Chappelle BTFO

AND AN OPEN MOUTH.

Comedians don't suffer much, but they do suffer relatively when it comes to being censored or shunned for being edgy.
That is only more pronounced, relatively, when it comes to people in lower parts of society working normal jobs.

Comedian makes an off colour joke, he may get in trouble, but keeps working.
Joe schmoe makes an off colour joke, he gets fired.

Cancel culture can suck my chode.

yes, he is wrong.
1. comedians don't make much.
2. comedians, like everyone else, really aren't allowed to say many things anymore. you CAN'T do what Dice did in the 80s. you CAN'T. it has become impossible. how can you mental gymnastic your way out of that?

>he preferred the weekday show
that's gonna be a yikes from me, dog

lmao I love how he's too afraid to make the character black despite it clearly being about Chappelle

No this is obviously using Ricky Gervais as the example.

milkers

Where's the link to the filthy subhuman tranny who's a millionaire on commiebux?

>The timing of the comic

It's obviously about Chappelle, now go dilate

how surprising

Attached: 1562544495243.jpg (232x217, 7K)

99.9% of stand up comics are broke as shit and they have suicide and drug abuse rates that rivals those of trannies. Politics aside this comic is painfully fucked on that point alone.

Christ stop being such a fucking retard.

You greatly exaggerate how censored people are in the United States.

People with certain opinions are not allowed to make money in the USA and are denied any meaningful platform. It's what censorship looks like in 2019.

where? what part is exaggerated?

nigger

He is wrong though.

lose some weight you fat fuck.

Attached: veget.jpg (720x537, 39K)

But that isn't true? Alex Jones literally still makes millions on his private website. You're having a gripe with the private sector deciding not to give you their own platforms for messages they don't want to advertise, which isn't censorship unless you're a fucking retarded faggot underage.
it's exaggerated to think that you aren't "allowed" to be an edgy comedian.

KEEP SAYING IT

Explicit censorship doesn't matter as much as implicit censorship. If you can get people to just stop saying things because it's regarded as "not the done thing to do", that's even worse. At least when people are being locked up for saying things, it's very obvious and visible. Pressuring people to police their own speech and thoughts is so much more insidious.

>Alex Jones """literally""" still makes millions
>not even a comedian
>a literal CIA asset with a support base established over a period of decades is still in operation
yes but what did you hope to prove by this

THEY ALL. LOOK. THE EXACT. SAME

Right wing
>the most important thing is the economy as fiscal success means progress towards higher general satisfaction. Life is unfair and that's a good thing. Also, we must secure the existence of Africans and a future for christian negro children.
alt-right
>the most important thing is an almost spiritual value that inherently binds peoppe together based on their genetic proximity. The modern multicultural, multiethnic experiment is a trivial speck in human history and will prove to be a failure that causes more suffering than it prevents, especially to those closest to me. When certain groups of people have been historically and consistently unprofitable and destruction to a nation without evidence of change, the question of race must be examined with an open mind.
Leftists
>the most important thing is ensuring that nobody is ever criticized for sticking their penis inside another man's shithole. Also, the government should give them free STD checks.

>only the government can censor people
kys m8

This week YouTube only adverts me PragerU, Shapiro and every other alt-right chucklefuck and their ads talk about how they're being censored. It is fucking ironic

kinda want that t-shirt

Attached: meh.png (657x527, 13K)

>just start your own platform, lol
>platform shut down for "radical content" which was also shared all over Facebook and Reddit
Oh.

>boomer radio neocons
>alt right
honestly please die

>This week YouTube only adverts me PragerU, Shapiro and every other alt-right chucklefuck
Based
>"Why Israel Is Morally Obligated To Glass Palestine" - PragerU

Attached: 5YjYpra.jpg (1000x800, 61K)

Dunkey?

seething

>it's exaggerated to think that you aren't "allowed" to be an edgy comedian.
but you aren't. if it's possible then why isn't there a single edgy comedian that can get mainstream gigs? hell, even if you look on the internet you'd have a hard time finding a single "edgy" comedian. the last edgy comedians that had any semblance of success were MDE and they only got half a season of content on adultswim before they were cancelled. if that's the ceiling for edgy comedy then yeah, it's not "allowed" any more. it's gone, done, you can't be an edgy comedian any more AS A JOB/CAREER. you can create content for free and upload it to youtube, I guess, but comedian is a job. in that job you can't be edgy.

