YouTube Cracks Down: All Gun Content Is Now Fair Game For Removal

YouTube has been on the warpath this month, removing gun content at record pace. On the bright side, they haven’t been issuing “community guidelines strikes” like they did to me last time. Which is good. If they had done so when they removed these two most recent videos, my account would have been deleted and I’d be banned from uploading.

On the down side, it appears as though YouTube is now justifying their ability to remove basically any gun-related content whatsoever . . .

There’s the video they removed on August 7th, now hosted on my new channel over on Full30.com. It doesn’t even involve shooting!

This is a booth tour video taken at NASGW. A factory rep for FightLite simply showed us their then-brand-new RAIDER pistol (now called the SCR Pistol) and explained its features. So what “community guideline” did my video violate?

Ah, yes. It was “…promoting the sale of firearms.”

Apparently so was my CzechPoint Sa Vz. 61 review video, which YouTube removed on August 16th.

Thanks to Full30, these vids are back online and you can see for yourself just how objectionable (or not) they truly are. Certainly they do show firearms while discussing their features, functionality, price, and design. You know, a walk-through of a new product and a review. Is that “promoting the sale of firearms?” I think you could make that argument whether it’s directly, intentionally selling or incidentally resulting in purchasing interest, sure.

So at this point, any video that isn’t clearly anti-gun, pro-gun control, or, I suppose, an extremely negative review culminating in “do not buy this gun!” advice is fair game for YouTube censorship. After all, if it shows a gun in a non-negative manner, it could be argued that it’s “promoting the sale of firearms” on some level, right?

SHOT Show booth tour videos, how-to videos, review and testing videos, unboxing videos, hunting videos, self-defense videos, training videos, military videos, competition shooting videos . . . even various movie trailers? Where do they draw the line? Is there a line?

As I see it, they’ve effectively given themselves carte blanche to remove gun content as and whenever they please. If they don’t like it or they don’t like the content producer, it’s gone.

Yes, yes, I realize as a business they’ve always had the ability to approve or deny whatever content they want. Historically, though, YouTube (and Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Google, etc.) has attempted to define what is and isn’t acceptable content through their cryptic community guidelines and other terms and conditions. They’ve sought to appear fair by applying clearly defined guidelines equally to all contributors.

At this point any pretense of equitable treatment is gone. By exploiting such a vague and subjective measure as “promoting the sale of firearms,” YouTube can and apparently will remove whatever gun-related content it desires while using this fuzzy guideline to justify it. Worse yet, I fear far too many people will just nod and say, “makes sense.”

Meanwhile, my YouTube channel will be changing effective immediately. My subsequent YouTube videos will be “teasers” with the sole function of sending people over to my Full30 channel for the full version. I’m not sure this will be enough to steer clear of “promoting the sale of firearms” should I, for instance, state the gun model, show it on screen, and tell viewers to head to Full30 for the full review. But I suppose we’ll find out.

While we’re at it, here are the two videos YouTube removed from my channel in June, issuing me a Community Guidelines strike in the process: CMMG DefCan 3Ti Review and FN 15 Tactical II CA Range Review (yes, it’s a California-compliant AR-15 review).

Shameless plug: My Full30 channel is brand spanking new! I have precisely zero subscribers as I write this. I’d love your help in bumping that number up a bit! I’ll be uploading the most popular 10% or so of videos from my current YouTube catalog soon, and then all new videos will go on Full30 in their full form. See you there!

comments

  1. avatar foobar says:

    The time has come to dismantle the social media cartel

    1. avatar TexTed says:

      You have the power to do this. Just quit using them. MySpace was the biggest thing, up until it wasn’t.

      Boycott YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Support other options, and … the rest will take care of itself. Eventually.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Digg.com was a popular site until they got political. Then people ran to Reddit yet still remain there even though they got political too.

        The newer generations want corporations to be political. They want to know what side each company is on. Companies can’t just be an entity for profit, they have to be political activists. It’s a socialist tactic that makes majority of people call for government control of “capitalism.”

        1. avatar BLAMMO says:

          Actually, it’s a common fascist tactic.

          Identify and isolate a group of people; vilify and blame them for the woes of society; promote boycotts and disassociation; anyone who associates with or patronizes those in the group will be considered part of the group and treated accordingly.

          https://images.dailykos.com/images/442442/story_image/Nazi_vandalism.JPG

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          Nazi were national socialists who wanted a white ethno-state.

          Either way: fascism, socialism, communism are all the same. It’s a bunch of statists stopping you from having your liberty. The tactics are all the same and so are the outcomes.

        3. avatar New Continental Army says:

          They wanted an Aryan state. They were perfectly ok with slaughtering several ethnic white groups wholesale, you know like Jews, Slavs, Catholics, Gypsies etc… in-fact their primary ethnic target was white Europeans.

        4. avatar California Richard says:

          Fascists were Italian, and fascism was just the Italian version of socialism similar to Germany’s version (Nazism) or even Russia’s (Stalinism), China’s (Maoism), Vietnam’s, North Korea’s, Cambodia’s, Cuba’s, or Venezuela’s versions of socialism. All of the commies had the veneer of internationalism, but they all hated eachother and broke in to nationalized versions more similar to fascism and Nazism….. Hell, look at China today with their weird quasi private commercial state controlled industries, despotic totalitarian government, and 60 million liquidated undesirables. It looks more like Nazism than communism.

