Home Artists Posts Import Register
Patreon importer is back online! Tell your friends ✅

Content

If you have not seen it, YouTube recently released a new policy of firearms content (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7667605?hl=en). It will not be actually enforced for another 28 days, and as of now we don't know what impact it will actually have. The wording is vague, and it was clearly written by people with a fundamental lack of understanding of firearms. What is most concerning about this change is that it is not about monetization, but rather whether content is allowed to be posted at all. The new rules will be retroactively enforced, so old videos violating them would have to be deleted entirely.

Worst case, it would prohibit any video showing feeding devices which hold more than 30 rounds (mags, drums, belts, etc), any fully automatic firearm, and perhaps anything showing how to load a firearm or showing how firearms work. Best case, it would prohibit showing how to manufacture guns or use bump stocks. So clearly, a wide range of potential outcomes. We will probably not know the actual enforcement standards until the rules take effect next month. This will almost certainly mean that I have to remove at least some content from the back catalog; perhaps a lot of it.

That's the bad news. The good news is that Forgotten Weapons is not going anywhere, and the video archive will not be lost. Thanks to you, I am not dependent on YouTube monetization. They do provide the most robust and accessible video hosting service, but I have at least three alternatives that I am working on, in addition to posting videos to Full30 (which I will continue to do) and starting to post them in full length on Facebook (which I will do if necessary, but I do not see Facebook as a viable long-term solution). By the time these rules take effect, I will have at least one very effective alternative host in addition to Full30, and losing YouTube will not mean any permanent loss of content or loss of my ability to continue providing you with new content.

That being said, not every channel in this arena has the options that I do. If you have other, smaller channels that you are concerned about or if you want to continue being able to see Forgotten Weapons in YouTube, I would encourage you to contact YouTube and tell them so. I do not like this sort of drama, and I would much prefer to have the status quo remain, and be able to spend my time making the content I love instead of fighting to be able to publish it. 

If you go to the policy link at the very top of this post, there is a question at the bottom asking if it was helpful. Click "no", and it will allow you to explain why you disagree with the new policy. Please be respectful and polite, but tell YouTube that this action is unacceptable to you.

Thank you all for your support! I look forward to many more years of bringing you Forgotten Weapons, whether it is by way or YouTube or any other platform.

Files

Policies on content featuring firearms - YouTube Help

YouTube prohibits certain kinds of content featuring firearms. Specifically, we don't allow content that: Intends to sell firearms or certain firearms accessories through direct sales (e.g

Comments

Anonymous

But will we see the up coming weapons from James Julia Auction House on Porn Hub? ;)

Anonymous

Thanks Ian. I as many others will follow you and your excellent work wherever you lead us. Keep having fun!

Anonymous

I will be checking for your updates on Full 30 as well as In range.

Anonymous

I love the fact that InRange is on Pornhub but I think FW is at a different level.

Anonymous

Commented on poorly written policy as requested.

Lostngone

I wonder if full30 is going to step up and use this as an opportunity to grow. I thought I saw they were invite only for content.

Anonymous

I have voiced my disapproval of YouTube’s new policy, that they will be losing good historical explanation that you provide, more in depth than the history channel could ever hope for, and that my advertising dollars will go with me. Continue On, sir you are a doing a good job

Anonymous

Have you considered self-hosting videos on a server that you own/control? It would be missing the community/browsing aspect of Youtube, but it's also censorship resistant. Thanks for the update, and thanks for making such interesting videos!

Anonymous

Wow what a sneaky knuckleball thrown at you. Unacceptable knee jerk reaction from YouTube. And I agree that responses to YouTube should be as polite, intelligent, factual, and logical.

ForgottenWeapons

Yes, they are quite happy making money off these videos for now.

ForgottenWeapons

I like the idea, but the execution would be prohibitively expensive. We looked into this a little while back for InRange.

Brandon T

One of my best friends - who is really only my best friend due to our shared love of firearms, I think, as we butt heads like angry stepbrothers on just about every other topic - responded to me telling him that YT was about to take its next step in what will, at this rate, eventually be 100% removal of "undesired content" (is it just me, or does this smack of the sort of things the totalitarian regimes leading into WWII implemented..?), with the following statement: "Brandon, YouTube would lose so many viewers if they got rid of gun content that they will never do it." ...which is a prime example of the sort of thinking that causes us to butt heads, now that I think about it, as it is obviously short-sighted and outright wrong. Anyway, hopefully more people click that "no" button and tell YT how they feel, just like people did to Patreon when they recently tried to screw up their payment system, but as long as people like my friend think things like he thinks, well...yeah. Sigh. :( Regardless of what YT does, I will follow FW to Full30 or elsewhere, not to mention stopping my YT watching as much as possible and, even when so, making damn sure I'm ad-blocking everything they throw at me. Good luck, Ian!

