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

a reply to: djz3ro

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.

your not wrong.

But in the case of Russel Brand you're looking at the wrong thing , you're looking at exactly what the MSM want you to see . Yes Russel was a slime ball leftist no doubt , but you're missing the bigger picture and that is simple.

you don't have to Trust Russel Brand or Like him , All you have to do is listen to what the man is trying to say listen to the words coming from his mouth.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
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!

I mean you can do if you like but be aware

To deliberately fly the flag upside down is a signal indicating a situation of 'DISTRESS'. It is also "lese Majeste" (which means: insulting the Crown), and is theoretically still a crime in the UK and its commonwealth!

not that I agree with such a silly law

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
All you have to do is listen to what the man is trying to say listen to the words coming from his mouth.

hes not always as erudite as he would like you to believe

200 people in the UK seems like hyperbole, friend.
Just giving an impression.
Obviously Brand had a UK following though, and he has millions of devoted followers.
BTW, he's got 6.66 Million followers on YT.
6.66 ----> 666.
Kinda funny.
Just saying.

a reply to: Muldar

Not much one can do about big brother except leave the country. It's getting down to brass tacks and oppression is becoming too obvious even for the mentally slow. Those who resign themselves to things "as they are" deserve whatever they get. The rest will have to do more than just speak loudly and often. We have to find ways to push back.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment


I disagree, it puts her company on a collision course with a very thin skinned government.

originally posted by: Muldar

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.

And now they are getting banned... quite the win that

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Muldar

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.

And now they are getting banned... quite the win that

They try to ban them..
That's true.
So what?

The problem is the UK Government and not Rumble. The Brits should be very concerned their country could turn into a Police State.

But again, well done to Rumble.

Nobody supports the action by the UK Government with the exception of some government and OFCOM apologists.

a reply to: Muldar

I honestly dont care in this case, never looked at Rumble and wouldnt want to put a cent in Brand's pocket after all these allegations came out

originally posted by: SprocketUK
a reply to: Muldar

I honestly dont care in this case, never looked at Rumble and wouldnt want to put a cent in Brand's pocket after all these allegations came out

The thing about not supporting Brand financially I can definitely see it. I can't see the reason though. These allegations are just allegations at the moment we speak. You don't know what is going on and when anonymous women make allegations of a serious nature of alleged offences that allegedly happened 15-20 years ago there must be some skepticism.

a reply to: Muldar


Its not as though Brand hasnt alluded to the allegations previously though is it?


ETA I am not a court so am not subject to the same levels of proof a court might be.

a reply to: Muldar

the thing is its leveraging so much anger and hate, its lynch mob mentality that does not care about guilt just venting the anger and hurting others, in the threads on the nurse there where those longing to torture her, in the threads on the tree cut down their where those dreaming of cutting a 16 year old in half with a chain saw as punishment for what was obviously not the work of a 16 year old, so the speed society leaps to lynch mob mentality will result in violence and death at some point

we've come close a few times thus far, a gc book launch in Spain nearly ended with a bunch of women burnt alive in a shop, and if i was to make a prediction it would be something similar happening..

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
Not much one can do about big brother except leave the country. It's getting down to brass tacks and oppression is becoming too obvious even for the mentally slow. Those who resign themselves to things "as they are" deserve whatever they get. The rest will have to do more than just speak loudly and often. We have to find ways to push back.

my prediction is the mob will get its lynching at some point which will set the next stages in motion.. its obvious the state, courts, police have failed in maintaining even a semblance of order

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
The UK wants to ban an entire open source Video Sharing Website because they will not Ban 'Russel Brand ' ?

ummmmm okay ? Is Russel Brand really that much of a threat ?

These guys say everything's going to be banned in short order:
rumble.com...

a reply to: UpThenDown

hes not always as erudite as he would like you to believe

I never said he was and in large part the information he is putting out is probably being fed to him , I'm not saying he doesn't believe what he is saying .

I'm saying he is a better mouth piece for the information than just some random No Body . He is clearly good at memorizing information.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Well I read an article where complaints were made to BBC and the complaints ended up on one person's desk and went no further but the complaints sent to OFCOM regulator were investigated. So if a company doesn't bother to enforce their TOS then who will?

Interesting debate from both sides of the coin.

a reply to: Deplorable


No, it's definitely not just about Brand.

They want control of information - Brand was just low hanging fruit to use as an excuse.

I kept posting this in another thread but I'll say it in this one again. Look at the recent outcome of Ofcom and compare it to how it was sold to the public.

It was sold as a way to protect children - after all only bad people would not want to protect children, right? Oh, they claimed the public would drive regulations - they showed a nice little complaint form. Guess what happened?

1. They allowed a tv show about adults standing naked in front of children (under 16). Even after receiving over 1,000 complaints, they determined that adults standing in front of children, so they can exam their bodies, is not bad but educational!

2. Based on just a handful of complaints (they could have come from employees at Pfzer), they determined anti-vaccine information is harmful to children.

I'm guessing the average citizen didn't think it would work like this but it did.

a reply to: quintessentone

Ofcom's argument is you have to conduct surveillance in order to ensure no one uses your platform for abusive behavior.

Can you imagine that being applied to everything:

1. Build a house - you must allow camera because domestic abuse often takes place at homes
2. Let's put camera in children's changing rooms at school to make sure no adult abuses them

All of this government concern for children's safety but very little spent on social services for children? Strange, you think if it was that critical they would spend the money.

The most horrific abuses in history were not done by people living in free countries.
It was done by tyrannical governments.

originally posted by: Daughter2
a reply to: quintessentone

Ofcom's argument is you have to conduct surveillance in order to ensure no one uses your platform for abusive behavior.

Can you imagine that being applied to everything:

1. Build a house - you must allow camera because domestic abuse often takes place at homes
2. Let's put camera in children's changing rooms at school to make sure no adult abuses them

All of this government concern for children's safety but very little spent on social services for children? Strange, you think if it was that critical they would spend the money.

The most horrific abuses in history were not done by people living in free countries.
It was done by tyrannical governments.

Well, let's focus on what we think the UK government is doing and not imagine what they are not doing.

With this bill it appears that, as is usual with government bills, it is vague and mentions nothing about encryption and having back doors and such, which is a problem for us due to lack of specifics.

I take the stand that encryption needs to be private and protect everyone even though it allows the baddies in, so then who is to regulate the baddies if the platform does not enforce their TOS?

How will children be protected if the platform does not enforce their TOS? I honestly believe that protecting children is the driving force at this point in time with government stepping in with regulators. How far government will go, or will need to go has yet to be realized because government is not yet asking for a back door into these platforms for policing purposes.

a reply to: quintessentone

My understanding is that certain platforms were not doing enough to stop fairly horrific and harmful content.

Algorithms pushing self harm promoting sites on vulnerable teens and children and so on.

The surveillance thing is being taken out of context, it would seem?