          The word “fascist” comes from the Italian word for “stick” as in: motivating people via the “stick and carrot” approach, or: “Socialist Antifa members hit people with sticks.” ….. LITTERALLY fascists. How ironic… or appropriate, depending on how you look at it.

      2. avatar Mad Max says:

        I already do boycott these services.

        I never had a Facebook or Twitter account and the only thing I ever watched on YouTube was Hickok45 videos. I can just go to his web site now.

        I’d like to see a more organized system of pro-Bill of Rights alternatives to all types of businesses and services. It’s hard to identify all of the alternatives.

        This is something that the NRA is in a position to do. They could start giving scores to businesses like they score politicans.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          I use Youtube still, but I block all the ads and trackers. It’s not like they monetize content worth watching. So I am a drain on their resources. They want me to be a socialist? Sure, I will force Google to pay for my entertainment.

      3. avatar TXRabbit47 says:

        We’ll spread the word re: your site ASAP and as broadly as possible. Let’s see if we can “sneak” in the info posted here for the rest of the world to see before they all cancel MY access.
        Let’s go get ’em!

      4. The call to “boycott” social media is something I can get behind; I’ve used YouTube for years, but avoided Facebook and Twitter.

        This year, I’ve had to open a facebook account. Why? Because I read a lot of political stuff on the internet, and I’ve always had my opinion; unfortunately, most “commercial” blogs don’t allow you to sign on as “guest”; and now more of them require a facebook account before you can comment, or reply to comments.

        You have to choose your battles; and you can’t win them all.
        “This is a funny game; the only way to win, is not to play at all!”

        *(“WARGAMES”, 1983)

  2. avatar mark s says:

    This will absolutely suck if this is true .
    When will some conservative wealth step up and start a conservative Utube , pretty face book , and maybe a twater , so we can operate freely again and run those communist pinko sites into oblivion ?

    1. avatar Ing says:

      They’re out there already.

      Gab is a better platform than Twitter in every conceivable way, and they won’t censor anybody — but they’ve been tarred everywhere in the media with the alt-right LiterallyHitler brush, and their user base has plateaued.

      The problem is, all of these attempts are political from the beginning, so their reach is automatically limited. And even if they’re not explicitly political, they *will* be politicized by the leftist establishment if they don’t mouth the proper shibboleths.

      Plus, there’s enormous inertia in the system as it is. People are comfortable in the status quo, and even if they’d like to move, it can be a superhuman effort if you’ve got a lot of content and contacts locked into the Google/Facebook/Amazon oligopoly.

      Unfortunately, it’s not a simple case of “if you build it they will come.”

      1. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

        Yeah, I mean just to use our author as an example, it took Youtube making a concerted effort to personally screw with him for him to move to Full30 as the home for his content. His “Teaser” idea isn’t likely to work, because of Youtube’s increasing restriction on having links to outside websites in the descriptions of videos, particularly “competing” websites.

        Most people believe that the SPLC, for example, is a non-biased watchgroup against extremists, and so Twitter/Youtube/etc should follow their guidance when it comes to banning people. Most people don’t know about Twitter shadowbans or Youtube’s extremely active community strike enforcement against people on the right, or Facebook limiting bandwidth to “Ted Cruz for President” (among other conservative pages) or any of the other grievances the right has against these platforms, and many of those, even who might vote Republican sometimes or usually, would consider them minor.

        I’m not really sure what the solution is, but Full30 (Hickok 45: 1% of Youtube size, DemoRanch: 0.3% of Youtube Size, Forgotten Weapons: 2.2% of Youtube Size) may not be entirely workable, as yet.

        1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          Yeah it’s hard. As you pointed out, there’s basically no traffic anywhere else. YouTube is THE video site. It’s the second largest search engine in the world. At this point it’s still the case that if it isn’t on there it basically doesn’t exist. The whole “teaser” thing is basically hoping to take advantage of their search engine prowess to get the video in front of people who are wanting to see the content and then having them go to Full30 to actually watch it. We’ll see what happens.

        2. avatar Erik Weisz says:

          I already had a login for full30, and just subscribed Jeremy (long time fan, first time subscriber). I use youtube and facebook, but I have scripted out all their ads (greasemonkey plugin for Firefox) and I go through private proxies using fake names (as I always have done since the mosiac and altavista days – hell, since BBSs). Otherwise, I completely avoid goolag whenever possible – windows phone (even a year out from the most recent one, they’re still better UI) with HERE maps and the ever enticing Cortana. Praying for a surface phone asap. There are a bunh of replacements for FB all lined up, waiting to see who get the momentum to replace FB.

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        Aren’t domain registers and corporations forcing sites like Gab and Patreon to censor and remove people or else?

        Internet sites get popular with marketing. It has to be the next best thing and the trendy place to be. It’s not like Facebook was better than MySpace — people wanted something new and different enough to consider it their newly discovered spot to be.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          Yes, they have done that. *Are* doing it.

          Gab had to scramble to find a new domain registrar, and Microsoft Azure, which hosts their servers, threatened to pull the plug on them if they didn’t delete certain specific posts from the platform. There’s the whole Alex Jones deplatforming. And more.

          It’s even harder to get momentum going when the powers that be are actively screwing you at every turn — not because you’re doing anything wrong, not even because your business is a competitor — just because they can. And they enjoy it.

