Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

May be an image of 5 people and text that says

more deletions to follow


-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 23:52
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


their plan -> everyone will be poor except the billionairies ->
You'll own nothing and you'll be happy | The Great Reset | Klaus Schwab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IzwiH40JOc


-- Original Message --
From: "Lennart Thornros" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 23:19
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


Just så the Said in germany in the 1930is. Government can do as they 
want. The government wants our best.


On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 13:09 Jed Rothwell <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote:


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:






No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice




Absolutely no freedom of choice!! You are never allowed to interfere 
with my freedom of speech, or Facebook's, or the U.S. government's 
freedom of speech. The voters are not allowed to overrule the 
Constitution. The electorate cannot vote to stifle what I post on 
LENR-CANR.org, or what Facebook posts on their website. The difference 
between us is only a matter of scale. The fact that they are large does 
not mean they have fewer rights than I do.



It is not "fascism" to allow corporations and individuals freedom of the 
press and free speech.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jürg Wyttenbach]

The Chinese people (Uigurs) love the peoples liberation army as the 
Germans (Jews) did love the Waffen SS and the Russian love omon...


J.W.



On 21.09.2021 00:52, ROGER ANDERTON wrote:

their plan -> everyone will be poor except the billionairies ->


  You'll own nothing and you'll be happy | The Great Reset | Klaus Schwab

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IzwiH40JOc


-- Original Message -- From: "Lennart Thornros"
 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, 20
Sep, 21 At 23:19 Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction
to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads
Just så the Said in germany in the 1930is. Government can do as
they want. The government wants our best.
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 13:09 Jed Rothwell
mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com>> wrote:

ROGER ANDERTON
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>>
wrote:

>>No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice

Absolutely no freedom of choice!! You are never allowed to
interfere with my freedom of speech, or Facebook's, or the
U.S. government's freedom of speech. The voters are not
allowed to overrule the Constitution. The electorate cannot
vote to stifle what I post on LENR-CANR.org, or what Facebook
posts on their website. The difference between us is only a
matter of scale. The fact that they are large does not mean
they have fewer rights than I do.
It is not "fascism" to allow corporations and individuals
freedom of the press and free speech.


--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

their plan -> everyone will be poor except the billionairies ->
You'll own nothing and you'll be happy | The Great Reset | Klaus Schwab
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IzwiH40JOc


-- Original Message --
From: "Lennart Thornros" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 23:19
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


Just så the Said in germany in the 1930is. Government can do as they 
want. The government wants our best.


On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 13:09 Jed Rothwell <mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com> > wrote:


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:






No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice




Absolutely no freedom of choice!! You are never allowed to interfere 
with my freedom of speech, or Facebook's, or the U.S. government's 
freedom of speech. The voters are not allowed to overrule the 
Constitution. The electorate cannot vote to stifle what I post on 
LENR-CANR.org, or what Facebook posts on their website. The difference 
between us is only a matter of scale. The fact that they are large does 
not mean they have fewer rights than I do.



It is not "fascism" to allow corporations and individuals freedom of the 
press and free speech.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Lennart Thornros]

Just så the Said in germany in the 1930is. Government can do as they want.
The government wants our best.

On Mon, Sep 20, 2021, 13:09 Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:
>
>
>> >>No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice
>>
>
> Absolutely no freedom of choice!! You are never allowed to interfere with
> my freedom of speech, or Facebook's, or the U.S. government's freedom of
> speech. The voters are not allowed to overrule the Constitution. The
> electorate cannot vote to stifle what I post on LENR-CANR.org, or what
> Facebook posts on their website. The difference between us is only a matter
> of scale. The fact that they are large does not mean they have fewer rights
> than I do.
>
> It is not "fascism" to allow corporations and individuals freedom of the
> press and free speech.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I disagree,  it is fascism when corporations and government are in 
partnership.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 18:09
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:






No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice




Absolutely no freedom of choice!! You are never allowed to interfere 
with my freedom of speech, or Facebook's, or the U.S. government's 
freedom of speech. The voters are not allowed to overrule the 
Constitution. The electorate cannot vote to stifle what I post on 
LENR-CANR.org, or what Facebook posts on their website. The difference 
between us is only a matter of scale. The fact that they are large does 
not mean they have fewer rights than I do.



