Breaking: YouTube has taken down the speech given by Andrew Bridgen in UK Parliament

a reply to: Asmodeus3

That didn't last long. The video has been reinstated.

twitter.com...

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

Let's see if we can learn who are these fact checkers and moderators of YouTube are.

If it's been banned on YT then it comes directly from the WHO.(Russell Brand looked into it).

originally posted by: Encia22
a reply to: Asmodeus3

That didn't last long. The video has been reinstated.

twitter.com...

Great news!

But... The fact remains it was taken down and this doesn't change. Those who took it down need to be hold accountable.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I think it's the automated algorithms that flagged it. There are many topics and keywords that set off alarm bells. Even music is a touchy subject on YT and even just a few bars/seconds of a tune can trigger copyright notices. Usually, an appeal forces human interaction and so, the video was made available again. Obviously, the censorship is present and it is established by the powers that be, but sometimes the A.I. that monitors YT can be a bit too agressive.

If you ever watch The After Why Files (live chat) on YT, A.J., the presenter, usually laments and rants about what he can and can't do or say. From subject matters to keywards that push his videos off the grid.

originally posted by: Encia22
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I think it's the automated algorithms that flagged it. There are many topics and keywords that set off alarm bells. Even music is a touchy subject on YT and even just a few bars/seconds of a tune can trigger copyright notices. Usually, an appeal forces human interaction and so, the video was made available again. Obviously, the censorship is present and it is established by the powers that be, but sometimes the A.I. that monitors YT can be a bit too agressive.

If you ever watch The After Why Files (live chat) on YT, A.J., the presenter, usually laments and rants about what he can and can't do or say. From subject matters to keywards that push his videos off the grid.

Even if this was correct the automated algorithms were not written by a mysterious and magical power...

In this case I think he has been obviously targeted.

a reply to: Encia22

Good point.

Will be dismissed by those whose beliefs don't fit with facts like that, though.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

There is always the possibility that the video was reported by multiple people... who purposefully targeted him. However, that would take a concerted effort. Also, at the time of writing, there were 11K likes and no dislikes (thumbs down) on the video.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Encia22

Good point.

Will be dismissed by those whose beliefs don't fit with facts like that, though.

'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.'

originally posted by: Encia22
a reply to: Asmodeus3

There is always the possibility that the video was reported by multiple people... who purposefully targeted him. However, that would take a concerted effort. Also, at the time of writing, there were 11K likes and no dislikes (thumbs down) on the video.

So if everyone did like it either there were reports without any thumbs down or it has been targeted by the evil forces. I find it very difficult to believe that this video violated the terms and conditions of YouTube and the algorithm picked up something in appropriate and toon it down as it's not the first video of Andrew Bridgen online.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Also, notwithstanding YouTube, the debates in The Commons are always available on the Parliament Live official website.

parliamentlive.tv...

Go to: 14:35:37 Andrew Bridgen MP (North West Leicestershire, Independent).

One last thing. Just before Bridgen's intervention, the Speaker of the House had adjourned the House. Bridgen was allowed to have his say in what I believe is called an Adjournment Debate... meaning, business was over and all could go home, they weren't obliged to sit and listen to him. Obviously, I don't think he would have been allowed to make his statement in any other way during normal Parliamentary activity.

a reply to: Encia22

Yes.

You can show folk facts and explanations but if they don't fit their particular belief set.....

originally posted by: Encia22
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Also, notwithstanding YouTube, the debates in The Commons are always available on the Parliament Live official website.

parliamentlive.tv...

Go to: 14:35:37 Andrew Bridgen MP (North West Leicestershire, Independent).

One last thing. Just before Bridgen's intervention, the Speaker of the House had adjourned the House. Bridgen was allowed to have his say in what I believe is called an Adjournment Debate... meaning, business was over and all could go home, they weren't obliged to sit and listen to him. Obviously, I don't think he would have been allowed to make his statement in any other way during normal Parliamentary activity.

Yes I know you can watch it there but there are more platforms such as rumble and Odyssey (I think it's called) where they don't usually take down videos.

Regardless of how long the process is in the parliament, and I am sure he can make his point even if he had less time, the fact is that YouTube took the video down. A very foolish act on their behalf. And it looks there is no excuse for this.