      3. avatar Docduracoat says:

        I went to gab, but the relentless anti Jewish posts drove me away
        It reallyis full of hateful people
        We need a site more like TTAG

        1. avatar Ing says:

          There are a lot of antisemitic nutbags there, it’s true. You definitely have to curate your contacts.

      4. avatar Larry says:

        https://gab.ai/about/guidelines

        Gab Prohibited Transactions:

        You may not use Gab for activities that pertain to transactions involving:

        Illegal narcotics, steroids, controlled substances or other products that present a risk to consumer safety, items that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity, stolen goods including digital and virtual goods, services that facilitate the financial exploitation of others, ammunition, firearms, firearm parts and/or accessories, weapons or knives that are unlawful in one’s domicile. Please follow the laws of your jurisdiction and adhere to prudence when in doubt.

    2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “When will some conservative wealth step up and start a conservative Utube , pretty face book , and maybe a twater , so we can operate freely again and run those communist pinko sites into oblivion ?”

      *NO* Full stop.

      “Separate but equal” was bullshit in school segregation, and is bullshit in a company offering public accommodation for video communication.

      I have had it with them. The gloves are off…

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        If they want to curate their site in a bias manner they should be responsible for everything that remains on their site. They can’t put up a legal agreement that you must follow to use their site then they don’t follow that legal agreement themselves. There should be lawsuits seeking huge sums… If Google took or takes money from the U.S. government, they shouldn’t be allowed to manipulate the American citizen through political censorship of Americans. How far does the manipulation/propaganda have to go before this international group is considered to be working against the U.S. in an unlawful manner?

    3. avatar 2aguy says:

      It doesn’t even have to be “conservative,” it just has to be open and free……if they do that, say that, then people will go to them…

  3. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Kinda like Full30, but…..

    The content is erratically hosted, with no real search capability, nor identification of when a video was posted (as in date-time stamp), so sorting is unachievable. I know Full30 is not on the level of U-tubby for production, but are there no volunteers to help streamline the site?

  4. As I read it, those Gun Evaluation Sites are using “YouTube” as a Free Advertising Media for their product. Which “YouTube” doesn’t allow. So far I’ve had NO Problems using “YouTube” to get Information on any Weapon System. Where the Line is Crossed, is when the Site tells you how too Link with the Distributor/Seller…

    1. avatar Casey says:

      It’s not free. Youtube charges the viewers’ eyeballs. If YouTube was free, Google wouldn’t be swimming in money.

      1. But then again, YouTube ISN’T the “QVC” Shopping Channel either…

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      What about people selling movies, video games, music, etc, that put up videos on Youtube?

      1. Isn’t YouTube the one that’s doing the Selling of those Movies…

  5. avatar FedUp says:

    If I were Jeremy, I’d either delete everything, or (time consuming, I know) edit EVERY YouTube video down to a teaser.

    YouTube has said, in effect, F you, Jeremy.

    It’s time for Jeremy to take his ball and go home. (to Full30 with everything)

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      I do need to go through every single one of my videos individually and delete various links from the descriptions. Some of this stuff is likely due to linking to Brownells or manufacturer websites that do sell firearms. So an issue in the description rather than the video itself.

      Other than changing descriptions, though, I cannot edit videos that are already up there. I can delete them, yes, and I’ll probably go through and delete quite a few. But a lot of them — even old ones — continue to see a large volume of views and I’d prefer to leave them up for multiple reasons. I also don’t think deleting my channel from YT is going to make any sort of impact or political statement and I’ll do more “for the cause” by continuing to get views and hopefully start to drive people over to Full30 as an alternative place for gun videos.

  6. avatar Higgs says:

    While these media organizations are privately held and the first amendment does not really apply.

    There does seem to be some collaboration between the social media organizations which would be covered under the Sherman Antitrust act.

    1. avatar Alternator says:

      YouTube is allowed to operate, and to do so as a monopoly, by the government–in exchange for doing what non-elected politicians want. The old line between “private” and government entities no longer applies. There is a revolving door between the two, and corporations own politicians, who serve and profit from said corporations. Private military “contractors” perform unconstitutional acts on behalf of their employers, just as “private” corporations act on behalf of their government cronies. It should be unnecessary to even point this out.

  7. avatar 16V says:

    There are only two surprises here…

    1. That it took this long to finally happen

    2. That anyone is the least bit surprised

    1. avatar Henry says:

      Robert Conquest’s second law of politics: Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.

      Why? For the same reason that any organism without appropriate natural defenses becomes infested with parasites.

  8. avatar dragos111 says:

    How about a new site called “FairTube”? It would be politically agnostic. Post either side. Don’t punish one side.

    I imagine that YouTube, Facebook and the others would die out.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Essentially the YouTube before Google bought it.

  9. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    I wonder if it’s because you mentioned the price…🤔

  10. avatar Moltar says:

    try gunstreamer and patreon. Tell youtube to go have a deep meaningful sexual relationship with themselves.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Patreon is already kicking people off who have politics they don’t like.

  11. avatar New Continental Army says:

    YouTube is going far beyond attacking the 2A. They’re going all out on cracking down on any dissent towards the left. Videos are even banned from showing the swastika in a historical context.

    1. Historical, as in anything related to Nazi Germany in WWII, or Historical as it pertains to White Power in 2018…

      1. avatar 16V says:

        “White Power 2018?

        Do you mean the hiring preferences, or school admission preferences, or business loan preferences, or lower job qualification requirements?