Anonymous

Furious does not begin to represent my feelings. My reply to this on their reaction page is below: "Attempting to dictate public opinion through blatant and obvious suppression of facts and content is Draconian at best and outright propagandist at worst. The person or persons who have created these rules obviously are wholly ignorant of weaponry and mechanics and worse yet, wantonly remaining ignorant; choosing to remain content in the sphere of their emotional response, rather than risk the potential new perspective honest discussion and open exchange of knowledge can potentially allow. The short-sighted and emotionally driven response of Google/ABC - formerly regarded as a bastion of learning and knowledge - is antithetical to natural human liberty and just as importantly should be absolutely abhorrent to anyone who truly values knowledge and understanding over irrational judgement and emotionally driven, knee-jerk reaction. I for one will be taking virtually all of my viewing and hosting of online video content from YouTube in response to this and finding elsewhere to continue my entertainment and education."

Anonymous

You need to make a video with this same message so non patrons can know to go click the complain link as well

Anonymous

I'll say it again; if you haven't yet, you should contact the guys at Linus Media group about their platform called Floatplane. I've been thinking about subscribing there but it's only two content creators at the moment. I'm not entirely certain they're accepting other creators until they officially launch, but it doesn't hurt to find out. I would happily give a few bucks a month to access your content and others on a quality platform other than YouTube.

Anonymous

Commented on their vague policy that could potentially ban legitimate educational content.

Brandon T

YES, THIS! Ian, please do so; also, you and Karl should do likewise on InRange, as not everyone that watches FW watches InRange (which makes me shed a single tear...)

Anonymous

Thank you for providing the link, for all the good it will do anyway. Utterly despicable what is going on, I am not happy.

ForgottenWeapons

The alternatives I am working on are already well established, and thus much better options than Floatplane.

Anonymous

More attacks on our first and second amendment rights.

david weilbaecher jr

i am not sure even a q&a video would survive youtube.

Anonymous

Thank you for bringing attention to this lousy policy change, and telling us an easy way to comment on it. My comment, in full: "This new policy is tantamount to book-burning. If it goes into effect, it would eliminate a significant percentage of the historical and technical content that I enjoy on YouTube, and I would need to reconsider whether to visit YouTube at all any more. Please reconsider this ill-advised, ignorant, and counterproductive policy change."

Anonymous

Thank you for the heads up, Ian. Took your advice and left a comment (polite) for the YouTube people. This policy is just silly, especially since innocent historical content like yours will be hurt just as much as the "tactical" content creators.

Anonymous

I do disapprove of this new rule, but I do want to point something out: “-Provides instructions on manufacturing a firearm, ammunition, high capacity magazine, homemade silencers/suppressors, or certain firearms accessories such as those listed above. This also includes instructions on how to convert a firearm to automatic or simulated automatic firing capabilities.” I think that they are referring to videos that show how to MANUFACTURE all of those things. Like a video that shows how a suppressor, ammo, or high capacity mag is MADE is not allowed; but videos like Ian’s should be okay. I also don’t see anything on videos that physically show them in use as a problem either. But again, this is just my take on another poorly worded policy, just trying to see the brighter side of it...

Marlo Delfin Gonzales

Please know that not every liberal supports these kinds of policies. Some of us really do understand the importance of the 2nd amendment. I make a serious effort to rationally talk about these things among my peers whenever I think they'l actually listen. Maybe someday I'll make some progress.

Anonymous

I’m angered by these developments but I’m not at all surprised by them. YouTube, like so many other high profile media vectors, feel they have to show that they’ve “done something” so as to avoid criticism. They bend and sway with the political wind as reported by the mainstream news outlets - just like so many others. The free market will sort it out eventually and if YouTube continues to alienate large swaths of its customer base another video hosting service will rise to take its place. Keep up the good work, Ian. Your efforts entertain and educate a lot of people and it is greatly appreciated.

Anonymous

Thank you for sharing this update.