>muh implicit
are you talking about how changing attitudes in society, changes what people think is funny to mock and make jokes about? Because damn you autist, that's reaching so far down the barrel that you might as well jump in. The free market of ideas doesn't give a fuck what your feefees are. If you don't like how Youtube kicked you for screaming nigger, that's fine. You aren't entitled to that space, go make your own website. alt-right websites still exist, user. The government hasn't shut them down. Isn't that odd? Same goes for "alternative" comedians. Why isn't Sam Hyde on television? Well, he became a turbofaggot and spooked advertisers. Does he still have his own show? You bet. Has he ever been mainstream popular? Absolutely not.

It's not censorship. You don't know what that word means.

being a coon is still bad even if you aren't black

imagine betraying your own kind

white coons are the lowest of the low

That's true? A private company refusing to deal with your stupid shit isn't censorship. Don't tread on me, you aren't entitled to my property, intellectual or otherwise.

Again, Alex Jones still airs his show almost daily on his own private platform, that he personally owns. The government has never stopped him.

Keep crying though about how people calling you out for your shit, is "muh censorship".

>he thinks any of this is organic
You can call it censorship or not. Semantics. Who cares. The important thing is it's happening.

Fuck you

>governments are meaningfully different from corporations
you're just another breed of bootlicker

>but you aren't
airtight argument, reddit. Next you're going to tell me that Tim Allen was conspired against.

That alt-right summary was poetic man, that speaks for me down to my soul.

Alex Jones is controlled opposition. He's a clown designed to lead people around in circles, and turn people off the kinds of ideas he proclaims, because he looks so ridiculous all of the time. He's also Bill Hicks. Everyone knows this,

>You can call it censorship or not. Semantics.
lol it's semantics because you are unironically retarded, it literally is not a form of censorship. You'd have a case if ANYWHERE that Jones posted, was a public forum. Youtube isn't, Google isn't. Those aren't public spaces. But they don't own the entire internet (I mean, you zoomer trumpfags want to put an end to that, so who knows what the next 20 years will bring...) he still exists, on his own platforms. I don't know why this basic fact is hard, it's almost like you're really hellbent on playing muh victim card despite winning more elections and getting every level of government to pander to you with their own State Sponsored Kremlin Sinclair group
>BUT BUT MY YOUTUBER ANTI-SJW SAID NIGGER AHHH!
Fuck off, you're being played.

he could've just shortened it to hating niggers and jews without all the retard spiritual cuckery

>but Alex Jones
>but splitting hairs over the definition of words
It's happening. Dilate.

go back to /x/ you stupid tard.

>air-
alright, I've read enough of your post. not convinced and also you're a poopoohead. wow, arguing like a libtard is so much easier.

It's top-down enforcement that people cow-tow to out of fear or because they're simply powerless to resist it: It's the strong abusing the weak. This isn't norms changing; it's not norm-enforcement. Norm-enforcement is always bottom-up. People getting squelched by e.g. youtube because norms are changing would take the shape of something like their videos being pure dislikes (kind of like how all youtube's progressive propaganda gets treated) or just nobody watching them.

It's the definition of censorship, and something to be condemned for all the reasons that censorship is evil.

It's also something humans intuitively understand to be evil, unlike norm-enforcement, which humans intuitively approve of. Though that can go horribly wrong too, but it's much harder for it to go wrong, much for the same reason that it's harder for a democracy to get things wrong than a dictatorship.
Although I assume you're opposed to democracy as well, as most of you useful boot-licking idiots are.

woah...

>>not even a comedian
Except he literally claims to be a performance artist :)

it's not some conspiracy bullshit, he's talked about it on his show before. Jones is entertaining but he will never tread past a certain line

I was about to post that.

>Alex Jones isn't on the air
Are you pretending to be a stupid zoomer? He still has his radio show...

Just try to imagine living in the same social circles as these people.

>It's top-down enforcement
It's not.
>it's the definition of censorship
It's literally not.
>People getting squelched by e.g. youtube because norms are changing would take the shape of something like their videos being pure dislikes (kind of like how all youtube's progressive propaganda gets treated)
kek is this where you make some Nixon argument about "muh silent majority" of /pol/niggers and "they are CENSORED, so they must be speaking the truth"?

So are you essentially asking for affirmitative action from every private outlet to force them into giving every stormfront faggot equal airtime?

Otherwise kill yourself. Your arguments are shit. I don't OWE you a platform with my private property. You can seethe all you want but Youtube isn't the village square, it never has been. You agree to the fucking rules when you use it.
>don't follow rules
>get kicked off
>"how could this have happened, this is censorship"
you people are retards of the highest order, holy shit.

