YouTube terminated the Brownells channel

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • CrazySanMan

    2013'er
    Mar 4, 2013
    11,390
    Colorful Colorado
    YouTube Terminates Channel of Firearms Parts Retailer
    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/youtube-guns-brownells-channel-shut-down/

    YouTube suddenly terminated the channel for the firearms parts company Brownells, the company claimed on Saturday.

    “Brownells’ YouTube channel has been terminated without warning or notice,” Brownells’ Twitter account stated.

    The 80-year-old gun supplies company reached out to followers on social media, asking them to contact Google, which owns YouTube, about the move.

    “If you’re opposed to the attacks on our communitys 1st & 2nd Amendment rights, please contact Google,” Brownells said.

    Comments on social media were mostly critical of the move, many users saying Brownells is the wrong entity to go after to prevent gun violence.
     

    jrumann59

    DILLIGAF
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 17, 2011
    14,024
    While I think it sucks, it is not an "attack" on anything. Unless of course Google is run by the Gov't. Google is private entity that provides a service and they can decide who uses that service and who does not.
     

    CrabcakesAndFootball

    Active Member
    Jun 14, 2017
    697
    While I think it sucks, it is not an "attack" on anything. Unless of course Google is run by the Gov't. Google is private entity that provides a service and they can decide who uses that service and who does not.

    You're right, of course, but that defense kinda ignores reality. Google and Facebook have created platforms that are the functional equivalent of soapboxes on public sidewalks a hundred years ago. The companies themselves recognize this, which is why they pay lip service to their "non-partisan" nature despite all evidence to the contrary.
     

    jrumann59

    DILLIGAF
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 17, 2011
    14,024
    You're right, of course, but that defense kinda ignores reality. Google and Facebook have created platforms that are the functional equivalent of soapboxes on public sidewalks a hundred years ago. The companies themselves recognize this, which is why they pay lip service to their "non-partisan" nature despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Who owned those soap boxes of yesteryear??? It sux that a company that spouts open communication is doing the opposite but that is the risk when you hand over control to a company and expect it to be fair and balanced when it is people running that company that decide what is fair and balanced.

    I am actually surprised that google itself has not come under anti-trust litigation, it is large enough now that it can manipulate the market on its own.
     

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    You're right, of course, but that defense kinda ignores reality. Google and Facebook have created platforms that are the functional equivalent of soapboxes on public sidewalks a hundred years ago. The companies themselves recognize this, which is why they pay lip service to their "non-partisan" nature despite all evidence to the contrary.

    Right. They function more like common carriers, and should be regulated as such.
     

    Ranchero50

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 15, 2012
    5,411
    Hagerstown MD
    I think it only takes a couple flags against a content providers content for it to be taken down. I'm not sure if it's Joe Shmo Publics flags or the elite volunteer moderators who need to flag it too many times.
     

    ironpony

    Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 8, 2013
    7,190
    Davidsonville
    While I think it sucks, it is not an "attack" on anything. Unless of course Google is run by the Gov't. Google is private entity that provides a service and they can decide who uses that service and who does not.

    Good point Brownells is wrong saying this is an attack, since DJT was elected there have been very few political "attacks" (deniro). Sarcasm, I understand your view jrumann but actually the line between attack and "we are just taking our ball and going home" has become very definable. I would like to see a list of non-conservative YT channels who have had difficulties .... a much shorter list I bet.
     

    TheBert

    The Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 10, 2013
    7,687
    Gaithersburg, Maryland
    You're right, of course, but that defense kinda ignores reality. Google and Facebook have created platforms that are the functional equivalent of soapboxes on public sidewalks a hundred years ago. The companies themselves recognize this, which is why they pay lip service to their "non-partisan" nature despite all evidence to the contrary.

    It used to be you would go to the town square and get on a box and spout your views. Then newspapers came in and you could print your views and sell them or give them out for free.

    You have no right to use Google or Facebook. And, even if you use them you do not have to pay anything. If you use them you have voluntarily decided to associate yourself with them.
     

    BeoBill

    Crank in the Third Row
    MDS Supporter
    Oct 3, 2013
    27,058
    南馬里蘭州鮑伊
    Google, Facebook and Twitter are not the equivalent of the soapbox in the town square. IMO they ARE the town square now - just virtual. You bring your own soapbox when you create your account.
     

    jc1240

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 18, 2013
    14,790
    Westminster, MD
    Google, Facebook and Twitter are not the equivalent of the soapbox in the town square. IMO they ARE the town square now - just virtual. You bring your own soapbox when you create your account.

    It sucks that these companies don't practice the belief of free speech, but they are not the town square in that the town square is public property and these are not. There is no valid analogy.

    Maybe you could argue the Internet is the town square and your own funded streaming server is your soapbox.

    The answer is to find a service that practices free speech. For example there is a Facebook clone that is conservative. Getting eyes on it is the difficult part. It's easier with video since you just need to spread the URLs.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,919
    Messages
    7,258,819
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom