What's new

Youtube bans all Syrian Goverment linked channels

#1
"
A number of Syrian state and media-linked YouTube accounts have gone dark, as the battle for Idlib looms amid Russia’s warnings of an imminent false-flag chemical attack and Western preparations for retaliatory strikes.
On Saturday afternoon, the channels belonging to the Syrian presidency, the country’s Ministry of Defense, and SANA news all showed a message saying: “This account has been terminated due to a legal complaint,” or “This account has been terminated for a violation of YouTube's Terms of Service.”
The Damascus-based Sana TV's channel on YouTube also appeared to be taken down, with a message reading: “This page isn't available. Sorry about that. Try searching for something else.”
View image on Twitter



https://www.rt.com/news/437979-youtube-syria-government-media-channels/


I said it myself Alex Jones was fine. Definitely straddling the border but not crossing it. this shit on the other hand not only crosses the line but circles the earth to cross it again. worst part is that fucking no one is covering this shit. so little people that i had to use a god damn RT article for the source. luckily for this particular story the credibility of the source is a nonfactor given you can just go to the youtube channels and check for yourself and it would take all of five seconds. (Witch i did and they are all indeed down.)
 

Alias

Moderator
Moderator
#2
US sanctions prohibit American companies from providing services to Syria without obtaining a licence from the Treasury Department. Also I heard about this from a number of news articles the day it happened. Also can't say I'm bothered by the Syrian regime losing it's accounts.
 
#3
US sanctions prohibit American companies from providing services to Syria without obtaining a licence from the Treasury Department. Also I heard about this from a number of news articles the day it happened. Also can't say I'm bothered by the Syrian regime losing it's accounts.
Well they are currently the least evil option in syria right now. Every remaining major rebel group has been completely overtaken with jihadists and what not.

I only saw the RT article. Though to be fair i didnt look TOO hard especially given the ease of fact checking of this particular story making me rather uncaring to the source.

It has nothing to do with the US sanctions theyve been in place for awhile and this just happened two days ago.
 
#5
Alex Jones is, by a rather wide margin, more sympathetic to me than Assad’s government. At least, to my knowledge, Jones hasn’t outright killed anyone. He just spews batshit crazy conspiracy theories to make a quick buck.

I’m not all that upset that a murderous dictator has lost an avenue of propaganda, quite honestly.
 

Q99

Active member
#6
Alex Jones is, by a rather wide margin, more sympathetic to me than Assad’s government. At least, to my knowledge, Jones hasn’t outright killed anyone. He just spews batshit crazy conspiracy theories to make a quick buck.
He's of course not Assad bad, but he called the Sandy Hook massacre a fraud, the victim's families liars, and one family had to move where they lived seven times due to the harassment received, and he does so via using social media primarily.

Banning him is very far from any line that matters.
 
#8
He's of course not Assad bad, but he called the Sandy Hook massacre a fraud, the victim's families liars, and one family had to move where they lived seven times due to the harassment received, and he does so via using social media primarily.

Banning him is very far from any line that matters.
My point was, if I didn’t give a shit about Jones getting himself banned, why the hell should I give a crap about Assad not being able to smear propaganda feces on YouTube?

The OP seems to be offering sympathy to a murderous dictator. I question why Assad is supposedly more sympathetic than Alex Jones and also question the ops priorities if he considers this over the line.
 

Vyor

Well-known member
#9
He's of course not Assad bad, but he called the Sandy Hook massacre a fraud, the victim's families liars, and one family had to move where they lived seven times due to the harassment received, and he does so via using social media primarily.

Banning him is very far from any line that matters.
He actually recanted that and is currently being sued by the families.

Let the actual court systems handle that shit. Youtube shouldn't have banned him.
 

Lord Inquisitor Adornable

The Community Outreach Mod
Moderator
#11
My point was, if I didn’t give a shit about Jones getting himself banned, why the hell should I give a crap about Assad not being able to smear propaganda feces on YouTube?

The OP seems to be offering sympathy to a murderous dictator. I question why Assad is supposedly more sympathetic than Alex Jones and also question the ops priorities if he considers this over the line.
Murderous dictator > murderous jihadist groups flourishing in the power Vaccum left by his death and the collapse of his government.

The only way for things to improve is for these dictators to be left alone so they can stabilize their holdings and moderate Western ideas can begin to spread. Assad is not our enemy, we don't have to like him, but undermining him is the last thing we want to do if we care about the lives of the Syrian people.
 

Realmfighter

Well-known member
#12
The only way for things to improve is for these dictators to be left alone so they can stabilize their holdings and moderate Western ideas can begin to spread. Assad is not our enemy, we don't have to like him, but undermining him is the last thing we want to do if we care about the lives of the Syrian people.
You seem to be implying the American mindset towards the middle east is wishing for it to improve. At this point I can only assume it's a traumatic violent reaction after realizing terrorist attacks could occur on their soil, or some bastardization of the American ethic of "we can bring progress to the world. We must bring progress to the world."
 

Q99

Active member
#13
My point was, if I didn’t give a shit about Jones getting himself banned, why the hell should I give a crap about Assad not being able to smear propaganda feces on YouTube?

The OP seems to be offering sympathy to a murderous dictator. I question why Assad is supposedly more sympathetic than Alex Jones and also question the ops priorities if he considers this over the line.
Yea, fair point.

And I do have trouble viewing youtube as in any way impactful to the situation over there anyway.
 

ScreenXSurfer

Fetcher, Please!
#14
You seem to be implying the American mindset towards the middle east is wishing for it to improve. At this point I can only assume it's a traumatic violent reaction after realizing terrorist attacks could occur on their soil, or some bastardization of the American ethic of "we can bring progress to the world. We must bring progress to the world."
Well there's the American mindset and the MIC mindset.


In the American mindset, the violent reaction has petered out after 17 years. The MIC is just waiting for the next war.

Murderous dictator > murderous jihadist groups flourishing in the power Vaccum left by his death and the collapse of his government.

The only way for things to improve is for these dictators to be left alone so they can stabilize their holdings and moderate Western ideas can begin to spread. Assad is not our enemy, we don't have to like him, but undermining him is the last thing we want to do if we care about the lives of the Syrian people.
Well how many countries improved after the Arab Spring, and how many are getting worse? Of course we're not at the end of history so hopefully it's all an improvement after a long enough length of time. But there's a serious question as to the efficacy of using authoritarians to curb the jihadist. Does is actually solve the problem, or does it just post-pone it? From the looks of it, it does appear to post-pone the problem rather than solve it. How much of that is from Saudi/Iran interference I can't say.
 
#15
I'm fairly certain that when countries shut off American propaganda, or news, or whatever they are calling it these days, they are called anti-democratic and against free speech.

When the US shuts off Syrian channels to keep itself in it's own narrative bubble it is called necessary sanctions.

Hypocrisy. How unexpected.
 

Vyor

Well-known member
#16
I'm fairly certain that when countries shut off American propaganda, or news, or whatever they are calling it these days, they are called anti-democratic and against free speech.

When the US shuts off Syrian channels to keep itself in it's own narrative bubble it is called necessary sanctions.

Hypocrisy. How unexpected.
Frankly? In complete agreement with you here.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top