>the sky is green?
no, it's brown!

oh my bad, if he said it then it must be true!

i can't imagine it. i don't want to

No one in the world actually likes trannies, and yet they're suddenly the most untouchable people around. If you think that's not manufactured, I don't know what to say.

What do you think "on the air" means you absolutely retarded zoom zoom?

>graphic tees

Attached: 1566539209440.png (210x240, 15K)

nice, I'm so fucking tired of serving democrats in my restaurant too.

It's not always a bad thing desu

Attached: c27a93_5700131.jpg (900x578, 120K)

>Keep saying it

I have friends who are close to being like this. One of them recently pulled the "current year" argument on me. I wanted to slit his throat on the spot.

The literal only reason anyone even still talks about trannies is because you have complete meltdowns with seeing them everywhere and people make fun of you for it.

How many times did you cry about a cartoon fucking frog being trans in a Rocko reboot?

Can we just have a bus that blacks aren't allowed to sit on? It'll be a private company, so it's okay.

you responded to the wrong post at some point. I'm not sure when. re-read.

I didn't cry. I pointed it out, because it's the right thing to do when someone is trying to fuck your mind, then I moved on with my day.

your political opinion is not a protected class, user. I can absolutely kick out some kekistani fagtard from my restaurant or my private property.

>hating the grand canyon
I hope this guy chokes on something and dies

Do you honestly believe that trannies (existing) is trying to "fuck your mind" intentionally? Do you really, honest to shit believe it's part of an elaborate plot?

You realize that the more you cry about trannies and screech about how you want them to commit suicide, people are going to put them in more media...right?

Hey, not all of us are like that. I personally want anybody who's drawn towards transgenderism to cut their balls off.

Dilate.

look at the reply chain, friendo.

how to tell low IQ white trash: they have a big bulbous pig nose

See? You can't actually form coherent arguments. It's just all this vague (and I'll remind you, a recent meme) crying because there are trannies somewhere, not here...because they barely even exist, but somewhere on a discord that nobody knows about, is a tranny doing tranny things.

And you'll remind me of it every hour on the hour like some schizoid until you grow up.

>is losing the argument
>"BUT WHATABOUT TRANNIES...?"
Everytime. I accept your concession.

I mean, we could go on arguing back and forth, but I think I've said everything I need to say. I wont convince you, because you're probably on the payroll, but the crowd will decide who was right.

DOUBLE NIGGER

>is losing the argument
>strawmans and deflects
clockwork

>B-BUT THE TRANNIES ARE GOING TO INFECT MY CHILDREN WITH THE GAY

Yes, everyone who doesn't immediately start having complete meltdowns about imagined trannies that you aren't even talking with, is "on the payroll". It can't be that you're an insane person at all.

DILATE DILATE DILATE HEEHEE AMIRITE?

Holy fucking balls the left cannot meme.

This but unironically.

NOOOOOOOOOOO
YOU CAN'T JUST HATE A BIG GAY HOLE IN THE GROUND

the first post in the chain ends in 66. from there to here alex jones was only ever mentioned once and not by me, nor in a post directed at me. he is mentioned in a response to someone else that has nothing to do with my chain of posts. he's also not a comedian so completely irrelevant to my point.

I didn't strawman? What do trannies have anything to do with the fact that you aren't being censored because a private company doesn't want to host your content?

>N-no its not!

Attached: 1517893535313.png (408x406, 36K)

Crapulate.

This isn't hard. If I own private property and I catch you shitting on it, when I post a big fucking sign saying "no autists shitting on the property", I have every right to remove you from my private land. If you want to stand on the sidewalk and keep shitting and crying about it isn't fair that you are denied seemingly unlimited access to my property, sure.

But don't do it on my yard you stupid faggot.

Can some twitterfag please go and call him out on this comic? Blatantly whitewashing what is supposed to be Chappelle just because he was probably afraid of criticizing a black man?

you called me stupid for saying "Alex Jones is still on the air", which he objectively is, since that refers to his radio broadcast.

IM RICH BITCH

>you called me stupid for saying "Alex Jones is still on the air"
no. you need to sober up so you regain your ability to read.

>this is the person who grandstands on Yea Forums and calls you an incel/chud
I don't know whether or not to laugh or cry.

>the character is white though
This nigga

see and

The trannies are reinforcing gender stereotypes on kids with 'gender unicorn' shit.

now post a /pol/nigger.