Anonymous

The wording is vague and it is clear that they want to show how against mass shootings they are. Because that is where the money is. Do no evil is the motto of Google. They are just out there to make money for themselves and nothing more. If you post to pornhub, it'll mean one less bookmark.

Anonymous

I’m sorry Karl. I hope it turns out to be less of an impact than the worst case scenario. I will continue to follow your, and Ian’s, content and support you on Patreon. Hopefully YouTube management will pull their heads out of their collective asses, but I’m not holding my breath.

ForgottenWeapons

I agree, I suspect the worst case scenario is not the actual goal. However, enforcement of policy on YouTube has always been subjective, and vague rules invite widely varying interpretations. When it is monetization of a single video that is one thing, but when it can mean the complete removal of a channel, it's a lot more worrying.

Anonymous

It seems to me more and more that YouTube wants to go entirely "pink fluffy unicorn" in the long run...

Anonymous

I left a civil comment regarding the vagueness of the policy and it's potential to stymie law abiding content creators. I'll follow you guys wherever y'all end up.

ForgottenWeapons

Good luck! I appreciate viewers and enthusiasts of all political stripes, and I wish the rest of the firearms community would recognize that we can be a "big tent" group.

Anonymous

I doubt they will read it and the feedback section is the equivalent of a close door button. I still left my attempt at a polite and thoughtful comment. Wherever you end up we will follow.

Anonymous

As a history buff, I appreciate detail and research you do before posting a video. I do not own a firearm, but as I have had some military training, I can appreciate the harm a gun in the wrong hands can cause.

Anonymous

Let's be quite real. They want to delete your entire channel, and likely will try to. Every one of your Julia and Rock Island videos is against that new rule, as I am sure you are aware.

Anonymous

Lifehacks: How to destroy your site in one easy trick!

Anonymous

This is not a good omen of whats to come:(, I do hope your alternatives will pan out for you and many other creators of quality content.

Anonymous

Just raised my pledge, please do everything you can to work together with other content creators to build a good home for our community. They are gutting the gun community on Reddit as well, we need a new platform.

Iain Hutchinson

Thanks for keeping us in the loop Ian. I did leave a very civil comment. I would ask that you consider posting the "backup" via torrent. It may be hundreds of gigs, that's fine, I'll seed.

Anonymous

I have sent my unpleasant reply to YouTube concerning their "So Called" rules.

Anonymous

I was not profane, it was hopefully a well thought out replay about their Orwellian policies and to remind them of the consequences of their "Group Think" philosophy in relation to the book 1984.

Anonymous

I too upped my pledge and left a series of polite questions regarding the vagueness of the rule and potential implications of what would suddenly become prohibited content

Anonymous

I had already sent Youtube a comment focusing on how vague and poorly drafted the new policy was. It's laughable in its opacity (or would be but for the content providers who rely on it). I can see that it may be limited to videos that sell guns and bump stocks directly, but it is impossible to be sure of that from reading the language. I'm embarrassed that it could have been written by someone who actually speaks the English language. But all that said, we can see which way the wind is blowing here. It's time for firearm video providers to come up with a robust alternative to posting on Youtube.

Anonymous

I wrote YouTube expressing my displeasure. Hopefully they don't get draconian on us.

Lurker45

Youtube just keeps getting worse and worse. It's shame it's going to inconvenience you like this, and maybe more so they won't even be clear about what exactly is going to happen.

Anonymous

You can find the most hateful, violent things on YouTube. You can even see people die on YouTube. But nonviolent videos of law abiding people with guns are being banned. Ridiculous.

Anonymous

This is the comment I sent to YouTube "This is censorship and is in violation of the 1st amendment, specifically if you are targeting a specific content that promotes the 2nd Admendment only. Maybe the who's who of Google/YouTube can continue to support Marxist by moving operations to mother Russia. Thank you! "

Tristan Sobey

If you're like me and had YT Red up until this point I think it would be a good message to YT/Google to cancel your membership. Hurt their bottom line when you want to make a company listen.

Anonymous

Gun channels can move here -&gt; <a href="https://d.tube/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://d.tube/</a>

Anonymous

I'd been meaning to contribute here for a while, but this is what finally pushed me to do so.

Anonymous

The first amendment as far as I know relates to freedom of speach in public. Youtube, as a private company is not obliged to follow these rules... They can ban people from their platform for saying things they don't like, just as you and I can kick someone out of our homes if we don't like what they are saying. And some of the content described in their guidelines is showing how to circumvent current gun regulation (like homemaking silencers/suppressors). Banning such content is not just in their best interest but as far as I know their legal obligation, whenever they are informed of it. Same as with tutorials on how to make IEDs. So I think we should demand in a civil nature some clarification, especially in regards to the first paragraph, instead of telling them to move to Russia.

