Almost "no comment"


I always thought of this slingshot guy as the kind of guy who has fun with stuff that only men seem to have fun with. Quite similar to this fella.

The accusations are obvious B.S. and more importantly, the very notion that asswipe/errorist activity should keep us from doing things that are otherwise fine is 180° wrong.

Just think about it; the guy in the 2nd video did tests with medieval iron helmets (or rather reproductions thereof made of a most likely better alloy). This B.S. storm could have hit him as well if the stabbed policeman had worn some kind of helmet! Ridiculous.

No power to errorists!


Update: With strike removed, he's on the counterattack now:


  1. This case seems very similar to the Wall Street Journal falsely accusing Pewdiepie to be a nazi. This guy has a good explanation that these cases are primarily about the old media attacking the new media platforms for the life sustaining ad revenue https://youtu.be/ewLtRGh2IvM Military History Visualized: Economic Warfare? PewDiePie vs. WSJ #YouTube

  2. Writing requests to pull records from large data sets will always result in 'collateral damage', it can't not. Asking for it to, and get the marginal cases correct, shows a lack of understanding of the technicalities of what is involved.

    You are not special. Your content is not special. You are playing in their garden. They get to set the rules.

    Was he making weaponry? Yes. Do yt have the right to remove videos concerned with making weaponry from their servers. Yes. Can an argument be made to support that aim. Yes.

    The internet is and will remain a place where enforcement of laws will be inexact. That does not always show mal-intent or some SJW, PC, deep state, hur dur they are trying to take out Trump lets unite on the flat earth to stop them!!!, spiel.

    The reaction to events like this is over emotional, childish and wrong.

    What do I think about this case? Screw him, ban the guy. Let him set up his own video server somewhere so he can keep making his free range organic hipster neckbeard kid friendly modern art pieces somewhere else. Then sit back and watch as 4chan blows up with theyve banned the crossbow guy next they are coming for my hentai pillow phreakouts.

  3. Hi Defence and Freedom Team,

    My name is Anuj Agarwal. I'm Founder of Feedspot.

    I would like to personally congratulate you as your blog Defence and Freedom has been selected by our panelist as one of the Top 100 Defense Blogs on the web.


    I personally give you a high-five and want to thank you for your contribution to this world. This is the most comprehensive list of Top 100 Defense Blogs on the internet and I’m honored to have you as part of this!

    Also, you have the honor of displaying the badge on your blog.


  4. >You are not special. Your content is not special. You are playing in their garden. They get to set the rules.

    Anonymous seems to be very tolerant about this. Will you be as tolerant had this "mistake" been made by the government? If that Skullagram had been imprisoned because government had "mistaken" his material for something dangerous, will you be calling it "collateral damage"?

    Yeah, but Youtube is a private and not governmental operation, you say? Well, that's true. However, from the essence (rather than the current legal) viewpoint, I think at some point we have to recognize that there are some corporations that are so big, and so dominant that the idea they can be handled by so-called private law which goes by the fiction that everyone is equal, and that the consequences of arbitariness can be limited to something that's not a social concern, thus parties should be allowed nearly unfettered freedom to set terms is completely disconnected from reality.

    Something as dominant as Youtube refusing to host your material under any pretext represents almost as great a de facto danger to freedom of expression as the government can. What difference does it make between self-censoring to avoid Youtube's censorship and same to avoid governmental censorship. You still cannot say what you want, with all the consequences that follow. Or you are completely relegated to the sidelines (who will watch your private video server even if you set one up at your own expense?), which often to a freedom of speech suppressor can achieve his goals just as well.

    Recognizing this reality, perhaps the correct solution is to treat large media providers of this nature as part of public interest, and public law. And in the meantime, watching them and grading their decisions as we would the government's administrative actions, since, after all, they have much the same effect on us.