>DUDE LET ME INSULT THIS MAN BASED ON HIS PHYSIQUE RATHER THAN USING ARGUMENTS

>Muh private company
Media companies shouldn't get the controls of a publisher while also having the protections of a platform. If you want to control content, you have to be responsible for ALL the content, not just falling back on "We don't control who posts what" when someone inevitably breaks a law.

Stop noticing.

t./antifun

I don't know how to explain this to you because I don't know what you think is going on. but of those posts the first and third are mine and they don't have anything to do with Alex Jones.

dilate

>another right wing bootlicker

I'll explain it in even stupdier terms for you:
I OWN A THING, IT IS MY THING
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT, YOU CAN USE IT WITH RULES, AS LONG AS ME SAY SO
"UH OH I BREAK THEM"
YOU CANT USE IT NO MORE

Is that easy enough for your underage brain? Or do you need the concept of private property explained like some PBS cartoon?

counterpoint:
slatestarcodex.com/2018/05/23/can-things-be-both-popular-and-silenced/

>slurs I can't say
That joke about Dave not being able to say faggot but being able to say nigger with impunity was great

>slatestarcodex
based

third post literally mocks me for using the term "on the air", what are you even smoking?

>it’s literally not
censorship
/ˈsɛnsəʃJp/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

Attached: 6CE5C3AB-BB1D-4693-B9A1-675B4D0D467A.gif (1000x1000, 208K)

somebody can't handle the truth, lmao

You aren't being prohibited, getting kicked off of private property is not recognized, in any court in the first world, on the entire fucking planet, as censorship.

You desperately want it to be, for your victim narrative.

no, it doesn't. it's a parody of your own post where you responded to the first sentence of my post and completely ignored the rest. I quote the first word of your post and ignore the rest. can't say I'm surprised it went over your head.

I love how you people criticise capitalism for infecting government but now when it comes to censorship you can't see how corporations and government are becoming the same thing anymore.
As long as you get your way in the end.

>I love how you people criticise capitalism for infecting government
When have I literally ever made that argument in this thread? You lost, face it. You're resorting to strawmen. It's time to stop posting buddy, you got btfo.

Here's one more for good measure.

slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/02/social-censorship-the-first-offender-model/

nuance is a holy and precious thing

>Completely ignores the argument and shouts more retarded private property metaphors
You don't know a single thing about media, do you?

are you the same retard who thinks Alex is controlled opposition?

Wait I posted the wrong one. Nevermind.

slatestarcodex.com/2019/04/02/social-censorship-the-first-offender-model/

Not him but how is he not?

>>Completely ignores the argument
The argument is that you're upset that private platforms don't cater to your personal beliefs and deep down, you want somebody to FORCE them to do so.
>you don't know a single thing about media, do you?
Do you? I bet you say retarded shit like "DA JOOS RUN DA MEDIA" and cry for six hours about it.

You're not a smart person, user. You aren't owed someone's intellectual property. It's really that simple. If you want to make a different argument about how the government weaponizes technology and subsidizes intellectual property owned by media companies, that's a real argument. You getting your account on Youtube banned for an hour for posting the word nigger, isn't a free speech issue. Or even a problem.

Imagine my shock.

Because that's /x/tier bullshit backed by nothing? He's just a dumb snake oil salesman who says outrageous shit for clicks.

Yep. Also a Zionist.

I"m not sure what sort of authority this is supposed to be? This is about eugenics, what does that have to do with this?

I'm going to open a bar for only white people.

>wordpress.com

race is a protected class under federal law, on grounds which you cannot discriminate. Your dumb political opinions are not. The Anti-Discrimination Act doesn't protect you from getting kicked out of private property or from service based on your political beliefs.

>this was created by a white man
every time
why do the whites hate freedom so much?

I do

>it's different when they craft a law to make it different
OOOOHHHHHHHH

He looks like he owns a limited edition switch.

Comes as no surprise at all.

>What is suppression

Then go change the law because you get your feefees hurt then. You aren't born with a political belief, it's not a fucking race or sexual orientation. It doesn't prevent you from working or finding a job unless you are a completely retarded /pol/nigger.

Are you unironically asking for the government to give you gibs and protect you as a class because of your opinions?

Yeah.

It's not suppression, it's violating the rules of privately owned property. Why is this so hard for your incel brain? My fucking lord, aren't you the "facts over feelings" crowd?

lol I like how this is meant to be a swipe at Chappelle yet he didn't have the balls to make his cartoon comedian black lest someone accuse him of racism. Also the average stand-up comedian gets paid shit. Only a very small percentage gets paid the big bucks.

