Nick Fuentes Gets Shadow Banned from Rumble
(twitter.com)
Comments (33)
sorted by:
Many of these Alt-Tech sites still rely on ad revenue from the leftist mainstream media giants they supposed to be against
That and they want their apps in the App Store and thus have to do whatever Google and Apple demand of them.
Robert Barnes is a fucking idiot. The thing about him is that when he’s wrong, he’s confidently wrong. It’s a tactic used to convince people to your side, like a judge who’s not familiar with a particular law. But it’s very misleading when done in a public forum like YouTube livestreams where the audience might not know any better and assume that he’s right just because he sounds convincing.
There have been multiple instances where he’s been dead wrong on the law but a recent one off the top of my head was his opinions on Florida changing the law with the Reedy Creek Improvement District. Legal Mindset, who actually used to do legal work in this area, very gently dismantled Barnes opinion that Reedy Creek is still getting special deals from the state.
I’d estimate that he’s wrong about 15%-20% of the time. The only other lawtubers with error rates that high that I’m aware of are Leonard French on anything not in his copyright practice area, and Legal Eagle on any topic even vaguely political.
Barnes would have wanted Fuentes banned. He doesn't want people to know that, though. Don't forget he had a melt down after debating Fuentes on the US's Israel policy.
I'm only getting one side so did Fuentes do ANYTHING that might get him banned?
Because although these alt tech platforms are more inclined to free speech, that isn't absolute if they want to be actual competition one day to YouTube.
Sneako was also shadowbanned recently despite having an active deal with Rumble. To my knowledge, Rumble hasn't said anything about either case.
The Sneako shit was obvious though as he did dance around, waving a gun around saying how he was going to pay a visit to moistcritical (forgetting he is a Florida man and getting blasted by him the next day as an idiot) so that was an active threat
I doubt Fuentes did the same but I'm just looking for any reason there could be for it.
Spamming threats is relevant the slur part is not
That is a "free speech" check and the platform failed. All speech is speech.
Lol no you do not have the right to threaten people
I'll take 90% free speech over 0% free speech. The platform you're asking for is too radical to exist right now and we have to progress in that direction. We can't warp there. The left go away with so much because they were willing to slow-walk, and make manifest the slippery slope.
We have to slippery slope ourselves back to free speech absolutism.
Rumble was doing some weird manipulation of Nick Rekieta's LawTube content last year despite signing him to a deal as well.
His streams never showed up on the Top 50 Battleboards (could be because his livestreams cross the midnight EST threshold) and his daytime trial streams and night shows hardly ever made it to the frontpage.
Rackets didn't have a deal with Rumble until this year, though they were in talks for a good chunk of last year.
I believe Nick had a two-stage deal:
a first signed deal with Rumble that he would cut off his YT stream after an hour to finish up on Rumble 3x/week, similar to Viva&Barnes
a second deal that he would do a member-exclusive Locals stream late night after his Rumble stream ended.
I feel like the first deal was signed around the time of the Darrell Brooks/ Waukesha parade trial last fall, because I remember his content missing from frontpage Rumble promotion despite pulling in big numbers.
I could have my dates wrong though. I stopped watching Nick around that time and haven't watched him in 2023 at all.
It is the Andrew Anglin treatment. They pretend to take everything he says 100% literally when probably 90% of it is exaggeration for comedic effect. Then they use their literal interpretation as a pretext for a "encouraging hateful conduct" or "offensive" or some other completely arbitrary rules violation that would never be applied except to dissidents.
My hypothesis is ADL has someone paid to monitor Nick's telegram and whenever it looks like he is opening on a new platform they make a call.
Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Not surprised, since they're heavily involved with google. They have several third party injections from them on the site. Like "doubleclick.net", "g.doubleclick.net", "securepubads.g.doubleclick.net", "googlesyndication.com", "pagead2.googlesyndication.com", "googletagmanager.com", "www.googletagmanager.com", and "imasdk.googleapis.com".
All viewable (and blockable) with the eMatrix addon.
Shadowbanning is tyrannical. I can understand the method for actual spammers, which are mostly automated bots. In that case, the lack of API feedback is important to slowing down the bot's ability to adapt and repost. If you know it's a real person, you've got to have the deviant mind of a reddit admin to think shadowbanning is acceptable.
But it depends how you define shadowbanning. The term mostly applies to forums and comments. I don't consider curated social-media networks limiting the reach of any one node as a ban, as long as other nodes can still amplify their message. Media platforms have no obligation to recommend or trend your content. However for full transparency they should make it clear on the live/trending/search page that some content is hidden.
Was he checking for cumstains with a UV light again? Because that might violate their lewd content policy.
Meet the new boss. Same (literally) as the old boss.
As I said elsewhere. Overton window. You're not going to get to absolute free speech in one leap. You have to do what the liberals did, walk society in the direct you want. Walk. Not sprint.
Sprinting spooks the sheep.
Rumble doesn't want disaffected liberals to come to the site for the first time and see a stormfag is literally a top streamer.
You’re correct about the Overton window but not about the direction rumble is moving it towards.
So generally allowing anything but stormfront shit, up to and including Alex Jones on the platform, isn't a step towards more speech and not less?
Is the end goal allowing storm front on rumble?
No.
you just described an overton window shift to the left, not the right.
You really are the type of villian to monologue your entire plan, aren't you? I didn't think those existed in real life. My god man, you are self destructive.
Ok bro.
Rumble is controlled opposition.
I’m not anti rumble.
But to all these conservative personalities treating it like some “bastion” of free speech…. (Looking at you Crowder)
Dude, it’s a publicly traded company.
Once you’re public, your autonomy is second to ((shareholder)) value
How about asking what the fag did first