3 ms·
> but you have no way to see what that really means in it's totality. I think people would push back a lot if they could see that somehow. I’ve watched enough
by celdon25 2y ago
> but you have no way to see what that really means in it's totality. I think people would push back a lot if they could see that somehow.
I’ve watched enough Mark Dice videos to know how bad it is, and I regret not taking the blue pill sometimes. He’s shown just about every notable case of it happening (with proof). Though he knows how to game the system to resist being taken offline and you could say it’s part of his brand.
You could say that it wouldn’t be worth the risk for others to call it out like he does because it wouldn’t add to the content, and they could slip up.
You can disagree with his politics or personality but you probably wont find a leftist channel that covers that kind of censorship. I wish the videos were more categorized, though he doesn’t do it and uses generic video titles because apparently that makes it less likely to get censored.
- BlueTemplar 2y agoJust stop using platforms. For video, use PeerTube (or similar). This was a concern in 2009, but now, 15 years later, people using platforms have only themselves to blame. Stop being part of the problem !
- shadowgovt 2y ago[flagged]
- celdon25 2y agoDid you get that information from Wikipedia?
- shadowgovt 2y agoYes. Is there anything in their summary you would dispute? At least in my book, buying into the "US orchestrated 9/11" story is pretty cut-and-dried; not much room for debate on whether that makes one a conspiracy theorist.
- celdon25 2y agoWe have confirmation that the Saudis did it, and that the Bush Administration actively suppressed any investigation into the Saudis and invaded Afghanistan instead. Sen. Bob Graham had a lot to say on it. No need to really say anything more than that. I don't think "Bush did it", but the media censorship industrial complex was complicit in suppressing the truth at minimum. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQCkTu3n-KY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQCkTu3n-KY A better way to judge if he's a "conspiracy theorist" would be to look at what he says, what he cites as evidence, and judge for yourself if he has any credibility. A more valid disagreement would be his far-right political views. After the Trump shooting he shot down any conspiracy theories that had to do with it being an inside job, said conspiracy didn't make sense without any evidence, and then followed it up with a "simpler explanation: diversity". I consider myself center-right but he's too far to the right even for me (though I'm not a believer in using demographics to make hiring decisions, bias is not a fixable problem). I still think he's done a great job at exposing big tech. Wikipedia probably didn't include the above counter-argument. Disputes on Wikipedia are decided by a vote, and you're crazy if you think there isn't a bias there. I wouldn't trust it as a source for anything political. Even if individual statements are factual, the overall conclusion can't be grounded in truth when facts are cherry-picked.
- shadowgovt 2y ago> Even if individual statements are factual, the overall conclusion can't be grounded in truth when facts are cherry-picked. I'm inclined to agree with you. But I think that statement would apply to a blanket simplification like "The Saudis did it" also.
- celdon25 2y agoHere's a source which you may agree with: https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/new-video-documents-revive-questions-saudi-role-911-attacks-rcna158768 https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/new-video-documents-r...
- 2y ago