It is not "fascism" to allow corporations and individuals freedom of the 
press and free speech.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:


> >>No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice
>

Absolutely no freedom of choice!! You are never allowed to interfere with
my freedom of speech, or Facebook's, or the U.S. government's freedom of
speech. The voters are not allowed to overrule the Constitution. The
electorate cannot vote to stifle what I post on LENR-CANR.org, or what
Facebook posts on their website. The difference between us is only a matter
of scale. The fact that they are large does not mean they have fewer rights
than I do.

It is not "fascism" to allow corporations and individuals freedom of the
press and free speech.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Robert Lee]

 I see they don't mention using deuterium, (heavy hydrogen,) and micro-cluster 
palladium as a source, which is the easiest and most cost effective.
On Monday, September 20, 2021, 08:29:46 AM PDT, Jed Rothwell 
 wrote:  
 
 ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:


 government and big tech working together is fascism -> the electorate didn't 
vote for that

No vote is needed. The government and big tech both have the right of free 
speech, and the right to do whatever they like as long as it is legal. The 
electorate cannot take away their right to cooperate with one another, or to 
collaborate. The electorate cannot vote to close down LENR-CANR.org or forbid 
me from uploading documents from NASA, which I did recently.
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushnellDfrontierso.pdf
 


wel its all about boiling the frog, take small steps in increasing what the 
frog has to tolerate until kill it

There is nothing remotely wrong with the government and publishers working 
together. The government has been working with publishers for the benefit of 
the public since colonial times. In some cases, the government and publishers 
worked together for nefarious purposes, but they both have the right to do 
that. If you, or some other member of the public, or the electorate as a whole 
moved to stop that cooperation -- or forbid it -- that would be a far greater 
threat to freedom than cooperation between publishers and the government. It 
would be as much of a threat as the Biden administration trying to stop FOX 
News from lying about the vaccines. Anyone who knows the difference between DNA 
and RNA can see that FOX News is lying about the vaccines. I am sure the 
management at FOX has high school level knowledge of biology. So they are 
lying. But it would violate the constitution to order them to shut up. The 
administration has every right to point out they are lying, and to ask them to 
stop. It should do that! But it cannot order them to stop publishing lies.
By the way, that meme about frogs in hot water is a myth. It is not a bit true. 
As soon as water gets uncomfortably hot, the frog will jump out.
  

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

by then the lid gets put on the pot.






No vote is needed.<< -> so no freedom of choice



as for "legal" -> the rules just change to suit the dictator. For 
instance in Nazi Germany it was probably not legal to be anti-nazi.



The government has been working with publishers for the benefit of 
the public since colonial times.<<


myth




-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 16:29
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





government and big tech working together is fascism ->  the electorate 
didn't vote for that




No vote is needed. The government and big tech both have the right of 
free speech, and the right to do whatever they like as long as it is 
legal. The electorate cannot take away their right to cooperate with one 
another, or to collaborate. The electorate cannot vote to close down 
LENR-CANR.org or forbid me from uploading documents from NASA, which I 
did recently.



https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushnellDfrontierso.pdf 
<https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushnellDfrontierso.pdf>





wel its all about boiling the frog, take small steps in increasing what 
the frog has to tolerate until kill it


There is nothing remotely wrong with the government and publishers 
working together. The government has been working with publishers for 
the benefit of the public since colonial times. In some cases, the 
government and publishers worked together for nefarious purposes, but 
they both have the right to do that. If you, or some other member of the 
public, or the electorate as a whole moved to stop that cooperation -- 
or forbid it -- that would be a far greater threat to freedom than 
cooperation between publishers and the government. It would be as much 
of a threat as the Biden administration trying to stop FOX News from 
lying about the vaccines. Anyone who knows the difference between DNA 
and RNA can see that FOX News is lying about the vaccines. I am sure the 
management at FOX has high school level knowledge of biology. So they 
are lying. But it would violate the constitution to order them to shut 
up. The administration has every right to point out they are lying, and 
to ask them to stop. It should do that! But it cannot order them to stop 
publishing lies.



By the way, that meme about frogs in hot water is a myth. It is not a 
bit true. As soon as water gets uncomfortably hot, the frog will jump 
out.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

well as for covid pandemic -> most of the information that we are 
supposed to believe (for political propaganda reasons) comes from Fauci 
-> and he keeps getting caught out as lying




"He Definitely Lied to Us And He Should Be Held Responsible" Dr. Paul 
Addresses New G.O.F. Emails



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGvRzwdnnM0


-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 16:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


government and big tech working together is fascism ->  the electorate 
didn't vote for that



It would be censorship if the government forced you to remove 
documents it disagrees with.<<



wel its all about boiling the frog, take small steps in increasing what 
the frog has to tolerate until kill it

















-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 15:51
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





As for the other issue -> government admits to working in partnership 
with big tech to censor -->




The government and big tech have every right to work together.



The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech 
“…to flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” 
on the Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. 
Historians characterize such a close working relationship between 
government and big business, as fascism 
<https://www.thebalance.com/fascism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4145419> 
. To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation 
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation> 
”.


I see no problem with that. A website, company, or person should be free 
to cooperate with the government as much as they want to. If the DoE 
became interested in cold fusion, and it asked me to upload documents or 
provide them with information, I would be happy to do that.



It is not censorship when you willingly upload information the 
government provides or agrees with. It would only be censorship (reverse 
censorship) if the government forced you to upload it, or threatened 
you. It would be censorship if the government forced you to remove 
documents it disagrees with.



I am 100% in favor of the Biden administration and Big Tech taking steps 
to stop problematic posts that spread disinformation about COVID 19, 
such as claims that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, or they change your 
DNA. Even if I thought that the vaccines are dangerous, I would still be 
opposed to rules that say the government is not allowed to cooperate 
with Facebook and the others, and none of them are allowed to say the 
vaccines are safe. They have the right to say anything they want. Many 
people on FOX News say the vaccines are dangerous. They have a 
constitutional right to say that, even though it has resulted in the 
deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

government and big tech working together is fascism -> the electorate
> didn't vote for that
>

No vote is needed. The government and big tech both have the right of free
speech, and the right to do whatever they like as long as it is legal. The
electorate cannot take away their right to cooperate with one another, or
to collaborate. The electorate cannot vote to close down LENR-CANR.org or
forbid me from uploading documents from NASA, which I did recently.

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BushnellDfrontierso.pdf


> wel its all about boiling the frog, take small steps in increasing what
> the frog has to tolerate until kill it
>
There is nothing remotely wrong with the government and publishers working
together. The government has been working with publishers for the benefit
of the public since colonial times. In some cases, the government and
publishers worked together for nefarious purposes, but they both have the
right to do that. If you, or some other member of the public, or the
electorate as a whole moved to stop that cooperation -- or forbid it --
that would be a far greater threat to freedom than cooperation between
publishers and the government. It would be as much of a threat as the Biden
administration trying to stop FOX News from lying about the vaccines.
Anyone who knows the difference between DNA and RNA can see that FOX News
is lying about the vaccines. I am sure the management at FOX has high
school level knowledge of biology. So they are lying. But it would violate
the constitution to order them to shut up. The administration has every
right to point out they are lying, and to ask them to stop. It should do
that! But it cannot order them to stop publishing lies.

By the way, that meme about frogs in hot water is a myth. It is not a bit
true. As soon as water gets uncomfortably hot, the frog will jump out.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

is that free?

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 16:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




they hooked me



Poor you! Maybe there is some kind YouTube addiction withdrawal support 
network.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

they hooked me
>

Poor you! Maybe there is some kind YouTube addiction withdrawal support
network.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

government and big tech working together is fascism ->  the electorate 
didn't vote for that



It would be censorship if the government forced you to remove 
documents it disagrees with.<<



wel its all about boiling the frog, take small steps in increasing what 
the frog has to tolerate until kill it



https://awareity.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/temp_frogs.png













-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 15:51
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:





As for the other issue -> government admits to working in partnership 
with big tech to censor -->




The government and big tech have every right to work together.



The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech 
“…to flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” 
on the Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. 
Historians characterize such a close working relationship between 
government and big business, as fascism 
<https://www.thebalance.com/fascism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4145419> 
. To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation 
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation> 
”.


I see no problem with that. A website, company, or person should be free 
to cooperate with the government as much as they want to. If the DoE 
became interested in cold fusion, and it asked me to upload documents or 
provide them with information, I would be happy to do that.



It is not censorship when you willingly upload information the 
government provides or agrees with. It would only be censorship (reverse 
censorship) if the government forced you to upload it, or threatened 
you. It would be censorship if the government forced you to remove 
documents it disagrees with.



I am 100% in favor of the Biden administration and Big Tech taking steps 
to stop problematic posts that spread disinformation about COVID 19, 
such as claims that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, or they change your 
DNA. Even if I thought that the vaccines are dangerous, I would still be 
opposed to rules that say the government is not allowed to cooperate 
with Facebook and the others, and none of them are allowed to say the 
vaccines are safe. They have the right to say anything they want. Many 
people on FOX News say the vaccines are dangerous. They have a 
constitutional right to say that, even though it has resulted in the 
deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

they hooked me

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 15:56
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




more things have to pay for all adds up



Okay, so if the ads annoy you and you don't want to pay $12 a month, 
don't watch YouTube. No one is forcing you to watch it. I do not 
understand what you are complaining about.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

more things have to pay for all adds up
>

Okay, so if the ads annoy you and you don't want to pay $12 a month, don't
watch YouTube. No one is forcing you to watch it. I do not understand what
you are complaining about.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

As for the other issue -> government admits to working in partnership with
> big tech to censor -->
>

The government and big tech have every right to work together.


> The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech “…to
> flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” on the
> Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. Historians
> characterize such a close working relationship between government and big
> business, as fascism
> .
> To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation
> 
> ”.
>
I see no problem with that. A website, company, or person should be free to
cooperate with the government as much as they want to. If the DoE became
interested in cold fusion, and it asked me to upload documents or provide
them with information, I would be happy to do that.

It is not censorship when you willingly upload information the government
provides or agrees with. It would only be censorship (reverse censorship)
if the government forced you to upload it, or threatened you. It would be
censorship if the government forced you to remove documents it disagrees
with.

I am 100% in favor of the Biden administration and Big Tech taking steps to
stop problematic posts that spread disinformation about COVID 19, such as
claims that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, or they change your DNA. Even if I
thought that the vaccines are dangerous, I would still be opposed to rules
that say the government is not allowed to cooperate with Facebook and the
others, and none of them are allowed to say the vaccines are safe. They
have the right to say anything they want. Many people on FOX News say the
vaccines are dangerous. They have a constitutional right to say that, even
though it has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

more things have to pay for all adds up

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 15:40
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Then "they" can up the price. Point is -> used to be free; so tried to 
get people hooked on something that was free and then fleece them.




$12 a month does not seem like fleecing to me. It is more than I would 
be willing to pay, but a lot less than cable TV, or YouTube TV, which is 
$30.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

Then "they" can up the price. Point is -> used to be free; so tried to get
> people hooked on something that was free and then fleece them.
>

$12 a month does not seem like fleecing to me. It is more than I would be
willing to pay, but a lot less than cable TV, or YouTube TV, which is $30.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

wiki says -> YouTube is an American online video sharing 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_video_platform>  and social media 
platform <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_media>  owned by Google 
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google> . 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube




so is a platform, NOT publisher

trouble is -> it got criticized for what it shows -> so now starts 
censoring








-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 15:21
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Platform, or Publisher?
If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then 
they need to get out of the censorship business.




If they are trying to shield themselves claiming "platform" rights under 
Code 230, that's unfair. I don't know what the story is. In my opinion 
they are definitely publishers, not platforms. So am I, at 
LENR-CANR.org. I would not want to be considered a platform because 
someone could force me to publish something I disagree with, as long as 
the document was legal in the sense it was not porn or libel. I think 
Facebook should have the same rights I do.