They need to find the fact checkers and fire them. Just as Elon Musk did when he took over twitter. If YouTube can be normalised again that would be great so we won't have the vaccine ideology or the transgender ideology running the shows...

originally posted by: karl 12
Existing thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Encia22

Yes.

You can show folk facts and explanations but if they don't fit their particular belief set.....

that goes both ways...

originally posted by: nickyw

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Encia22

Yes.

You can show folk facts and explanations but if they don't fit their particular belief set.....

that goes both ways...

The member seems to still be engaging in vaccine apologetics and defending of the official narratives. He wanted to deviate earlier from the main story insinuating that the MPs were not obliged to listen to Andrew Bridgen and that's why they walked out.

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: paraphi

the suppression of free expression is one of the reasons why I tend to suggest we are at a reformation like point that started with the religious wars of Blair and bush.. and when looking over the channel the other risk is a France 1780s like situation.. then yoinking over the pond to a soviet like fall..

it seems we are all replicating our worst periods of change..

As they say history doesn't repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.
Humans seem very prone to repeat their worst proclivities over and over.
History is the basis from which societies are built. Without it we fail to learn from past mistakes and run in circles.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am far from a vaccine apologetic. And when have I ever pushed the official narrative? I've always been against vaccinations, lockdowns, etc., and I believe it was all planned for nefarious reasons.

I simply presented my interpretation of the video's removal. You believe that some fact-checkers pulled it and should be fired. I believe the opposite; the video was flagged and obfuscated by an automated algorithm and, following an appeal by the M.P., reinstated by a human reviewer.

Finally, the extra part about the House of Commons walk out "in protest", was directed more at the members who have been following the other thread on the same subject. Unfortunately, I hadn't yet seen that thread and don't feel the need to duplicate my post across multiple threads. So, it was not intended to deviate from your topic which hasn't had much engagement, but maybe to give something extra to talk about considering the video is back up and running.

Oh, and next time please direct your true thoughts directly at the poster in question and not through chit chat with others.

originally posted by: Encia22
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am far from a vaccine apologetic. And when have I ever pushed the official narrative? I've always been against vaccinations, lockdowns, etc., and I believe it was all planned for nefarious reasons.

I simply presented my interpretation of the video's removal. You believe that some fact-checkers pulled it and should be fired. I believe the opposite; the video was flagged and obfuscated by an automated algorithm and, following an appeal by the M.P., reinstated by a human reviewer.

Finally, the extra part about the House of Commons walk out "in protest", was directed more at the members who have been following the other thread on the same subject. Unfortunately, I hadn't yet seen that thread and don't feel the need to duplicate my post across multiple threads. So, it was not intended to deviate from your topic which hasn't had much engagement, but maybe to give something extra to talk about considering the video is back up and running.

Oh, and next time please direct your true thoughts directly at the poster in question and not through chit chat with others.

I don't think I have said that you a vaccine apologist. I am also against lockdowns and mass vaccinations as well as against products that are untested and experimental but they are used as if they are safe and effective.

You may flag a video but still the algorithms may not take it down if there is no reason to take it down. The algorithms are written by humans and they haven't appeared on their own. So the human interference should be there either if the video is flagged or not.

According to Bridgen after a public outcry and complaints it was reinstated obviously by a fact checker or moderator. YouTube has been exposed on this occasion.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

it certainly does rhyme, its no wonder poems from the likes of kipling, belloc, chresterton, essays from owell and lewis or plays from shakespear areplacedin the pot beside terrorists.

its because reading their words we can see like for like situations.. carrol on The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment called the current state of affairs from seeing it in his lifetime..

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

in the 20s and 30s it was Christians, libertarians and conservatives that blocked the liberal progressives from winning the race with the nazis as to who would get laws into place to sterilise and euthanise all the wrong types..

this time around they've learnt who their real opponents are.. and they are all in lockstep but it'll be the same outcome.. the question is who'll win the race Galton started this time

worth noting Boris Johnson's hero Churchill was on the progressive liberal side until he switched allegiances first independent then back to conservatives.. I have to wonder what Boris will do as his party is as dead in the water at this point as Churchills progressive liberals where in 1924..

a reply to: Asmodeus3

growing up in London by sea (Brighton) with family there and now living along the coast in a more socialist city, try as I might I've yet to find such people in the wild.. most I know feel the direction of travel was/is wrong..

it'll all come out as it always does then we'll see what happens.