        Because last time I checked, white people are the only ones not benefiting from any of those programs

        1. As a White Disabled Veteran, I’m not benefiting from Disabled “American” Veteran benefits either. Something i common with you I guess…

      2. avatar New Continental Army says:

        NO. I mean historically accurate videos using a swastika to represent Nazi germany. YouTube demonitzes any video that includes a swastika for any reason. Period.

        1. avatar KenW says:

          OK, how about Indian use of it? Like either Native Americans or actual folks from India. Both groups used the symbol for far longer than the Nazi’s. We have a very old blanket that came from a distant ancestor and the dull red color and multiple copies on it have nothing to do with the Nazi’s at all.
          I bet there are other groups who used the symbol too.

        2. I think that pretty much holds true with other Media Outlets and Search Engines as well. I’ve on a few Search Engines, that ask to to Identify Yourself in order to get the Information being requested. And that seemed to have happened around the same time the FCC and the Courts decided how Search Engines are to be used…

        3. avatar Dzapper says:

          Not allowing swastikas is because several European countries ban any public display of it except in historical films.

  12. avatar tdiinva says:

    Social media companies are only exempt from the First Amendment if they ban speech as a corporate policy. However, doing so in cooperation and coordination with government entities is virgin territory. I would argue that if they did so they are acting as agents of the government and therefore fall under the First Amendment. Here is an opportunity to test this theory. Find a Second Amendment friendly attorney who will work pro bono and file a suit on First amendment grounds so you could do discovery against Google to see if such communication/coordination exists.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Google works with other governments of the world. Why would they not want to work with the U.S. government? They did want a government contract for some military stuff.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        That doesn’t establish Google-Yahoo as an agent of the government. A plaintiff would have to show that Yahoo’s anti-gun restrictions are product of coordination with a government entity to deplatform gun channels.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Google is creating such a system for the Chinese government just to do business there.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          Irrevelent. Google’s relatio ship with the PRC is outside Consitutional constraints.

  13. avatar Nam62 says:

    This sucks! I look at videos in the evening on my older vista computer. This format will not play the videos on the new video channels.

    I will not buy a new computer to look at videos….

  14. Stop uploading to YouTube. Full30, BitChute, and Dtube are the best alternatives. Dtube you can get paid in the cryptocurrency Steem. MySpace was a thing up until it wasn’t. Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, et al are all going to fail eventually. They will be replaced with platforms that are better, and easier to use. Since we aren’t in 2008 anymore, will PAY you for content in crypto.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      YouTube is a platform with massive reach. Jeremy’s “teaser” strategy is the right one, for as long as it lasts.

      1. Agreed, at least in the short term. Once your audience is used to going directly to Full30 or the other video sites for your content, then cut YouTube out completely. Leave it to all the fortnite and make-up tutorial videos. lol

        1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

          Yeah, I’d love to just ditch it but for the time being it is the only way to appear in search results and get any eyeballs at all whatsoever. The best I could come up with is to try to use that fact to drive people to an alternative site to help that site grow faster.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      Don’t forget that Google owns and controls Youtube. They control the two biggest search engines. The average person now uses Google to search for stuff online. Google does control search results…

    3. avatar Stereodude says:

      Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, et al are not likely to fail anytime soon. This argument is shockingly naive. Those social media companies learned the lessons of their predecessors. If a newer better platform comes out one of two things happens.

      1) They buy it.

      2) They copy the new platform or the killer feature(s) that made the new platform compelling removing any reason for people to leave the established players for the new guy.

      There’s no way a startup is going to dethrone the established players. The established players have too much money and way too many employees to lose to a new competitor. A startup with a handful of employees, even if they have a great idea, can’t compete with an existing company who can stick 1000 developers on copying it. The established guy can get the same feature(s) rolled out and polished before the new guy can get a foothold in the marketplace.

      The only way they’re going away is if they were to do something that caused the overwhelming majority of their users to stop using them. At present I don’t think that’s realistically possible.

      1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

        I think a start-up could realistically corner a segment of the video market, like Full30 or one of the other pro-gun video hosting sights becomes THE place people go to watch firearms-related content. If YouTube gets to the point where there’s very little of that stuff on there, the people who want to watch that content will find it elsewhere. Some of them.

        1. avatar Anon says:

          There simply aren’t enough people that consume firearms related content online to make it sustainable. I hate to break it to you but we are a very small minority of the population, we tend to drastically inflate or ability to influence. The chance of a “conservative” You Tube existing is almost none, the chance of a firearms specific you tube existing is none. All this amounts to pipe dreams nothing more.

        2. avatar Thunderkawk says:

          Anon, wars are lost because of people like you. Quit yer whining and fight. Must be a fucking millenial.

  15. avatar burley says:

    The thing youtube doesn’t seem to understand is that the most popular channels, while dwarfing even the biggest gun channels, are popular among the weakest market segment: children. Gun channels tend to watched by people with money. When the dollars decline the policies will ease.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      A lot of those kids channels are supported by the toy companies. As an “influencer,” you’re sent products to “unbox” and demonstrate. They essentially become infomercials for toys that the kids will bug their parents about. The kid channels still show kid targetted ads. Nick, Disney, Cartoon Network, etc make plenty of money with targetted kids ads. It makes plenty of money, just don’t expect to see many auto, booze, or drug ads.
      A lot of gun and auto channels, blogs, and magazines operate similarly with manufacturers giving or loaning products that then get featured in “reviews” and articles. Might as well plaster a “sponsored content” banner across it.

