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

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
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?

What are you talking about?
Please stop!
From government and OFCOM apologetics to insinuating Rumble wasn't doing enough to protect children and adults.

originally posted by: quintessentone

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.

Aaah I see!

It's about the protection of the children...

That's why the UK government is after Brand and after Rumble that doesn't ban Brand

a reply to: Muldar

I'm talking about exactly what I actually posted.

Not the words you want to put in my mouth.

You don't get to stop me posting on here.

Odd from someone that claims to be a champion of free speech.

Never even heard of "rumble" before this circus. Never cared or followed Brand either.
Water --> duck --> back.

Non-issue.

originally posted by: Kreeate
Never even heard of "rumble" before this circus. Never cared or followed Brand either.
Water --> duck --> back.

Non-issue.

So you're only watching videos on YouTube?
There are many more platforms by the way. Rumble is one of them.

But I find it problematic that you try to dismiss the entire story and the consequences of government interference and censorship of individuals and of social media platforms based on your lack of knowledge of the existence of other online platforms such as Rumble and the fact you don't know Brand.

Are you sure you're not trying to tell us something different??

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
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?

We are on the same page here carp.

As for what platforms and government are doing about this, let's see what they do NOT what they say.

a reply to: Muldar

Oh. Am I engaging in "vaccine apologetics" too, by any chance?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

Oh. Am I engaging in "vaccine apologetics" too, by any chance?

It's now into the stage of vaccine fatigue which can be twisted to mean people are not getting the vax enmasse.

I've said before in other threads, I think knowingly allowing monetiziation of false information is no different then claiming MSM news is fake.

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: Kreeate
Never even heard of "rumble" before this circus. Never cared or followed Brand either.
Water --> duck --> back.

Non-issue.

So you're only watching videos on YouTube?
There are many more platforms by the way. Rumble is one of them.

But I find it problematic that you try to dismiss the entire story and the consequences of government interference and censorship of individuals and of social media platforms based on your lack of knowledge of the existence of other online platforms such as Rumble and the fact you don't know Brand.

Are you sure you're not trying to tell us something different??

What's the basis of your assumption that I "only watch videos on YouTube"?
I couldn't care less about YouTube and I certainly do not get my factual information from it.
Sounds like a zoomer issue to me. Are you in that category, because it seems like you are?

I'm not trying to dismiss anything. I outright and categorically dismissed the whole issue.
Let me clarify... Russel Brand has no impact in or on my life. I couldn't care less what he did in his personal and own time.
If he committed any crimes, then the full force of the law will eventually apply and he will face the consequences.

I hardly find the lack of "awareness" of a platform like Rumble as being a "lack of knowledge".
The fact that I never cared for, nor followed Brand, does not automatically imply that I don't "know" him. I do know "about" Brand. Why should I have to "know" him directly to have an opinion?

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: Kreeate
Never even heard of "rumble" before this circus. Never cared or followed Brand either.
Water --> duck --> back.

Non-issue.

So you're only watching videos on YouTube?
There are many more platforms by the way. Rumble is one of them.

But I find it problematic that you try to dismiss the entire story and the consequences of government interference and censorship of individuals and of social media platforms based on your lack of knowledge of the existence of other online platforms such as Rumble and the fact you don't know Brand.

Are you sure you're not trying to tell us something different??

What's the basis of your assumption that I "only watch videos on YouTube"?
I couldn't care less about YouTube and I certainly do not get my factual information from it.
Sounds like a zoomer issue to me. Are you in that category, because it seems like you are?

I'm not trying to dismiss anything. I outright and categorically dismissed the whole issue.
Let me clarify... Russel Brand has no impact in or on my life. I couldn't care less what he did in his personal and own time.
If he committed any crimes, then the full force of the law will eventually apply and he will face the consequences.

I hardly find the lack of "awareness" of a platform like Rumble as being a "lack of knowledge".
The fact that I never cared for, nor followed Brand, does not automatically imply that I don't "know" him. I do know "about" Brand. Why should I have to "know" him directly to have an opinion?

I ve asked you a question: Are you only watching videos from YouTube?

Lack of knowledge or lack of awareness of the existence of a platform. You can use both words in the sentence.

Ok, you said never cared or followed Brand. Not that you didn't know him. I didn't read this properly.

I dont know what you mean by 'dismissing the whole issue'.

You seem though you want to comment on this thread despite the fact you never heard about Rumble and you don't care about Brand and the story itself.

You said is an non issue. Possibly a non issue to you but not to many others who have found the story interesting and very scary at the same time as the UK Government seems to be after Brand and after Rumble that hasn't banned Brand yet or hasn't demonetize him.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Muldar

Oh. Am I engaging in "vaccine apologetics" too, by any chance?

Your recent posts seem to be engaging in government and OFCOM apologetics.

Everything seems to be 'independent' in our days. OFCOM, the BBC, Youtube, and the IPCC!! The irony is that IPCC stands for Independent Police Complaints Commission... They are independent as they say they are.

Wonderful arguments...

a reply to: Muldar

Oh dear. The IPCC?

I posted this for you in the other thread:

"Very well.

Now, I have had actual dealings with the IPCC (as it was then called) in my professional capacity in respect of clients who pursued claims against Police.

From my direct and personal experience I am of the opinion that they are, indeed, independent.

How bout that then?"

