Google shadowbans "DEI detected"
(www.youtube.com)
Comments (35)
sorted by:
If DEI is soo obviously good then why are they hiding it?
Creatures of darkness and evil hate the light.
All you have to do is look at those glassy black eyes and you already know that.
Which is of course why they writhe around gasping when they aren't submerged in it.
What are those?
In all seriousness, though. It is illegal in most states to not support Israel. Any "rights" were sacrificed to the progressive agenda a long time ago.
Woah, woah, hold on there, champ!
You are absolutely allowed to know if Nazis or the slave trade are funding your products, but why do you have to know if Israel is funding it!? Are you some kind of antisemite!?!?!? /s
Sue in a red state and demand discovery.
You will get a payout faster than George Floyd’s family
KiA2.win React to asmongoloid React to SBIDetected guy React to KiA.reddit
Yet somehow he stretched it into a 2 hour stream, a 30 minute episode, and 3 clips
dramatic pause
eyebrow wiggle
Jim the camera
Makes sense, you don’t seem like the type of guy to have a history of bridge-related incidents
I watched it for about 5 minutes until I realized it was just going to be some asshat with a headset responding to comments people typed to him about someone else's video.
Why does anyone watch this style of YouTube video?
I would never watch a video from asmongold.
React content was a mistake.
If Trump manages to beat election "fortification" this time around one of the first things he needs to do is start an anti-trust breakup of Alphabet (Google, youtube, Doubleclick, Nest, etc.) and Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, Threads, etc.).
Microsoft is probably due for another round of culling as well.
Don't tease me with such promising phrasing
I think meta is destroying itself without any help. Have you seen the state of anything except the social media site?
Yeah, that's going to be a no
Not sure why Asmongold felt the need to go on a pro-regulation rant.
Like, I get the principle, but what's the "privilege" in question? Not being fucked by the government? That should be the default. The idea that free speech is a privilege (and I know that's not exactly the same thing) is incredibly fucking dangerous ground to cede.
Then he responds to someone in chat:
One of my least favorite arguments. Some people just can't wrap their head around basic logic. Just because "every single thing in your entire life is regulated by the government" does not mean that's a good thing. Just because it currently exist does not mean it's good. Nor, importantly, does it make it 'like water to a fish,' necessary to survive.
If everything was on fire, you wouldn't say that saying we should have less fire is like a fish saying we need less water, or a mammal saying we need less air. No, in that instance, we clearly fucking need less fire. It doesn't matter if everything in our life is currently on fire, that doesn't mean we should keep it that way, because that's currently how it is. "Everything in your life is on fire, and you're saying fire is bad, you're delusional!"
Also, to get less abstract...how is the government taking control and being in charge of the powers that corporations are currently abusing (often at the direct behest of the government!) a better situation? You're just cutting out the middleman.
This really shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone who knows anything about the boy. He floats between being a contrarian for its own sake, and a fence-sitter. He has no position of his own. It's funny when sycophants try to tell me I supposedly have "literally no idea what kind of person he is." Asmon has continued to pop up on my radar over the last decade, against my best efforts, and each time I am reminded just who he is.
He's just a dimwit vaguely parroting a telephone game'd version of the argument about revoking the section 230 privileges, probably.
Which if he actually was able to articulate might do some good. Because the publisher vs platform distinction has been abused to hell and back. Either you do control content and can be held liable, or you let the platform exist unmolested and are protected from liability. Controlling content makes you a publisher - but these sites keep platform protections (because they actually serve at the deep state's behest).
Oh, I know. I'm offended at the question itself, not at who asked it. I know he's sort of midwitty.
That's kind of that same argument, to be fair. Freedom of the press means freedom of the press, whether you're a 'platform' or a 'publisher.' The government doesn't get to censor you, either way. I don't really see the distinction. No matter how tightly or loosely they moderate what happens on their site, if they're publishing/platforming legal content, the government needs to butt out.
The platform vs publisher argument isn't about which are vulnerable to government censorship. It's about those places (social media, search engines) purporting to be platforms engaging in censorship, but retaining the platform protections.
Platforms are protected from legal liability for what users post. Publishers are not. To be a platform you can't exercise editorial control over the posted material outside of barring actually illegal things. Every social media corp that engages in censorship of opinions they dislike should lose their platform protections. Since those corps have been censoring users, often in behalf of the deep state, they should lose liability protection.
If you took liability protection from facebook or google or what have you, they'd either instantly be destroyed or be forced to stop being censorious goblinoids to regain their protection.
Only morons use Google so they are hiding something that shits on leftists, from leftisrs. Oh fucking no! It's too late. Everyone with a brain is already watching DIE detected. You can't hide it.
Google still has about 90% of the market on search engines.
Both can be true.
Sue in a red state and demand discovery.
Google is abusing their monopoly.
They will settle faster than the government paying out George Floyd’s family.
(I am not a lawyer)
I'm not watching this dweeb, especially not when he's going to lie in the title of the video. I just looked up "DEI Detected" on Google. The website came back as the top result. Entering "deidetected.com" yielded the same effect.
Same, something smells fishy here. Fabricated internet personality drama for clicks I guess.
If anyone cares, I found a post over on his sub has a theory that explains it:
Human error and conclusion jumping. Can personally confirm it works fine now.