While Brownell seems to be wrong in associating what now seems some computer problem with some agenda that is attacking 1A/2A rights, the fact remains that such an agenda absolutly exists and banks are in on it along with other financial agencies. It seems Brownells may have simply believed, erroneously, but for completely understandable reasons, a computer glitch was actually an agenda-driven denial of service.
whether yutoob "warns" users or not is irrelevant. On Tom Gresham's radio program, the opinion was offered that google, and yutoob, have grown so large they are exerting some real political power, and should be treated as a monopoly like Ma Bell was years ago, and broken up.
The agenda IS real. Brownell's channel going dark was a glitch.
Let's keep the wheat separated from the chaff.
Wow, you went from trying to separate alleged wheat from the chaff to being inclusive of the whole farm and countryside.
Let's go over the points, shall we?
1. Brownell's made the stink about Youtube terminating their account
2. Claimed they were terminated without warning
3. Claimed it was an attack on 1st Amendment
4. Claimed it was an attack on the 2nd Amendment
So separating the wheat from the chaff,
1. YouTube did not terminate the account
2. YouTube did not terminate without warning and no warning needed to be given by YouTube and Brownells agrees with this by posting on YouTube
3. There is no attack on the 1st Amendment. YouTube is a private enterprise and has the right to moderate the content of their website.
4. There was no attack on the 2nd Amendment. This happened to Brownells, not to the gun community. Again, YouTube is a private enterprise and has the right to moderate the content of their website, even if they had pulled down Brownells, which apparently they didn't.
These were claims made by Brownells and all are apparently false. That is the chaff separated from the wheat.
The 1st and 2nd Amendments are covenants against the government and except in specific cases decided by court action, do not apply to private enterprise.
If they want to shut down all the gun stuff, THAT IS THEIR RIGHT as YouTube is their property. It is not a 'public forum' in the legal sense as being a state actor as noted in Prager University vs. YouTube. Not being a state actor means that YouTube has the right to moderate content, regardless of type, just like this forum does. This forum does not allow us to post a LOT of material, and that is the way it should be.
That there is a larger issue going on is chaff and not relevant to the Brownells-YouTube issue.
As I noted above, sites disappear and reappear from time to time for various issues, often unintentional. You can find complaints of such in various YouTube discussions. The creators were not in trouble in any way. Brownells just assumed nefarious goings-on, cried that the sky had fallen, used it as a publicity event, and will no doubt garner a lot of business as a result of being a non-victim of a fabricated violation of rights.
Finally, if 'you' think YouTube is so anti-2A, talk to all the posters on YouTube who continue to support, HUGELY support such an anti-2A company by posting their videos there and who FIGHT to keep their videos on an anti-2A site. See the problem???? Mossberg and other gun companies understand the issue with Dick's. They pulled out of Dick's and want nothing to do with Dick's, yet Brownells and others are fighting to stay in with YouTube. By chance, you don't think that they are compromising their 2A beliefs by supporting an anti-2A company in the name of profit, do you? That would sort of be like selling out.