Anonymous

Respectfully commented on YouTube’s discrimination against our diverse community.

Anonymous

Youtube will sacrifice content that makes them money, if they can convert a few creators into submissives and earn a few virtual signal points at the same time.

Anonymous

Thank you for this post, Ian. I just finished writing a polite response using the link you provided. I had no idea this was an option or that I would have the opportunity.

Anonymous

I'll follow Forgotten Weapons wherever it may go, that I promise you. You have my utmost support and respect. Keep up the great work!

Anonymous

Left them a polite comment expressing my concerns.

Anonymous

It's also about nuances. Comparing FW to more mainstream gun channels is like comparing sex education to porn. The other one adds to your skills and contextual understanding, the other gives you an urge to go poke things. Historic insights vs. "I have built a giant home intruder out of 50 pig carcasses. Let's see how my dual-wielded Uzi's tear it apart." I get more from FW than all other gun channels combined and will follow it where ever it lands.

Anonymous

Ok, YouTube gave me the German translation. It doesn't look too serious. Seems that they want to stop promotion of private gun sales as well as tutorials for modifying semiautomatic guns to emulate full auto.

Anonymous

I have submitted my feedback and expressed a strong wish that they reconsider the sanitising of firearm and hunting related content. I would love to think that it will have a positive effect but I am naturally suspicious of big business and government having seen many freedoms be curtailed in my 59 years on this planet.

Anonymous

I just read the guidelines, apart from the magazine part I don't really see the problem. Also wouldn't it be better to use youtube's feedback system for feedback (<a href="https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/4347644?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&amp;hl=en)?" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/4347644?co=GENIE.Platform%3DDesktop&amp;hl=en)?</a>

Kenneth Marshall

Importantly lets be sure they also are reminded they will ban their bread and butter - Film and gme advertisers. Hollywood and video games is responsible for more firearms glorification -than youtube members yet is free to advertise that proliferation and glorification on Youttube. Perfectly fine to advertise John Wick on the youttube homepage (literally simulating, murder with said high capacity weapons

Anonymous

I attach a copy of my submission to Google. Not something I do lightly but in this case neccessary:

Anonymous

Blast!. Pressed the wrong key. My apologies. Here's myy comment.The wording of your proposal is too vague. The sale of firearms is legal even in the UK where I live and with limitation certain accessories are permitted. For example the ten round Lee-Enfield magazine which dates from the early 2oth century. Your proposal would conceivably ban *ALL* mention of guns, bayonets, ammunition of all periods and the "get out" clauses in your proposal would mean that even the discussion the Lorenzoni method of repeating flint-locks from 1660 could be banned. Surely this is not your intention but could be the result. Please think this through, as it stands your proposal is not tightly drawn and may well have unintended consequences. Thank you.

Anonymous

TLDR This is bad and I'm finally at a point of wanting youtube to die. Floatplane? Also if these rules get contorted that's it's own problem and is likely. However, these rules don't actually sound too bad in the sense that they seem to be trying to deter something like "How to make your AR15 full auto with a paperclip". That said, this could be very bad for 99% of Forgotten weapons ie all the auction content, because the guns are being sold. Not too much of a stretch of the imagination. Disclaimer I too am against this 100% it's just again on paper the rules don't look too bad, but youtubes implementation will be terrible. A very likely future I see is one where this hasn't achieved it's main goal which is "get rid of the seedy underbelly of firearms on youtube" and instead has killed all the mainstream gun channels for the reason that getting rid of seedy underbellys is hard, hitting the big obvious targets is easy. It's like cops busting a legal smoke shop somewhere, doesn't get any drug dealers off the street but mission accomplished. Sorry for yammering on :P

Karl Abrahamson

I mentioned it in my comment to google, but it could potentially remove all the rock island and James D videos, as those items were for sale. Its also unclear if safety videos like Hickok45 and others have done (maybe even inrange) where a semi-auto runs away, would be restricted. It would sink some channels for sure.

CavScout

Socialists trying to control content once again. Google/YouTube are the book burners of our times.

Anonymous

Sent a response. I bit my tongue and kept it civil. Orwell got everything right except the year.

Norman A. Letterman

I used some strong but cordial language. At least we always have pornhub, hey.