So you want the government to make you a protected class because you have fringe opinions you think people don't like? That's the hill you're dying on?

>Private platforms
You just revealed you really don't know anything about this issue.
Platforms don't get to be private, in exchange they are not liable for anything posting using their networks. It's why internet providers don't get sued for allowing terrorists and criminals to mobilize using their networks.
Publishers on the other hand are liable for any material posted. If one of your writers starts posting libel or hate speech, that's on you for not stopping him. In exchange, they control what gets posted, as is their right as a private company.
Currently, many social media platforms get the same protections as real platforms, but are still allowed to enforce their view of what should be posted like a publisher. That is the crux of the issue.
Finally, attempting to apply motives to your opponent shows you have a weak argument.

Yeah. Pretty much.

not that guy, but that sounds pretty cool

>less than 500 likes

Cool, can you post example of how all the banned YouTube channels violated the policy? What about the history channels? Blackpigeonspeaks?

So he's acknowledging that liberal crybabyism is responsible for lining the pockets of comedians? And that their impossibly stupid and radical rhetoric has inevitably caused moderates to swing right?
He's a big guy.

based ronnie

Attached: YoWBkRz.jpg (900x582, 268K)

>Platforms don't get to be private
kek, what? They are privately owned websites, by private companies. Are you seriously this retarded?
>It's why internet providers don't get sued for allowing terrorists and criminals to mobilize using their networks.
They don't get sued because it's not content they are GENERATING, they are HOSTING, which is usually by accident and remedied immediately and the proper authorities reached. It's a social media, content sharing website (if we are talking about Youtube), Youtube got a lot of flack in the mid 2000s for their lax rules on those types of videos and actually DID get in trouble with the federal government. But you're a stupid zoomer, so you didn't know that.

I'm not surprised, your entire argument has basically boiled down to "ME REALLY MAD AT PRIVATE PROPERTY WAHH" like some /pol/ version of a commie.

>Incel
Took you long enough. Changing the rules out of nowhere then purging or punishing people for past post is bullshit and you know it. But sad twats like you don't care since you are disingenuous cunts.

Whether they violated a policy or not, Youtube can just decide to can your account if the wind blows the wrong way. They make the rules, user. You can't fight that in court. It's not your property.

What happened to muh property? Does that mean if I make a law saying I can kill fags larping as libertarians that means its cool?

The arguments are too obvious to bother with. Everyone here already knows how he's wrong.

>You incel!!1!!
Sup tranny, watch any chapo lately?

ronnie is exceptional

So those social media sites are fully liable correct? Cant wait for the class action lawsuits

>Currently, many social media platforms get the same protections as real platforms
What does "real platform" even mean to you? They are all privately owned.
>attempting to apply motives to your opponent shows you have a weak argument.
Your entire argument is built on feefees.

They rented the property out to me per their ToS it is therefore my conditional property and breach of contact is illegal. Now stop larping you communist tranny

>drawing him as white to avoid getting destroyed

I can do whatever I want with my intellectual property. I can change the rules without needing to consult the autism council on a whim, just to make you angry. That's what is great about free enterprise.

You can move any time, Ahmed.

He means public platforms as defined by law retard

This will always be my favourite

Attached: 2012-12-10-Dating-Simian[1].jpg (900x319, 93K)

so if some comapny says, no niggers or trannies allowed, you wont complain

I'm talking about actual platforms such as Verizon, Bell, Rogers, etc.
A private website isn't a platform, and shouldn't pretend to be a platform. I'm fine with publishers controlling what they want posted, as is their right, but you shouldn't get to both control the things you dislike then protect yourself by saying you don't control who posts what, as is the current law regarding social media.

Yeah, this should change. For better or for worse, sites like Youtube are the public square now.

Nope retroactive contracts are illegal

>rent
lol you don't "rent" Youtube's space. You agree to their terms and conditions and they allow your presence on it. You only have an argument for Red subscriptions.
>you're a communist tranny tranny tranny blah blah blah
You're literally having a temper tantrum about the laws that protect private property and somehow I'm the communist for defending the concept of privately owned property?

Fucking wew, I can't keep up with /pol/ anymore.

why did he make Dave Chappelle a fat white incel?

he cute

Who did the white delegation have to give up in exchange?

Youtube is literally not a public platform.

