Nick Fuentes Gets Shadow Banned from Rumble
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (33)
sorted by:
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.
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!