Anonymous

Here is what I put

Anonymous

Two of the three main channels I watch are on historical firearms (which include automatic weapons) and this new policy could easily limit/shut those channels down. The other channel I watch is about competitive "swat" style shooting competition and again this could easily limit/shut down this legitimate channel. Is it now the policy of youtube to "whitewash" history as well as suppress people from watching legal competitions? I also don't see any policies on youtube about limiting/pulling video's on illegal things. Why is that???

Anonymous

I sent them my opinion on the matter, but no matter where Forgotten Weapons and InRange end up, I'll always be supporting your content.

Anonymous

This is clearly a heavy-handed band-aid that Google and Youtube will use to prevent legal action. Really stupid that this company continues to sell out against the large community of creators that made it good.

Anonymous

I've doubled my pledge to $2. Sorry you have to deal with this. I'm beginning to think there are more nuts in the world than sensible people.

Anonymous

You made it on to BBC news about all this! Even more important now to contribute to you through patreon to help safeguard the future of your content!

Anonymous

not that it might have a big impact on Youtube...but I wrote them an email about how laws are different in various states/countries and therefore banning certain videos of something is limiting the learning/ knowledge of firearms.

Anonymous

Here is what I wrote in the feedback portion of the policy post (feel free to use it as well!): The restriction of this content negatively affects the poster's use of 'free speech' by preventing his/her video from being hosted. Furthermore, the use of illegal substance and instruction on how to perform illegal acts is NOT being restricted by Youtube, while instructions, discussion and documentation of a legal item (i.e., a firearm) not only is hypocritical, it is trying to remove/rebrand history by restricting what we (as the public) are allowed to view on the Youtube, a site where all opinion and ideas are supposed to be allowed. Please rescind this hypocritical policy, and thank you for your time.

Anonymous

Luke 4:24 Jesus spake, “Assuredly, I say to you, there is not a Prophet who is received in his own land.”

Anonymous

You were SO kind. I accused them of facilitating a mass shooting.

Anonymous

A policy to systemically prohibit firearms-related content is not going to bring an effective obstacle to their criminal use by ill-minded individuals and instead is going to alienate a significant portion of active YouTube users which neither participate, nor agree with firearms being used to criminal ends and it will also harm the social credibility of YouTube as a platform for open public communication which is in no way harmful in its very own right. As a longtime YouTube user and upholder of both free discussion and non-harmful use of firearms, I have to ask the YouTube representatives to reconsider the firearms policy and step away from a direction of plain ideological non-democratic censorship.

Anonymous

Hey Ian, I have a sincere question. A lot of creators are saying, like you "Worst case, it would prohibit any video showing feeding devices which hold more than 30 rounds (mags, drums, belts, etc), any fully automatic firearm, and perhaps anything showing how to load a firearm or showing how firearms work." - - - - - I am concerned I have to delete videos if this is the case, or never show videos coming up. Of course. however, *IF* youtube interprets their new policy to a T... bullet points 2 and 3 are only about manufacture and install. We should still be able to *use* full auto, drum mags, suppressors, etc. Right?? And even bullet point 2 is about showing how to manufacture something (still bogus) and 3rd is that we can't show the install of the "above mentioned items" which is a still bogus, but short list. So... I'm honestly concerned I'm missing something since everyone is claiming that full auto and drum mags now can't even be shown, etc. I do not see this in their policy - as long as they interpret it correctly ugh - am I missing something?? :|

Anonymous

Maybe you can post your videos on Dailymotion if YouTube becom

Anonymous

Maybe you can post your videos on Dailymotion if YouTube becomes a problem?

Anonymous

I suggested them to ban plumbing videos too if threading supressor on to a gun is not allowed.

Anonymous

Well they know how I feel about it now too

Anonymous

Respectful commentary on the policy change sent. Keep fighting the good fight - monthly contribution increased to support y'all through this challenge and into the future. :)

ForgottenWeapons

Hi Kirsten! The problem is that you might be right...or might not be. The policy is simply vague, and we don't know what additional guidance (if any) would be given to the thousands of individuals hired to make judgements on videos that are flagged for review. If this were about monetization, it would not be such a big deal - that can be argued and appealed, and worst case it just means that video doesn't get ads. The problem is that with this policy (as far as I can tell) it is channel strikes that are in question, and it only takes a couple of those to make a channel disappear completely. Without some sort of process to help us know how these rules will actually be enforced, we are left with a choice of deleting any old content that *might* violate the policy to be safe (in my case for instance, every video I have ever done at a auction house, to begin with) or else try to guess where the line will actually be drawn - with the penalty for guessing wrong being the deletion of the whole channel. If this were about monetization, I would absolutely be in the camp of just let it work out; they are usually reasonable...but having my whole channel existence at risk makes me much more concerned that they make things crystal clear up front.