    2. avatar CarlosT says:

      Children have parents who have money. The point is taken, however. Restrictions may eventually ease. The question is whether gun channels would return in any significant numbers or if the trust would have been so entirely eroded at that point that no one would bother.

    3. avatar Sam I Am says:

      The thing “normals” don’t quite grasp is that these Dimowits truly believe the vast majority of the populace agrees with them; truly believe. Thus, economic decisions are based on pandering to the largest economic demographic, which will easily outweigh the minuscule financial contributions of the public that disagrees.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “The thing “normals” don’t quite grasp is that these Dimowits truly believe the vast majority of the populace agrees with them; truly believe.”

        You would think the 2016 election would have woken them up to that.

        But it hasn’t, since they don’t socialize or interact on a day-to-day basis with anyone who isn’t just like them.

        Perhaps a few good cracks with the ClueBat is in order…

        1. avatar Henry says:

          The 2016 election didn’t turn out that way because Hillary scared the pants off a huge segment of the voting population. It turned out that way only because the Russians posted millions of Facebook ads to influence the Electoral College to suppress minority balloting, and instead funnel billions of dollars to the military/industrial complex, the Koch brothers, Moscow watersports enthusiasts, and wall construction mega-corporations.

          Understand now?

        2. avatar Anon says:

          The vast majority of the populace has no firm political convictions what so ever, at all. Trump won because of 73,000 electoral votes in only 3 states, a disproportionate amount of those 73,000 voters wont even exist anymore in 2020. No major corporation or social media platform is going to alter their business model because of Trump. Companies have never been interested in reaching retiree’s (unless there a mortgage or life insurance lender), their interested in imprinting their brand on young people in order to influence them over the course of their entire lives. The political power of gun enthusiasts is disproportionately high considering our relatively low numbers compared to the electorate at large, but our economic power is not, by and large the market doesn’t care about us.

    4. avatar CZJay says:

      Google is so rich they can buy Youtube to use it for their manipulation and throw it away for the next tool.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        Google already owns YouTube.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          What I was saying is they have enough money to ruin their video platform as they are. They bought it to do exactly what I said. It’s just a tool for them to manipulate that particular audience they couldn’t get to use their Google Video platform.

  16. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Now, RIGHT NOW, is the time to utterly and totally STOP using software platforms/applications that enthusiastically promote Progressive ideals and enthusiastically punish other ideals.

    Off the top of my head, YouTube, Facebook, and Intuit (creators of QuickBooks accounting software) are at the top of that list.

    Any others that should be on the “DO NOT USE” list?

    1. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

      Amazon. They recently banned the sale of a book that contains the code for the Liberator pistol.

      I’ve been an Amazon Prime user for four years and have probably purchased several thousand in merchandise from them, but I won’t be renewing again. Digitally burning a book because it describes a gun is unforgivable.

      1. avatar Chad C. Mulligan says:

        PRIME is a ripoff, and you should never have joined.

    2. avatar Anon says:

      If every gun enthusiast and 2A advocate in the world did that all at once, all of those social media platforms would, … not even notice. If they cared about us as a market share, do you think they would be doing this in the first place? I’m sorry but most of this talk of 19th century concepts of boycotting affecting 21st century quasi governmental military industrial silicon valley cartels is just horribly naïve.

    3. avatar Kenneth says:

      Google. Your searches there are all shadow censored, the same as Youtube. Removed without anyone but the admins knowing.
      Go for duckduckgo.com instead. Better and faster searches, and no censorship. Its a no brainer.

  17. avatar Anymouse says:

    Think of it as a radio station changing format. It used to be talk radio, and now it’s urban pop.
    If you don’t like urban pop, quit listening to that station. If Youtube had advertised themselves as “videos by socialists, for socialists,” would anyone have bothered to put gun vids there? Eventually, 1/3 to 1/2 of the US Mpopulation will realize they’re not welcome, and they’ll go elsewhere. The gun/hunting community is big enough that alternatives will pop up as Youtube stops supporting them.

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Continuing the radio analogy, Google could become like a radio syndicate and offer different “stations.” If they cared more about money than virtue signalling, they could split Youtube and make GunTube. They could use the same infrastructure and would just add a parallel index/search/suggestion. They’ve already done something similar with the YouTube Kids.
      Amazon is hitting them on the gamer front with Twitch. There’s a billion porn outlets that they don’t try to compete with. Eventually, someone with experience and capital or infrastructure will realize that there’s an underserved market and do something about it. These specialized services might branch out into other areas and become serious competitors in the general market.

    2. avatar Anon says:

      I’m sorry but literally none of what you just said is true. Back in 2005 gun content creators absolutely would have still built up there base on You Tube if they’d known. They didn’t have any other choice, they still don’t and likely never will, that’s the very essence of the problem. Your radio station analogy is totally fallacious. Gun content creators care about making money way more than they care about the actual politics or principles of the second amendment. Their politics and advocacy really is mostly just another product they are selling us or a form of advertising (even though it may be genuine.) The gun/ hunting community as a market share is miniscule, it’s an older niche market that is the target demo for almost no one. I’m afraid your outlook on this is just, waaayy off.

      1. avatar Tom says:

        Jesus Christ, you are a black pilled faggot. So do nothing, you dim-witted clod. Sit and shit on anyone who wants things to change. We should all just be defeated little faggots like you. Eat shit, mongoloid. No one gives a shit about your smarmy faggot opinion

  18. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    Since they’re curating now they lose their carrier immunity. Lets see it happen.