A platform would be an ISP, such as Jumpline, which hosts LENR-CANR.org. 
They are not responsible for anything I upload. Suppose their management 
was strongly in favor of plasma fusion and they agreed with Robert Part 
that cold fusion is criminal fraud and lunacy. They would still not have 
the right to throw me out. That's the point of U.S. Code 230. As I 
recall, Jumpline does have a policy that they will remove websites that 
host illegal activities. Looking at it the other way, an ISP has a "good 
Samaritan" right to refuse to host websites which they sincerely believe 
violate the laws:



(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service 
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840=800=true_id=47-USC-1900800046-1237841278_occur=999_src=> 
shall be held liable on account of—

(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or 
availability of material that the provider or user considers to be 
obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or 
otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is 
constitutionally protected; or


(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content 
providers 
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840=800=true_id=47-USC-10252844-1237841279_occur=999_src=title:47:chapter:5:subchapter:II:part:I:section:230> 
or others the technical means to restrict access to material described 
in paragraph (1).


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230>


By the way, I am not actually opposed to uploading attacks on cold 
fusion. On the contrary, I asked Robert Park and John Huizenga for 
permission to upload their work. They never responded. I would not want 
to be forced to upload anything, but I would be pleased to upload their 
stuff. I have never refused a paper. In a few cases, I suggested the 
paper be uploaded somewhere else, because it seemed off-topic. The 
authors were happy to put the papers elsewhere. If someone submits a 
paper on magnetic motors I would probably refuse it because it seems to 
have no relationship to cold fusion. That hasn't happened.



There are papers by the late Ken Shoulders about something called EVOs. 
I have not read these papers. I glanced at one years ago. I could not 
make head or tail of it. I have no idea what an EVO is. As far as I can 
tell they have nothing to do with cold fusion. But some people recently 
suggested I upload the papers anyway. I guess that is okay. If that's 
what the audience wants to see. I don't have copies but someone may send 
me one. Generally speaking, I want to avoid off-topic papers because 
they annoy the readers. People tell me they come to LENR-CANR.org to 
find information on cold fusion, and they do not want to have to sort 
through other papers about magnetic motors or what-have-you. My "no 
off-topic" rule is not hard and fast. I have a few papers that are not 
about cold fusion, such as this one about plasma fusion and fission 
reactors:



https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf 
<https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf>

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

Platform, or Publisher?
> If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then
> they need to get out of the censorship business.
>

If they are trying to shield themselves claiming "platform" rights under
Code 230, that's unfair. I don't know what the story is. In my opinion they
are definitely publishers, not platforms. So am I, at LENR-CANR.org. I
would not want to be considered a platform because someone could force me
to publish something I disagree with, as long as the document was legal in
the sense it was not porn or libel. I think Facebook should have the same
rights I do.

A platform would be an ISP, such as Jumpline, which hosts LENR-CANR.org.
They are not responsible for anything I upload. Suppose their management
was strongly in favor of plasma fusion and they agreed with Robert Part
that cold fusion is criminal fraud and lunacy. They would still not have
the right to throw me out. That's the point of U.S. Code 230. As I recall,
Jumpline does have a policy that they will remove websites that host
illegal activities. Looking at it the other way, an ISP has a "good
Samaritan" right to refuse to host websites which they sincerely believe
violate the laws:

(2)Civil liabilityNo provider or user of an interactive computer service

shall
be held liable on account of—
(A)
any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or
availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene,
lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise
objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected;
or
(B)
any action taken to enable or make available to information content
providers

or
others the technical means to restrict access to material described in
paragraph (1).
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230

By the way, I am not actually opposed to uploading attacks on cold fusion.
On the contrary, I asked Robert Park and John Huizenga for permission to
upload their work. They never responded. I would not want to be forced to
upload anything, but I would be pleased to upload their stuff. I have never
refused a paper. In a few cases, I suggested the paper be uploaded
somewhere else, because it seemed off-topic. The authors were happy to put
the papers elsewhere. If someone submits a paper on magnetic motors I would
probably refuse it because it seems to have no relationship to cold fusion.
That hasn't happened.