Shaun King

It should be.

Funniest post in the entire thread. Would have gotten twenty (you)s with a sufficiently attachment. Better luck next time, user.

Except it isn't a contract, you don't sign or pay for anything. It's a conditional free-to-use term of selective admission. There is no law saying I can't change the rules on that every fucking minute.

So again, your argument is just "I feel this thing to be true", which isn't an argument.

You lost.

What is wrong with the alt-rigth?

This is mine. Work in so many levels

Attached: 2012-12-12-Window-Distressing.jpg (900x595, 134K)

Nice way of moving the goalpost you sad twat. You said they broke the rules. Changing the rules then banning the person for past things that happened before you changed the rule contradicts your other idiotic statement.

private companies can't do whatever they want though.

So this is just a semantic issue you have with the general use of "platform"? Which is only used to describe the TYPE of website Youtube promotes itself.

What is it legally? On paper? It's this:
>a private content sharing website, it is private property. If you break the rules, you are kicked off it.
Platforms exist in the private and public sectors, you are entitled to government protection in only one of those spaces. Guess, faggot.

Unironically based

Attached: 7C662222-49F2-4E83-946F-732AFBF1960B.jpg (250x203, 6K)

You can break the rules and I ban you, or I can change the rules to ban you. Either way, it's my private property...I can do that. That's not a goalpost shift, it's you fundamentally having an issue with the private sector ONLY because you want to say slurs without social consequence or have shitty ideas in a vacuum or safespace.

No. I'm saying nationalize Youtube.

I like this one
LOL
Secret text: The clue to this mysterious scribbling can be found in the lyrics of the song, 'Summer Madness' by Kool & The Gang.

Attached: 1565155500-2019-08-07-Driven-To-Abstraction.png (800x800, 409K)

kek

Sure, there are basic rules for how a private company can conduct its business. But you freely choose to use Youtube, you agree to whatever their terms and services are. You can't then cry "how could you have done this? I only said the words niggers go hang" and pretend as if you are owed some sort of safespace. It breaks no laws to ban you from a private platform.

I honest to shit don't get why this is difficult to understand. Youtube is not a public space.

>nationalize private companies so that they become worse
No, retard. Go back to /pol/.

How would it become worse?

>sites like Youtube are the public square now
they aren't.

they are

>MUH EXTREME MEME ARGUMENT

>If you break the rules you are kicked off it
Yes, which means that Youtube or whatever other "private platform" (publisher) should be held legally responsible for what is posted online. Currently, that is not the case.
Other arguments over social media include moral ones, where the companies present themselves as open platforms but then begin to change the rules on what should and shouldn't be posted (as is their right) to suit their personal wishes. This is completely legal, but people dislike what they see as dishonesty.

lol, of course

woah...

It is a goalpost move. You said they broke the rules, not that the platform changed the rules to ban them. Just admit that you are disingenuous hack and not arguing in good faith.

This is now a Ronnie thread

Attached: glory.jpg (900x471, 112K)

I'm a tranny who has been on hormones for 15 years.

>There are only 2 genders
>Sterilize the 3rd world
>White lives matter
>This special was kino

Attached: 1560773574676.png (312x258, 2K)

Gee, idk user. How would nationalizing a media company and protecting it under the wing of the federal government, to the point where the Executive office informs your pirvate entertainment, be an issue?

Attached: hmmm.png (1135x589, 189K)

How would it be worse?

I'm saying both are true.
>you are being disingenuous
you think that getting kicked off of Youtube is a freeze peach issue, when it isn't. Call the kettle black retard.

Attached: 2012-02-29-Job-Decryption[1].jpg (900x1164, 420K)

>guy in pic is white

no hes clearly jewish

I really don't even know what your new argument is. Thy aren't held legally responsible for the same reason the government doesn't process your youtube account ban as a 1st Amendment issue in the SC...

It's a private company that hosts content, not generates or produces it.

Attached: 1558934445-2019-05-27-Goof-Oof.png (600x1125, 331K)

Dilate pls

because you would have less freedom of expression if the government was involved in handling Youtube's content.

Attached: train.jpg (600x1125, 230K)

Maybe you would.

funny this is what I picture a Yea Forums poster would look like

DILATE DILATE DILATE DILATE DILATE HAHAHAHA BASED

If you don't know, then you really ought to educate yourself more instead of pretending you know what the current issues with social media are.
Doubling down on "IT'S A PRIVATE COMPANY" over and over only shows you barely know the laws in place.