    1. avatar Sal Chichon says:

      100% concur!

    2. avatar Henry says:

      Hey, it happened to Zuckerberg. Want to be the censor? Great, now you can pay the EU $8.8 billion. D’oh!

    3. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      ^ This. Fuck Google. Their motto of “Don’t be evil” is the biggest joke on this planet.

      1. avatar Anymouse says:

        They changed the motto to “Do the right thing.” How you define “right” could mean anything. Makes the most profit, achieves goal regardless of consequences, furthers political view/power, etc.

        1. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          In the context of their recent actions, that new motto is scary as fuck.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          We are not so influential because POTG are gun owners, but…..

  19. avatar Richard Steven Hack says:

    Google for the terms “CIA created Google” and you’ll find a piece by an investigative journalist who exposes that CIA front companies and personnel associated with the CIA assisted in the creation of Google. Ditto for Facebook. Google, of course, owns Youtube.

    These companies were created to do the sort of social control and manipulation the CIA couldn’t do on its own. They are effectively arms of the government in this regard and should be treated as such.

    What’s needed is a law that says these social media companies, when they reach a certain size, should be declared “common carriers”, like the phone companies that manage the Internet. This would make them immune from prosecution for content supplied by their customers. At the same time, the law should forbid them from exercising censorship over that content. The only content which could be censored would be content which is already expressly illegal under current law, e.g., child porn.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      Alex Jones much?

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        From what I remember, the U.S. government used Facebook to acquire a lot of info on people. The U.S. government also asks companies to provide a back-door for them to use.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          That is not what the conspiracy theory says. The Jonesians claim they are government fronts and were established with government money.

          Pro Tip:. Here is how you can identify a conspiracy nut. “X is made up of incompetent boobs. X is behind sinister plot Y to exercise control “. How X be incompetent and at the same time engage in vast conspiracy Y?

        2. avatar Anon says:

          TDIINVA
          I don’t agree with your reasoning at all. Incompetence, dereliction of duty and hubris allowed 9/11 to occur, elements of the intelligence infrastructure at the behest of the executive with support from 99% of congress conspired to create a false narrative through a massive propaganda campaign that quite successfully altered American public opinion making it socially and politically palatable to invade Iraq under false pretenses. The initial invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq were quite successful, but quickly transitioned in to periods of stagnation that set the stage for deeply entrenched insurgency’s to take root. OBL and huge portions of the Taliban leadership slipped through our fingers in November ’01 due to very poor decision making (conspiracy nuts would say it was intentional). In our zeal to find fabricated weapons of mass destruction that most top military brass didn’t believe really existed we ignored all the conventional caches that were quickly raided by the Iraqi public and used against us (again conspiracy nuts would say that was intentional). American / world history really is replete with examples of secretive complex operations quite successfully conducting corrupt, illegal or inhumane activity’s,… up til a point, and then mission creep, low moral, leadership corruption and hubris causing them to ultimately make very poor decisions and fail.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          If you say so.

      2. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

        So, you are saying DARPA and In-Q-Tel aren’t affiliated with the US government?

    2. avatar BradleyD says:

      “Google for the terms “CIA created Google””

      Me: Google, were you created by the CIA?

      Google, nervously laughing: Why no, of course not, why do you ask?

    3. avatar Cz Rider says:

      If these companies were created by a government agency to do things the agency couldn’t do, what makes you think that same government would have any interest or motivation to legislate away the companies’ ability to do the thing they were created to do?…

  20. avatar Make America Great Again says:

    We are moving toward a right-wing fascist form of government therefore one must expect censorship as part of the new normal, as it were. So stop complaining and get with the new world order. After all, you voted for it.

    1. avatar CarlosT says:

      As much as the Trump administration rails against the press, I think it’s interesting to note that so far, he’s actually done much less against than the previous administration. And it’s also interesting to note that the people who run these companies who are all in on censorship are united in their leftward tilt.

      I don’t think the Trump administration is awesome for civil liberties, but intellectual honesty demands acknowledging that they are not the ones driving the closing of social media.

    2. avatar Keep America Great says:

      Haha… the cognitive dissonant mind of a prog troll. The extremely left wing silicon valley censors gun channels and conservatives and they blame “right-wing fascists”. T.D.S. is strong in that one. But thanks for the laugh troll-troll.

      Oh FYI…you are going to love Trumps second term!

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “Oh FYI…you are going to love Trumps second term!”

        I don’t particularly care for Trump as a person, but a second term for him will make me deliriously happy.

        Two supreme court pics so far is very sweet, but the chance of him getting to chose one or more makes me running down the street naked happy…

    3. avatar Kroglikepie says:

      Dipshit. Facism and right-wing are not terms that are friendly towards each other. At all. If Trump was the evil bad man you so fear, why is it people like Obama who actually engage in censorship?

      Have we already forgotten when Obama tried to yank the Fox News press credentials and say that they were not actual journalists because they didn’t tow the party line? Not because they purposely published outright lies as CNN and MSNBC do now, but because they dared question his admin? Yeah, I thought so. Paste-eating moron…

    4. avatar tdiinva says:

      So you are saying that Trump is behind all the moves to censor those who disagree with Progressives? Who knew that Donnie was a closet leftist? /Sarc

      FYI, Lizzie Warren has just introduced a bill to put all large corporations under indirect government control. “Bennie” Mussolini approves.

