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.
It's important to do this rather than knee-jerk assume, there are shit heads out there that pull this on purpose. They sit there whining about free speech then you find out they've been spamming threats and racial slurs at people. Not many platforms if they kept spamming that in earnest would really let that go on.
I'm not talking about hate speech, personally I don't really care about the racial slurs myself but if it was properly directed against someone on the platform and the evidence was blatant I'd completely understand. I think this is why realistically people should always be wary of the free speech grift. It often falls apart when faced with the reality of being a doxxable business owner of any kind.
Yes it's shitty in some cases and I'm not excusing it, honest, but it's the same way some people out there honestly expect business owners to risk a jail sentence for not handing over something to law enforcement because of some edgy retards that decided to use their site or business to do something heinous.
It's because of this that when examining multiplayer game development as an example I've had to really consider the merits of just having no communication tools beyond pinging or pre-scripted messages because the glowies are clamping down on that shit hard. I do not want to be on the receiving end of some fed op and get caught up on something because of a retard posting something in game chat somewhere and making me liable.
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.
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.
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.
It's important to do this rather than knee-jerk assume, there are shit heads out there that pull this on purpose. They sit there whining about free speech then you find out they've been spamming threats and racial slurs at people. Not many platforms if they kept spamming that in earnest would really let that go on.
Spamming threats is relevant the slur part is not
That is a "free speech" check and the platform failed. All speech is speech.
I'm not talking about hate speech, personally I don't really care about the racial slurs myself but if it was properly directed against someone on the platform and the evidence was blatant I'd completely understand. I think this is why realistically people should always be wary of the free speech grift. It often falls apart when faced with the reality of being a doxxable business owner of any kind.
Yes it's shitty in some cases and I'm not excusing it, honest, but it's the same way some people out there honestly expect business owners to risk a jail sentence for not handing over something to law enforcement because of some edgy retards that decided to use their site or business to do something heinous.
It's because of this that when examining multiplayer game development as an example I've had to really consider the merits of just having no communication tools beyond pinging or pre-scripted messages because the glowies are clamping down on that shit hard. I do not want to be on the receiving end of some fed op and get caught up on something because of a retard posting something in game chat somewhere and making me liable.
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.