There are papers by the late Ken Shoulders about something called EVOs. I
have not read these papers. I glanced at one years ago. I could not make
head or tail of it. I have no idea what an EVO is. As far as I can tell
they have nothing to do with cold fusion. But some people recently
suggested I upload the papers anyway. I guess that is okay. If that's what
the audience wants to see. I don't have copies but someone may send me one.
Generally speaking, I want to avoid off-topic papers because they annoy the
readers. People tell me they come to LENR-CANR.org to find information on
cold fusion, and they do not want to have to sort through other papers
about magnetic motors or what-have-you. My "no off-topic" rule is not hard
and fast. I have a few papers that are not about cold fusion, such as this
one about plasma fusion and fission reactors:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/KrakowskiRlessonslea.pdf

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Point is -> facebook is not Washington Post. It was a platform for 
people to communicate among themselves; now censorship is being 
increased. Facebook is more compatible to telephone conversations than 
to Washington Post. Would you agree to having telephone conversations 
censored? And as for your rights -> you don't have the right to censor 
other people's freedom of speech; if were able to censor other people 
then they wouldn't have freedom of speech.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 14:46
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




It is not their constitutional right to censor.



It most certainly is their right! Facebook or the Washington Post cannot 
be forced to publish an editorial they disagree with. They can censor 
any opinion or letter they want. If the government were to force them to 
publish something they disagree with, that would be as bad as forbidding 
them from publishing an opinion. If the DoE were to force me to upload 
an editorial attacking cold fusion, that would be as unconstitutional as 
forcing me to delete these editorials opposing the DoE:



https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455 
<https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455>



https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf 
<https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf>



Facebook and YouTube have the same rights as I do. They are bigger, and 
they have more impact, but that does not mean their rights are reduced.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Then "they" can up the price. Point is -> used to be free; so tried to 
get people hooked on something that was free and then fleece them.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Monday, 20 Sep, 21 At 14:50
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


CB Sites mailto:cbsit...@gmail.com> > wrote:



Yeah, the monetization of youtube sucks.  They do have to find a way to 
pay for it so I just sit through a 30sec ad or two and skip the 2-15 
minute ones.  But annoying as heck, I agree with.



It turns out you can get YouTube Premium for $12 a month. That 
eliminates the ads. That seems like a modest cost to me. I don't watch 
YouTube enough to pay for it, but if I watched it a lot I would pay. As 
you and I said, someone has to pay for all that bandwidth and equipment. 
You can't expect them to provide it for free.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

CB Sites  wrote:

Yeah, the monetization of youtube sucks.  They do have to find a way to pay
> for it so I just sit through a 30sec ad or two and skip the 2-15 minute
> ones.  But annoying as heck, I agree with.
>

It turns out you can get YouTube Premium for $12 a month. That eliminates
the ads. That seems like a modest cost to me. I don't watch YouTube enough
to pay for it, but if I watched it a lot I would pay. As you and I said,
someone has to pay for all that bandwidth and equipment. You can't expect
them to provide it for free.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[H LV]

Platform, or Publisher?
If Big Tech firms want to retain valuable government protections, then they
need to get out of the censorship business.
Adam CandeubMark Epstein
May 7, 2018

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-15888.html

quote <>

Harry

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 10:56 AM Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> AM ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:
>
>> shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech
>>
> Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot
> pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, FOX
> News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech as much
> as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from a cold
> fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can delete any
> post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. It is entirely
> up to them. The government cannot interfere with their decision because
> freedom of speech includes the right to not publish something. They cannot
> be forced to publish a statement.
>
> If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their
> business. People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for Facebook
> and their users to decide. The government has no role and their decision to
> delete messages or ban people has nothing to do with constitutional free
> speech.
>
>
>> 2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html
>> 
>>
>>
> I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their
> constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they
> do, but I am not keeping track.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

It is not their constitutional right to censor.
>

It most certainly is their right! Facebook or the Washington Post cannot be
forced to publish an editorial they disagree with. They can censor any
opinion or letter they want. If the government were to force them to
publish something they disagree with, that would be as bad as forbidding
them from publishing an opinion. If the DoE were to force me to upload an
editorial attacking cold fusion, that would be as unconstitutional as
forcing me to delete these editorials opposing the DoE:

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=455

https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LENRCANRthedoelies.pdf

Facebook and YouTube have the same rights as I do. They are bigger, and
they have more impact, but that does not mean their rights are reduced.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[CB Sites]

Yeah, the monetization of youtube sucks.  They do have to find a way to pay
for it so I just sit through a 30sec ad or two and skip the 2-15 minute
ones.  But annoying as heck, I agree with.