      1. avatar CarlosT says:

        What I think is amazing about that is no one stops to think that the New York Times and CNN would fall under her definition of “large corporation.” Even if she envisions implementing this when Democrats control all the levers of power, are they really naïve enough to imagine that there would never be a Republican administration again? Then what would be the reaction of liberal America to the Times or CNN having to answer to the Barron Trump administration or whoever about how they run their corporation?

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          The way I understand her proposal, the employees of the companies will have out-sized influence on how the company is run.

          In case you haven’t noticed, (and I know you have, since you have a functional brain), CNN and the NYT employ well over 90 percent Leftists.

          Towing the Leftist line will not be a problem for CNN or the NYT…

        2. avatar CarlosT says:

          The rub is that the government will issue a charter allowing them to operate, and certify that they are operating “in the public interest.” That’s not defined anywhere, and how do you think, for example, the Trump administration would define having the New York Times “operate in the public interest?” Would it be the same as Warren and her supporters? Would it be the same as the staff at the Times?

    5. avatar barnbwt says:

      Fascism is leftist. There is no ‘right wing,’ it was a made up term leftists made to denigrate other leftists that weren’t them, so they could be targeted for execution. The ‘right wing’ leftists gladly accepted the mantle, since it meant they were now justified in killing the leftists.

      In reality they are all ‘tyrannists,’ but that more accurate term isn’t commonly accepted, and of course both groups of liars would shrilly object to being identified as such.

      Yes, the US is trending toward a tyrannist mindset that expects a totalitarian government to rule over the people. It’s been trending that way ever since European leftist thought swept Woodrow Wilson into power during a historically convenient period. We’re still not at “the president declaring all gold to be illegal” levels of tyranny *just* yet, but as with FDR all it will take is a protracted crisis for the wheels to come off for good.

  21. avatar former water walker says:

    Hmmm…I watch YouTube almost exclusively on my Roku TV. While I have never watched Jeremy(?) I am perplexed why the party in charge doesn’t DO SOMETHING. Like the troll commenting thinks(hint:leftards suppress gun content)…

  22. avatar million says:

    subscriber #20

      1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

        Sweet!!!! Subscribership increased infinitely today 🙂

  23. avatar CarlosT says:

    This is a real world example of Conquest’s Second Law playing out. The law is “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.” YouTube was initially a video sharing platform. Now it’s a left-wing video sharing platform. Twitter was a microblogging platform. Now it’s a left-wing microblogging platform. Eventually there will be two independent spheres for everything.

    1. avatar barnbwt says:

      “Any organization will eventually become run by assholes because people that aren’t assholes eventually get tired of brushing them off”

  24. avatar Righteously Virtuous says:

    Censorship is an important instrument to make the Democrat party feel better about its own ugly past.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      You can’t scrub clean guilt.

  25. avatar Cloud says:

    These companies need to be treated like publishers. Take away their libel protections. Watch them fall like dominoes. Enough is enough.

  26. avatar little horn says:

    i haven’t been on YT in years. don’t plan on it either.

  27. avatar Bob15 says:

    How long until they start deleting WWII videos? Those B-17s, tanks, and battleships had a lot of guns. Really big guns.

  28. avatar BradleyD says:

    I guess what I don’t get is that I know that Classic Firearms has a YouTube channel that announces their new products, what is available, etc and I’ve never heard of them getting something removed. Maybe they don’t discuss price? I know that Ak47-74 Operators Union was having a lot of issues for a while but it seems that YouTube backed off. Really all I care about is Forgotten Weapons and a few others.

    1. avatar Stereodude says:

      Well as long as they don’t go after the channels you care about, it’s okay. Just keep your head in the sand.

    2. avatar beefsquatch says:

      I don’t feel like reciting that tired old “they didn’t come for me…” anecdote, so I’m just gonna say fuck off.

      1. avatar BradleyD says:

        So I take it you totally care about all the other channels that have been demonetized on YouTube? You shed a tear when Dom Mazzeti had his channel BroScience demonetized? Maybe you did, but this is something that affects dozens of channels and I highly doubt anyone paid attention when it was something that they didn’t care about.

        It also doesn’t detract from my point that other channels that sell guns, Classic Firearms and eGunner, have their own healthy operating channels. Somehow Forgotten Weapons operates just fine and it seems that AKOU cracked the code and they aren’t having as many issues. Sometimes it is user error that contributes to a situation.

        Finally, no need to be agro. Swear words do not make your argument better. Manners maketh man.

        1. avatar John in TX (Was CT) says:

          You might have missed this since I only saw it brought up once, but I think InRange and, I believe, Forgotten Weapons decided to unilaterally demonetize their videos and move to the Patreon model to support their channels rather than trying to work around the whims of the algorithm.

          It’s possible that this only applied to InRange and likewise possible that this plan has somehow changed in the time since.

          I mean, we’re discussing a number of different issues at one time, between monetization being denied in most cases, but outright “We won’t allow this content on our platform” being expressed in others, but it’s still not “business as usual”.

  29. avatar barnbwt says:

    Anything pro-gun = promoting the sale of guns
    Anything anti-gun = acceptable

    There. Now they can have their cake & eat it too.

    If only the big Youtube channel guys had been spending these past months making arrangements with Full30/etc to have backup plans in place, but instead they went right back to the crocodile-infested watering hole because it was easier.

