3 ms·

Wow, your post is beyond sinister! 1) He did not imply the world would be "good" if the CIA didn't exist. That's a ridiculous take and is smearing a very well

Wow, your post is beyond sinister! 1) He did not imply the world would be "good" if the CIA didn't exist. That's a ridiculous take and is smearing a very well researched channel. 2) Youtube didn't just stop promoting this piece. They are hiding it. You can't find it even if you search for it. 3) He's not just trying to "create a buzz", department of homeland security paid him a visit now his videos are disappearing - if you think that's not worrisome, well damn! 4) Implying that if you create an axiom that has not been "state approved" then you deserve to get delisted? Insanely dystopian because you more or less don't seem to care and justify state intervention in private well researched but pretty bland political historical takes. His views are not that radical. Almost standard in many European countries and that result in some state agency coming to his door and threatening him? Like what??

jeanlucas 6y ago
Replying point by point: (1) He does imply that in the script yes, in several ways. Pay close attention to moments like "like a good democracy should never have interference". (2) The bit about YouTube hiding is good point taken, I didn't notice that, I thought it was just not showing up in recommended videos. (3) He is also trying to create a buzz, the homeland security visit is not related to that video. My point is not that it is not worrisome, but that this is nothing new. The US is like this since the beginning. Have you ever seen what happens to journalists that crack open the NSA and CIA? (4) And it does not imply that, but implies that YouTube is not a platform for free speech, as it has never been. No novelty here. Surprisingly if it was the TV times this wouldn't even go live, no it is going live. The system is changing little by little, but doesn't mean it is 100% free speech. Never was.
- 6510 6y ago
  There use to be a reasonable channel by a retired CIA employee. His many videos simply showed pictures of a country along with the declassified text about the mission. The channel one day just vanished. The "why?" is left up to our imagination. All I know is that making the channel took a good bit of effort and the content was historically significant.
austincheney 6y ago
Its not dystopian only because somebody has a difference of opinion. That is perhaps the opposite of dystopian.

jeanlucas 6y ago

Replying point by point: (1) He does imply that in the script yes, in several ways. Pay close attention to moments like "like a good democracy should never have interference". (2) The bit about YouTube hiding is good point taken, I didn't notice that, I thought it was just not showing up in recommended videos. (3) He is also trying to create a buzz, the homeland security visit is not related to that video. My point is not that it is not worrisome, but that this is nothing new. The US is like this since the beginning. Have you ever seen what happens to journalists that crack open the NSA and CIA? (4) And it does not imply that, but implies that YouTube is not a platform for free speech, as it has never been. No novelty here. Surprisingly if it was the TV times this wouldn't even go live, no it is going live. The system is changing little by little, but doesn't mean it is 100% free speech. Never was.

6510 6y ago
There use to be a reasonable channel by a retired CIA employee. His many videos simply showed pictures of a country along with the declassified text about the mission. The channel one day just vanished. The "why?" is left up to our imagination. All I know is that making the channel took a good bit of effort and the content was historically significant.

austincheney 6y ago

Its not dystopian only because somebody has a difference of opinion. That is perhaps the opposite of dystopian.