. Even this post is submitted over HTTPS and I made no special effort to that end.Quote from: David Hess on April 13, 2019, 07:37:44 pmIt would be difficult as most certification authorities (or individual websites) aren't subject to Australian jurisdiction. Also insecure as hell, imagine this database leaking.But there is a way around, already implemented in some HTTPS proxies/filters for corporate installations: the proxy has its own CA, whose public key must be installed and "trusted" by all client machines. For each connection, the proxy self-issues a certificate to the name of the target website, which the client accepts.Quote from: David Hess on April 13, 2019, 07:37:44 pmInteresting, I didn't know before.Quote from: EEVblog on April 13, 2019, 08:25:07 amThe difference is that Youtube tends to delete such stuff when it's reported to them while some other hosts don't care at all.Quote from: EEVblog on April 13, 2019, 08:22:59 amI come from software, I know. But it's one thing when it was done by social networks, which had some content rules since day one, and another thing with ISPs, who ideally ought to be "dumb pipes". IIRC there were some cases of torrents being blocked, but by ISPs who were also cable TV vendors, so not exactly selflessly or for brownie points

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 13, 2019, 10:52:32 pm
content: Quote from: magic on April 13, 2019, 10:08:12 pmThe idea lives on in the descendants of theFreeS/WAN project.Quote from: magic on April 13, 2019, 10:08:12 pmYouTube (and Patreon and others) have deleted content and kicked creators off for a lot less. Google censors their search results. The situation has already gone far past the content New Zealand and Australia are complaining about.

author: Deodand2014
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2019, 12:51:57 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on April 13, 2019, 10:52:32 pmGoogle of course owns YouTube, and you are right. A friend of mine commented that YouTube booted 100pro-marijuanachannels with little or no explanation around about the same time as the 'adpocalypse' was hitting the firearms related channels.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2019, 01:32:20 am
content: Quote from: Deodand2014 on April 14, 2019, 12:51:57 amI don't think that is quite the same, marijuana is still illegal under federal law, and googles customers (the advertisers) did notwant to advertise on anything firearms related

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2019, 11:03:20 am
content: Smoking marijuana is illegal, talking about it is not, openly encouraging others to smoke may not be if somebody proves it was "encouraging" indeed.Google tends to be a bunch of libertarian hippies so I doubt they would block it on legal grounds on their own initiative and without any pressure. See how much they historically cared about copyright. Probably more of their employees support decriminalization of marijuana than not. All those SV companies used to be very liberal and talked a lot about freedom of speech and how it will make the world a better place until a number of things happened:- organized campaigns appeared against them for hosting various sorts of controversial content- they realize that not everybody actually is like them and uses their platform to promote the same pet causes- advertisers didn't want to be displayed side by side with some things- governments put pressure on them to "combat" terrorism, hate speech, radicalism, racism, nationalism, you name it, all sorts of things that are big pain in the butt of many EU countries, for example- they themselves got really, genuinely scared of the radical right wing or even Donald You Know WhoQuote from: David Hess on April 13, 2019, 10:52:32 pmLeaving 3LAs aside, I wonder what role performance/latency concerns played in the decision to ditch encryption from the standard. It takes a few round trips to establish a shared secret key and the key has to be remembered by both peers if you don't want to renegotiate it for the next query or even individual packet. If this was before Snowden, probably not that many people would have ended up using it and there was risk it could become another dead standard. Things are a little different these days, I think the push would be much stronger.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 14, 2019, 11:53:32 pm
content: Quote from: langwadt on April 14, 2019, 01:32:20 amWell, save us from discussing whether something should be illegal or not if it is currently illegal. That should do wonders for public discourse and empathy.What is the difference between Google doing this and the US government abridging freedom of speech? Google can do openly what the federal government cannot.For firearms and controversial subjects, it is too bad there was no alternative like giving the advertisers a choice other than censorship. In case it is not clear, I am being sarcastic here. How Google/Youtube handled this unambiguously shows that they support firearm prohibition and everything that entails including repeal of the US 2nd amendment. There are other companies playing this game with various issues and levels of success.Quote from: magic on April 14, 2019, 11:03:20 amGoogle certainly tries to look like that. Judge their actions instead of their words.QuoteTheir employees do not control the company. There is a phase commonly attributed to Lenin which comes to mind.QuoteThe US (and New York state) government has been doing that to various degrees.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_PointQuotePerformance was never an issue.QuoteWhen I tested it, performance was never a problem. I think encryption was established on a connection basis similar to how NAT and stateful firewalls work. For instance when you pinged a system, the first ping was delayed but all subsequent pings had no measurable additional latency.QuoteIt was intended to be built into the IP stack and protected all traffic depending on endpoint support. Using it just required enabling it. NAT was a problem on IPv4 but obviously not an issue with IPv6 where all endpoints can have routable IP addresses.It would have been a major headache for anybody mining traffic like ISPs and governments.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2019, 09:31:46 am
content: Quote from: David Hess on April 14, 2019, 11:53:32 pmI do not disagree. And when I say "hippies" I mean itBut they could be much worse. Like an Australian ISP hurrying to enforce New Zealand regulations on American companies.I think Google is at least having some cognitive dissonance about it.Quote from: David Hess on April 14, 2019, 11:53:32 pmTechnically not, practically I'm under impression (disclaimer: never actually worked there) the company is run a little bit like a cult and relies on employee's belief that they are making the world a better (= more leftist hippie) place. If the CEO suddenly announced that Google supports war on drugs, I can guarantee there would be massive drama and resignations. They wouldn't be able to brainwash their drones into obedience on certain matters, surely not overnight. It's a symbiotic relationship between left leaning nerds getting emotional validation and bean counters needing obedient workforce willing to live in a kindergarten-like environment past their thirties and devote wholly to Mother Corporation.And I'm exaggerating only a bit, see the attached still from their official meeting (where they had a hug over 2016 election)Quote from: David Hess on April 14, 2019, 11:53:32 pmFor youHTTPS also didn't saw wide adoption outside of high security niches until this decade and it wasn't solely because of NSA.