On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 2:23 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> I think the way out of it is -> the government has this little known right
> to change the constitution -> thus if they scrap the bill of rights -> they
> can stop presenting the illusion that there is freedom of speech under
> their fasicist dictatorship
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 19:14
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without
> YouTube ads
>
> As for the other issue -> government admits to working in partnership with
> big tech to censor -->
>
>
>
> The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech “…to
> flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” on the
> Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. Historians
> characterize such a close working relationship between government and big
> business, as fascism
> <https://www.thebalance.com/fascism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4145419>.
> To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation
> <https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation>
> ”.
>
>
> https://www.reformthekakistocracy.com/wh-admits-censoring-legal-implications/
>
>
> since we live in a fasicist state -> corporations and govenment are the
> same thing
>
>
> so your point that government not allowed to censor and big tech allowed
> to censor is nonsense, when government and big tech are the same thing.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
> Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 18:51
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without
> YouTube ads
>
> It is not their constitutional right to censor.
>
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Jed Rothwell" 
> To: "Vortex" 
> Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 15:55
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without
> YouTube ads
>
> AM ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:
>
>> shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech
>>
> Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot
> pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, FOX
> News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech as much
> as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from a cold
> fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can delete any
> post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. It is entirely
> up to them. The government cannot interfere with their decision because
> freedom of speech includes the right to not publish something. They cannot
> be forced to publish a statement.
>
> If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their
> business. People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for Facebook
> and their users to decide. The government has no role and their decision to
> delete messages or ban people has nothing to do with constitutional free
> speech.
>
>
>> 2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html
>> <https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html>
>>
>>
> I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their
> constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they
> do, but I am not keeping track.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

I think the way out of it is -> the government has this little known 
right to change the constitution -> thus if they scrap the bill of 
rights -> they can stop presenting the illusion that there is freedom of 
speech under their fasicist dictatorship


-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 19:14
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


As for the other issue -> government admits to working in partnership 
with big tech to censor -->




The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech 
“…to flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” 
on the Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. 
Historians characterize such a close working relationship between 
government and big business, as fascism 
<https://www.thebalance.com/fascism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4145419> 
. To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation 
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation> 
”.

https://www.reformthekakistocracy.com/wh-admits-censoring-legal-implications/

since we live in a fasicist state -> corporations and govenment are the 
same thing


so your point that government not allowed to censor and big tech allowed 
to censor is nonsense, when government and big tech are the same thing.






-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 18:51
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


It is not their constitutional right to censor.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 15:55
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


AM ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech

Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot 
pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, 
FOX News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech 
as much as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from 
a cold fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can 
delete any post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. 
It is entirely up to them. The government cannot interfere with their 
decision because freedom of speech includes the right to not publish 
something. They cannot be forced to publish a statement.



If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their 
business. People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for 
Facebook and their users to decide. The government has no role and their 
decision to delete messages or ban people has nothing to do with 
constitutional free speech.




2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html 
<https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html>




I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their 
constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they 
do, but I am not keeping track.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

As for the other issue -> government admits to working in partnership 
with big tech to censor -->




The Biden administration confirms it aggressively works with Big Tech 
“…to flag ‘problematic’ posts “that spread disinformation on Covid-19” 
on the Internet. George Orwell would call such activity propaganda. 
Historians characterize such a close working relationship between 
government and big business, as fascism 
<https://www.thebalance.com/fascism-definition-examples-pros-cons-4145419> 
. To the Biden administration, it’s merely cleaning up “misinformation 
<https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-slam-psaki-white-houseconsulting-facebook-flag-misinformation> 
”.

https://www.reformthekakistocracy.com/wh-admits-censoring-legal-implications/

since we live in a fasicist state -> corporations and govenment are the 
same thing


so your point that government not allowed to censor and big tech allowed 
to censor is nonsense, when government and big tech are the same thing.






-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 18:51
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


It is not their constitutional right to censor.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 15:55
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


AM ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech

Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot 
pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, 
FOX News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech 
as much as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from 
a cold fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can 
delete any post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. 
It is entirely up to them. The government cannot interfere with their 
decision because freedom of speech includes the right to not publish 
something. They cannot be forced to publish a statement.



If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their 
business. People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for 
Facebook and their users to decide. The government has no role and their 
decision to delete messages or ban people has nothing to do with 
constitutional free speech.