How convenient that you once again ignore this direct and personal experience of mine of the IPCC (as it was then called).

My own direct experience of their actual independence.

And you have?

Never claimed YouTube was independent. It isn't.


You just snuck another lie in there.

Again.

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: Kreeate

originally posted by: Muldar

originally posted by: Kreeate
Never even heard of "rumble" before this circus. Never cared or followed Brand either.
Water --> duck --> back.

Non-issue.

So you're only watching videos on YouTube?
There are many more platforms by the way. Rumble is one of them.

But I find it problematic that you try to dismiss the entire story and the consequences of government interference and censorship of individuals and of social media platforms based on your lack of knowledge of the existence of other online platforms such as Rumble and the fact you don't know Brand.

Are you sure you're not trying to tell us something different??

What's the basis of your assumption that I "only watch videos on YouTube"?
I couldn't care less about YouTube and I certainly do not get my factual information from it.
Sounds like a zoomer issue to me. Are you in that category, because it seems like you are?

I'm not trying to dismiss anything. I outright and categorically dismissed the whole issue.
Let me clarify... Russel Brand has no impact in or on my life. I couldn't care less what he did in his personal and own time.
If he committed any crimes, then the full force of the law will eventually apply and he will face the consequences.

I hardly find the lack of "awareness" of a platform like Rumble as being a "lack of knowledge".
The fact that I never cared for, nor followed Brand, does not automatically imply that I don't "know" him. I do know "about" Brand. Why should I have to "know" him directly to have an opinion?

I ve asked you a question: Are you only watching videos from YouTube?

Lack of knowledge or lack of awareness of the existence of a platform. You can use both words in the sentence.

Ok, you said never cared or followed Brand. Not that you didn't know him. I didn't read this properly.

I dont know what you mean by 'dismissing the whole issue'.

You seem though you want to comment on this thread despite the fact you never heard about Rumble and you don't care about Brand and the story itself.

You said is an non issue. Possibly a non issue to you but not to many others who have found the story interesting and very scary at the same time as the UK Government seems to be after Brand and after Rumble that hasn't banned Brand yet or hasn't demonetize him.

You: I ve asked you a question: Are you only watching videos from YouTube?
Me: No. I watch and read a variety of content. YouTube is an entertainment hub first. It is not my first source of information.

You: Lack of knowledge or lack of awareness of the existence of a platform. You can use both words in the sentence.
Me: Knowledge and awareness are very, very different things. Go look it up.

You: Ok, you said never cared or followed Brand. Not that you didn't know him. I didn't read this properly.
Me: Noted.

You: I dont know what you mean by 'dismissing the whole issue'.
Me: I dismiss the "issue" as being non news-worthy. My opinion of course. These kind of things happen on a daily basis. It's not new, it's not unique.

You: You seem though you want to comment on this thread despite the fact you never heard about Rumble and you don't care about Brand and the story itself.
Me: I had an opinion. I was not aware that I couldn't make my opinion known. I'll go tell the rest of the suppressed/oppressed populace about this draconic new rule.

You: You said is an non issue. Possibly a non issue to you but not to many others who have found the story interesting and very scary at the same time as the UK Government seems to be after Brand and after Rumble that hasn't banned Brand yet or hasn't demonetize him.
Me: It's a non-issue in the sense that it is something that happens all the time. It is not unique or new. It is in the news for the sake of clicks, views and sensation.


Hope and trust this clarifies my stance.

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 ?

Historically, totalitarian leaders always freak out at the slightest opposition to whatever liberty killing plans they announce.

Ask all the political prisoners in most countries today if that is true.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The UK does not have "totalitarian leaders".

We have a multi party system with free and fair elections.

As in, a multi party democracy.

Not that I particularly like our current Govt, but I am free to say that.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I agree with tony benn that each generation has to fight the establishment for democracy, that time is now, the thing is the same applies to other countries too so its not so easy to define where the west has ended up with a uniparty system as a multiparty system.

however stepping back on this and the wider topics following from Newsnight its looking more and more like the way trans activists where setup to highlight the absurdity of where they got themselves but this time they let Bolton and co highlight the absurd corner the big media players have painted themselves into in terms of wanting their competition banned.

both have had the effect of peaking more as in the context of the thread the uk is home not just to only-fans but also bitchute, in that mix rumble is nothing.

so another take on the brand thing could be its allowing an investigation into the culture at c4 at a time the channel is pushing law breaking as ethical response to the gov not doing what activists demand, which given the effects of just stop oil will only push more against the various activists.

there is a clear series of events peaking more against the various conflicts underway and I'm not sure its coincidental.

so where labour should be guaranteed a go at being the next gov the con candidate in London is now within 1% of khan.. and the sunak hunt combo might just pull off a real win rather than punishment wins of may and Cameron I thought they might get.

a reply to: nickyw

Hiya.

I was a Conservative voter for a long, long time (apologies) until Boris.

Hated Corbyn.

But now?

I may hold my nose and vote Labour.

Well done Sunak.

I feel dirty now.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: nickyw
Well done Sunak.

I feel dirty now.

I need to have a shower now...

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

i went LD to green now leaning more SDP as I'm more left wing than not, sunak/starmer look and smell the same to me.. hate brand and the kind of left wing promiscuity/attitudes to women the noughties period represented..

but those aside there is still so many more moving parts to this that are becoming more and more obvious by the day.