author: madires
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2019, 01:33:58 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on April 13, 2019, 07:37:44 pmI'm not sure if the lovely three-letter agencies are the reason for dropping mandatory IPSec in IPv6. IPSec isn't a simple protocol and it's easy to make mistakes. Over time a lot of security issues were found in several IPSec implementations. There are also IPSec incompatibilities between VPN products. Some can be mitigated by tweaking settings, and some products simply won't work with specific other ones. Enforcing IPSec would have created an additional burden for making IPv6 happen.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2019, 08:59:49 pm
content: Quote from: magic on April 16, 2019, 09:31:46 amI should amend that to say latency was not an issue. Back when I tested it, throughput was an issue on 100 Mbit/sec Ethernet LAN because processors were not fast enough although cryptography accelerators would have been and today's processors even without cryptography acceleration can handle it. The processors back then were fast enough for the fastest common Internet connections though.Quote from: madires on April 16, 2019, 01:33:58 pmThat is not what they did. It was more subtle.QuoteThat is what they did; they made the standard infeasible complex and exploit prone. Nobody said they were dumb. There were complaints about this at the time which the committee heads ignored.The NSA "experts" controlled the committee and disagreed with the civilian experts. There is no need to guess the results. Later theydid the same thing to NISTand it was eventually revealed discrediting both but again, the warning signs were present immediately.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2019, 09:41:09 pm
content: Quote from: David HessHa, that's a good one. I'm not sure if anyone here is interested in such things and at the same time hasn't yet heard of it, but this backdoor-prone algorithm promoted by NSA (and presumably pre-backdoored by them) ended up in some Juniper network gear and somebody (NSA, China, hell knows) managed to hack or place a rouge employee at Juniper and modify the backdoor to their own. This was discovered a few years ago.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 16, 2019, 10:27:53 pm
content: Quote from: magic on April 16, 2019, 09:41:09 pmOur heroes, what would we do without them?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 17, 2019, 07:36:07 am
content: Quote from: magic on April 14, 2019, 11:03:20 amNot at Google headquarters it's not. Completely legal in California.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 17, 2019, 08:14:47 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 17, 2019, 07:36:07 amAll the questions I've ever had about Apple have now been answered!

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2019, 08:23:10 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 17, 2019, 07:36:07 amEven better then. I was saying that they certainly aren't removing weed videos out of concerns about illegality, that would be totally not their style. I suspect some external influence.Now, "holocaust didn't happen" or "there exist differences between men and women", that I can imagine Google being happy to delete

author: stj
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2019, 09:51:39 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 17, 2019, 07:36:07 amit would be classed as "smoking in the workplace" - so still illegal.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2019, 02:10:19 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on April 17, 2019, 07:36:07 amIt is still illegal under federal law but they lack the resources to completely enforce it. One example of how they continue to enforce it is that it disqualifies someone from passing a background check to purchase a firearm as people with state issued marijuana permits have discovered.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2019, 03:00:43 pm
content: Quote from: Ampera on April 13, 2019, 02:59:03 amWhy is the video banned in NZ followed by prison time if watched while i can watch it here with no prison nor banned?Do NZ gov ban ISIS chopping heads too? NZ gov ban ZeroHedge while letting Youtube free?People on the net is talking about the video was a "five eyes" staged military event that went bad at the same timeas there was a person killing people in the mosk while police ran a training session on just such stagings?!QuoteThere is still no gov explanations of the melting (nanothermite) corner of the tower and im not surprised.

author: soldar
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2019, 03:32:50 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on April 13, 2019, 10:52:32 pmYoutube, Google etc. , Their business is selling advertising. That is their business and it is their advertisers who say "I don't want to be associated with questionable stuff". So Youtube demonetizes the most ridiculous things but you can blame their advertisers and Youtube playing it safe.There is a guy who has a channel where he tests mouse and rat traps. It is totally educational and he feeds the rodents he catches to wildlife in the area and shows that in the videos but Youtube censor anything showing a trap going off and killing a rodent so he has to censor his videos in Youtube and show the full video on another platform. It is ridiculous what Youtube does but they are not the only ones to blame. Advertisers and the general public as well.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 17, 2019, 05:34:25 pm
content: Quote from: David Hess on April 17, 2019, 02:10:19 pmand afaiu all the marijuana businesses do everything in cash only because the banks don't want to touch something that couldland them a criminal prosecution for “aiding and abetting” a federal crime and money laundering.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: April 18, 2019, 04:58:47 am
content: Quote from: stj on April 17, 2019, 09:51:39 amTell that to Joe Rogan.

author: David Hess
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: April 19, 2019, 10:55:54 am
content: Quote from: soldar on April 17, 2019, 03:32:50 pmI agree however Google and YouTube made a deliberate choice of all or nothing rather than allowing advertisers to select what content their ads were associated with; they chose for them. Google and YouTube (1) also lied and continue to lie to content makers and watchers about what is going on. They are claiming virtues they lack by deliberate choice.That might be acceptable if the same behavior did not also exist with Patreon, banks, and payment processors which means it practically applies everywhere and there is no alternatives.The Third Wave Experimentcomes to mind.(1)How timely.