Devil's Advocate - How Are We To Interpret The Possibility Of The Demise of Rumble In The UK?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

No, they don't.

originally posted by: nickyw
a reply to: Muldar

listen to the actual words be parroted in the demands by the powerful shut down competition

twitter

am sure that YouTube rushed to demonetise brand in the hope that uk gov would shut down its competition, the reason brand didn't go to x is obvious as Musk is also a target with unapproved views as the us gov want x shut down, if not x then tesla or space x.

we are living through a totalitarian age..

If they shut down x well musk will just turn off his satellites over UK and the government will basically be shut down due to lack of communication on the internet so I think if they try to go after musk they're going to be knowing what must can do legally can do if they can leave me shut down free speech musk can also legally down shut down free speech also over the UK.

a reply to: nickyw

that was my point, it cant be flown upside down

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment


All censorship is bad, but Rumble's cards were marked the moemnt their idiot CEO published that letter saying he told the UK government to do one.

Can't be surprised after that.

a reply to: musicismagic

not the uk obvs but Washington with X, and is doing the same stuff using weaponising departments to control what information people are allowed to access think or say..

animal farm was to highlight that we're as liable to end up ruled by a totalitarian state a anyone else. shame this lot have to prove Orwell right I could have lived my life without finding out we've become the baddies.

a reply to: UpThenDown


That was good, the rotational symetry always foxed me, I finally get it now.

a reply to: UpThenDown

I always see a propellor going around

originally posted by: NorthOfStuffx2
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

But “government approved”

The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the United Kingdom.

With “full authority”

The regulator was initially established by the Office of Communications Act 2002 and received its full authority from the Communications Act 2003.[1]

Wish a “statutory duty”

It has a statutory duty to represent the interests of citizens and consumers by promoting competition and protecting the public from harmful or offensive material.

en.wikipedia.org...

Arms length, at best.

They have been trying in another thread to argue OFCOM is independent by linking to their website and arguing it must be independent because it says on their website... In a few words parroting official assertions...

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment


All censorship is bad, but Rumble's cards were marked the moemnt their idiot CEO published that letter saying he told the UK government to do one.

Can't be surprised after that.

He told them to go £_&## themselves and he did very well. They're not in any position to demand from them to demonetize one of their users who makes content for them. Any decent company should do the same.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

No, they don't.

No who didn't . ?

I didn't say they did anything , I said they want to .

YouTube demonetizes Russel Brand AKA Bans him , So he transfers his Efforts to Rumble .

A direct request is made to Rumble for them to Ban Russel Brand , They Refuse , So now the UK wants to ban the entire Rumble platform .

Now all of that being said would you like to clarify ?

a reply to: alldaylong

That's a rather pathetic comment. We're talking about liberty to act under one's own convictions & speak freely. The only alternative with this OFCOM nonsense is that free speech will cease to exist in the UK.

a reply to: UpThenDown

Good man, thank you for reducing the sum total of my ignorance on the matter. Now a happy bunny in the knowledge that we can fly it upside down in protest. Much appreciated!

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Surely you understand that what you just posted as evidence is at best a limited hangout by prior agreement to provide the public with the impression that both the BBC & OFCOM are independent organisations with their own authority to impose conditions & set standards? In reality they decide what they're going to present to the public over expensive lunches in private London clubs, meanwhile they roll ahead with the propaganda & censorship respectively, at the behest of the government, which has been infiltrated by WEF agents & is subject to the whims of the Bilderberg group, the banksters, the UN (which has partnered with the WEF for strategic implementation of their agenda) etc...? You would be extremely naive if you still believe these organisations do not act with gross collusion & deception right in the face of the British public..

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

It's not just Brand, he's just the most visible & the most aggressively anti-government/ NWO. They're taking Brand down as a pretext to then go on to say that independent open source hosting sites which adamantly believe in free speech are a danger because of [UH.. NaZiS & StUfF.] They intend that all information sources are curated by the Google AI algorithms & other tools of similar power.

a reply to: NorthOfStuffx2

Good post, thanks for confirming the evidence!

a reply to: SprocketUK

I actually think that no matter what happens next, the CEO was absolutely right to stand her ground & publicly decry the government's absolutely appalling stand on the matter of free speech, innocent until proven guilty, etc. If she stands up & nails her colours to the mast in that way, it emboldens others to resist in whatever manner they can manage versus a government which wants to absolutely shut down free speech, as well as the right to protest, the right to peaceful assembly & so forth. The world is going to Hell in a handbasket, adn we need people to raise their voices & resist the tyrants. By making noise which inspires & encourages others who find themselves in the persecuted minority, they are better able to cope with their circumstances, and better able to resist when the day comes for them to do so. I think it's totally inappropriate that you are referring to her action as 'stupid', and equally that you seem to think government has a right to 'mark someone's cards'. We should be able to hold government to account - they work for us, we are not their own pretty fiefdom to stomp all over as they wish.

Does anyone know exactly how they would enforce this law if using satellite internet?


Would they ban the use of the receiver if the satellite company doesn't comply?
Jail you if caught with starlink or ATS on your computer?

Uha reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I wish this hero worship of Russel Brand would stop, the man is a gob#e, his morals are looser than an MFI Wardrobe! His moral compass is kaput.

Honestly, he is not the uy who most people that like him think he is. He has the gift of the gab and he uses it to draw attention to himself, he has perfected this over many, many years. He is amazing at Public Relations, I'll give him that but the only other things I'd want to give him are a wide berth and a maybe the clap.

He is innocent until proven guilty, though i don't agree there's a witch hunt against him, he's bricking it because the sleazy truth has finally been revealed.

He was an incredibly Left Wing guy who was thrown a lifeline and has found fame in the embrace of the Donald Drumpf Fan Club and thus in this Echo Chamber for the Big Orange!

Also Biden is ancient and should be put down. Just in case the Trump Fanbois think I'm pro Biden. Screw your two party system. Stop picking from the 2 candidate the elites pick for you and start thinking for yourself.

Ffs

Time for some broad band piracy!

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: NorthOfStuffx2
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

But “government approved”

The Office of Communications, commonly known as Ofcom, is the government-approved regulatory and competition authority for the broadcasting, telecommunications and postal industries of the United Kingdom.

With “full authority”

The regulator was initially established by the Office of Communications Act 2002 and received its full authority from the Communications Act 2003.[1]

Wish a “statutory duty”

It has a statutory duty to represent the interests of citizens and consumers by promoting competition and protecting the public from harmful or offensive material.

en.wikipedia.org...

Arms length, at best.

They have been trying in another thread to argue OFCOM is independent by linking to their website and arguing it must be independent because it says on their website... In a few words parroting official assertions...

Why waste your time, Mate? They’re pro government tripe.