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      I think everyone has their videos backed up. If not online somewhere that’s public, either in a private cloud storage situation and/or on physical hard drives. Most of mine are backed up to the cloud and all of them are backed up to an external hard drive in my office.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        As insurance, I hope you will consider keeping that backup hard drive in a fire-resistant box with your other important papers located as low as possible where you are storing it.

        House fires suck 🙁

    2. avatar BradleyD says:

      Except that Classic Firearms has a channel announcing their new products weekly. 150k followers so not huge but respectable. TFB TV has half a million and I don’t think they’ve had issues; maybe a handful but nothing I’ve seen lately. It isn’t just “advertising” that does it. Funker530 has live combat footage and Iraqveteran8888 does a ton of shooting videos.

      I think that a channel picks up ‘haters’ that report for violations, YouTube is paranoid about its reputation, and knee jerks. It seems to clear up.

  30. avatar Mr. Lucky says:

    Subscriber #32

  31. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Just created an account. Not seeing a “subscription” button, so no idea which subscriber number I have.

  32. avatar QAdd says:

    https://www.full30.com/ is a great site and i’m glad it’s there. People should also check out https://www.real.video/

    1. avatar Binder says:

      The video that was likely the spark for the YouTube change is not on the Full30 either. It was on the FULL30 (there are STILL traces of the posted video), but the liability for the content creator likely sparked the removal from there too.

  33. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “So what “community guideline” did my video violate?”

    The religion of the cult of Leftardism.

  34. avatar Jimmy james says:

    YT and FB can kiss my azz forever. I cancelled my FB account when it came to light that they were commie stooges. When YT turned off Brownells instructional viddies, i quit using YT. Too many other options out there. Necessity is the mother of invention. I wont spend money with gun and ammo businesses who use either internet platform to go to market.

  35. avatar Bob says:

    This is BS. you tube needs to remember they only really started to grow when everyone bought a iPhone and YouTube was already loaded on the phones… before that you would go on there to either watch a fight or some goofball doing something to hurt themselves. If they take continue down this path I’ll stop watching them altogether

  36. avatar Terclinger says:

    This is for youtube but a variation works on Facebook and Twitter:

    Go to the page for video you want to watch.
    TURN OFF YOUR AD BLOCKER.
    When the ad starts, screen shoot it, then mute it/ skip it, wait it out with your eyes averted.

    Watch the content you came for.

    Leave a comment that you are boycotting the advertiser.
    Rinse and repeat a few times.

    End of the day, spend TEN MINUTES going through your screen shots,
    contact those advertisers on their home pages
    (use your own name or an extra hotmail account)
    And tell them that they wasted their money on their ads
    and that you not only don’t watch them but
    you will not buy from any company advertising on youtube
    because youtube is censoring 1rst and 2nd Amendment videos.

    Too much trouble to spend a few minutes / day?
    THEN STOP COMPLAINING because there’s nothing else that gets attention except when you punch them in the wallet.

  37. They deleted my ATi .410 AR video in the same way, with the same message. I went back and forth with YouTube help asking them to clarify how it violated. They couldn’t give me a straight answer! I re-uploaded it and it’s been running just fine though the lost views hurt. It’s BS, but they control the results. Good thing My stuff can still be found elsewhere. I feel your pain.

  38. avatar Gentoo says:

    Full 30 will never become popular until they ALLOW people to upload videos. Playing in your little sandbox where only a select few can post wont help the cause at all

  39. avatar Terclinger says:

    Would you please tell the people who run Full30 to respond to emails, password change requests, etc?

    I’d love to subscribe to your channel there but I can’t log in and they do not respond.

    thanks.

  40. avatar Matt Johnson says:

    I think if you state in the beginning of the video that I am not selling this gun and do not state the price you might be able to fly under the radar on that. Just the brand name and maybe their Web page.

  41. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    The Libertarians totally support private sector censorship of entire classes of people and organizations.

  42. avatar John Dunlap says:

    Everyone here is talking boycott, or moving content to other outlets. Well, do that, but I would point out that the “private business” argument no longer holds water. These tech companies are OPENLY COLLUDING, using their collective control of advertising, search, and social media to CRUSH COMPETITORS, not just suppress ideas they don’t like (they haven’t confined their attacks to firearms ownership, it’s bigger than that). What they are doing is the definition of monopoly. They’ve blatantly violated the RICO and Sherman Anti Trust statutes. They are breaking Federal law. Openly and defiantly.

    We can do a lot more than grumble and boycott. We should be burning up our Federal legislators’ phone lines and maxing out their inboxes, demanding a criminal investigation under RICO and Sherman. These companies have their fingers in a lot more pies than just advertising and social media. Their main source of income is spying on us, and their biggest clients are governments. We can’t beat them if all we do is try to hurt their bottom line. We have to start putting their CEO’s and boards of directors in jail.

  43. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    My question is, is YouTube even relevant anymore? That’s what happens when certain manufacturers push the envelope of calling obvious rifles cut down to mimic pistols. Who buys that crap anyway? Who needs it? This isn’t mad max world. Gun’s such as those pictured are for people with compensation issues, they aren’t accurate in real world situations. Why modify a perfectly accurate rifle into something that isn’t accurate out to 30 yards or more. I guess to make a long story short, WHO CARES?

    1. “Who buy’s the crap”, you say! The said same that contemplates putting a “Chain Saw” where the “Bayonet” should be, that Who…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email