It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
How did this all start?
PragerU CEO Marissa Streit told TheBlaze that college students began contacting PragerU in the summer of 2016 saying they couldn’t view some of the outfit’s videos on campus browsers.
That’s when PragerU discovered that YouTube subjected the videos to “restricted mode” filtering.
Streit said at first YouTube didn’t respond to PragerU’s information requests — but after a ton of people signed a petition and the issue began hitting the news cycle, YouTube finally started answering.
This summer, she said, YouTube indicated it had reviewed the videos in question and determined they should be restricted as “inappropriate” for younger viewers or demonetized — which means PragerU loses advertising revenue.
The explanations for the decision were vague and included continued referrals to YouTube’s community guidelines, which Streit said are so broad that they amount to “we can do whatever we want.”
originally posted by: DJW001
originally posted by: howtonhawky
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: howtonhawky
It is true that the kids are being coached and the video showed the coaching up close.
So what? Have you ever been on television? You would want to be coached too.
Then i would be an actor if someone was coaching.
Correct. Most of the student activists are theater people. That's why they are so articulate and handle themselves well in front of an audience. Do you. Have a problem with that?
if your saying that the news crews rounded up the theater group and put them on tv giving them a voice over the rest then that is a problem.
i have not heard any students in numbers able to get air time that are pro 2nd.
no them actors are not the next congress peeps but i see they do have a future in hollywood or the media
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Deplorable
This is what happens when you make stuff up just to get ratings.
sounds like you are saying that we only need to hear one side of the debate because people got shot.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: howtonhawky
sounds like you are saying that we only need to hear one side of the debate because people got shot.
Reading comprehension issues it seems. I am saying that if someone came forward and told a grieving community that the death of their children was necessary so they could own guns they would probably not be welcome in that community much longer. People are finally beginning to see the NRA for the evil influence it really is. They are not there to defend the rights of Americans, they are there to protect the small arms industry, irrespective of the damage it does to our society.
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: howtonhawky
Your post is completely incomprehensible. Do you own a gun?
originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: howtonhawky
Your post is completely incomprehensible. Do you own a gun?