Anonymous

It might be helpful to move the videos to some cloud service and create a redirect page for the newly created collection. In the Youtube description text, you will only need to provide a link to each video or a set of links according to videos of different resolutions. Those will _not_ be links forbidden by the Youtube regulations . Comments and discussions will remain on Youtube. Another way may be to replace the actual video with a still with several QR codes containing links to the videos of various resolutions. There are a bunch of QR reader programs.

Anonymous

Mabey you can talk to John Bain (total busicuit) about this. You worked with him before. He has a reach of over 2,2 Million subscribers and youtube might be listening to him.

Anonymous

Just saw that your story got picked up by NPR! I hope some sensible change comes about from the coverage! <a href="https://www.facebook.com/NPR/posts/10156748651571756" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.facebook.com/NPR/posts/10156748651571756</a>

Anonymous

Done and done. I know in my heart that they don't give two shits about my opinion.

Anonymous

I send YouTube "feedback" wondering if they were going to take down the video of my brother's burial service at Arlington because it showed M14's with 20 round magazines. Your move YouTube...

Anonymous

I left a detailed comment on their feedback section emphasizing that people may actually be injured or killed as a result of the removal of instructional videos on gunsmithing and reloading. Hopefully that will get their hair standing on end a little.

Anonymous

Left a detailed (respectful) comment as well, emphasizing that YouTube is damaging its reputation and good name.

Anonymous

Unfortunately Google won't care about and can't be held liable for harm caused by /not/ publishing instructional videos. Further, I'm sure GooTube thinks this move will *enhance* it's reputation amongst it's coastal/urban peers. I hit them in the pocket-book, which is ultimately all they care about: I stated in no uncertain terms that my 18+ weekly hours of viewing YouTube and its ads will drop to zero if they go through with this. (I wonder too if Conservatives in Congress siding with Hollywood and back-stabbing us with FOSTA plays a part in YouTube's decision.)

Anonymous

Judging by the wording of their policy, the people involved at YouTube appear to be concerned about illegal activities being facilitated by their platform. If I worked there I would very much not want to deal with the fallout of a gun advertised for sale on YT being used to, say, murder a police officer. The key piece of this is their definition of a "high capacity magazine" as one holding more than 30 rounds, which does not align with California gun laws and tells me this is YT trying to crack down on criminal activity and failing due to the employees involved being Bay Area progressives who know nothing about guns rather than a bad-faith attempt to drive shooters off the platform. I know a few Bay Area progressives and they would be horrified by the potential collateral damage of this overbroad policy, both intellectual and physical.

Anonymous

One way to help is to promote the use of "brave browser". It blocks all advertisements. Never watch youtube again unless you are using brave.

Anonymous

um. Paint me stupid, but if I read the policy right then the new Sicario trailer shows how to bump fire a pistol and therefore Sony account, as well as any other trailers YouTube account that shows it will be in violation of this new policy?! <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIMChzE_aCo" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIMChzE_aCo</a>

Will Sanders

Responded, I hope it was suitably polite yet persuasive. Living in CA, this is one of the few ways I get to see how things are outside of the state. I love my job and am putting up with a lot of stuff I don't agree with to be here. I'm afraid some day I'll have to move the family out though since the state has usurped my rights as a father.

Anonymous

Finally got mine in. Unfortunately I tend to generate "word walls" so I hope I don't get hit by TL;DR.

Pat Patterson

(I'm posting this on all the sites I support): I just filed a complaint with the FTC, stating that YouTube was a functional monopoly, and that their actions in threatening to ban channels which were engaged in legal activities was therefore a prohibited act in restraint of fair trade. As you pointed out, there IS no alternative to YouTube. As long as that is true, they ARE a functional monopoly. Just as the Bell system was split up, split up YouTube as well. And if anyone else wants to file a complaint with the FTC, be aware that MOST of their consumer complaints in the area of internet involve people being ripped off by scammers, so you will have to just ignore a lot of questions. However, they DO give you a place at the end to complain about the monopoly.