2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html 
<https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html>




I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their 
constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they 
do, but I am not keeping track.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

It is not their constitutional right to censor.

-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 15:55
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


AM ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:



shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech

Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot 
pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, 
FOX News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech 
as much as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from 
a cold fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can 
delete any post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. 
It is entirely up to them. The government cannot interfere with their 
decision because freedom of speech includes the right to not publish 
something. They cannot be forced to publish a statement.



If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their 
business. People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for 
Facebook and their users to decide. The government has no role and their 
decision to delete messages or ban people has nothing to do with 
constitutional free speech.




2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html 
<https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html>




I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their 
constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they 
do, but I am not keeping track.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

AM ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

> shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech
>
Freedom of speech only applies to the government. The government cannot
pass a law restricting freedom of speech. YouTube, the Washington Post, FOX
News or the Scientific American can restrict your freedom of speech as much
as they want. Scientific American will never print a letter from a cold
fusion researcher. That is their right. YouTube or Facebook can delete any
post they want, for any reason they want, or for no reason. It is entirely
up to them. The government cannot interfere with their decision because
freedom of speech includes the right to not publish something. They cannot
be forced to publish a statement.

If Facebook deletes too many messages that would be bad for their business.
People will stop using it. That is entirely a matter for Facebook and their
users to decide. The government has no role and their decision to delete
messages or ban people has nothing to do with constitutional free speech.

2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html
> 
>
>
I doubt this, but Big Tech can censor anything they want. That is their
constitutional right, as I said. I think FOX News censors more than they
do, but I am not keeping track.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

It is a privately owned business after all. They can censor anything 
they want. The decision has to be left to them. You don't want the 
government telling them what they must allow or cannot allow.<<



shouldn't be allowed to be above the law and suppress freedom of speech
as for "dangerous" -> as per Manhattan project -> parts of physics is 
deemed "dangerous" and has to be censored.






-- Original Message --
From: "ROGER ANDERTON" 
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 02:03
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


Censorship is increasing anything can be classified as "pornography, 
revenge or dangerous"



Youtube censorship ->
Big Tech censored anyone who predicted a Biden vaccine mandate 
https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html


etc.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 01:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Well it has been free initially, next expectation -> initially it was 
not censored,  can you/we expect them not to eventually censor




YouTube never said it would not be censored. They said from the start 
they would not allow pornography, revenge or dangerous vids.



It is a privately owned business after all. They can censor anything 
they want. The decision has to be left to them. You don't want the 
government telling them what they must allow or cannot allow.



If you don't want to pay to see the ads deleted, don't pay. Go 
elsewhere. I seldom watch YouTube so the ads don't bother me. I believe 
there are other sources of vids on the internet. I haven't looked.



If you have a video they do not want to host, you can put it on your own 
website. As I did. It is now embedded.



https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618 
<https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618>

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Censorship is increasing anything can be classified as "pornography, 
revenge or dangerous"



Youtube censorship ->
Big Tech censored anyone who predicted a Biden vaccine mandate 
https://youtubecensorship.com/2021-09-15-big-tech-censored-predictors-of-biden-vaccine-mandate-all-proven-correct.html


etc.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Sunday, 19 Sep, 21 At 01:47
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Well it has been free initially, next expectation -> initially it was 
not censored,  can you/we expect them not to eventually censor




YouTube never said it would not be censored. They said from the start 
they would not allow pornography, revenge or dangerous vids.



It is a privately owned business after all. They can censor anything 
they want. The decision has to be left to them. You don't want the 
government telling them what they must allow or cannot allow.



If you don't want to pay to see the ads deleted, don't pay. Go 
elsewhere. I seldom watch YouTube so the ads don't bother me. I believe 
there are other sources of vids on the internet. I haven't looked.



If you have a video they do not want to host, you can put it on your own 
website. As I did. It is now embedded.



https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618 
<https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618>

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

Well it has been free initially, next expectation -> initially it was not
> censored, can you/we expect them not to eventually censor
>

YouTube never said it would not be censored. They said from the start they
would not allow pornography, revenge or dangerous vids.

It is a privately owned business after all. They can censor anything they
want. The decision has to be left to them. You don't want the government
telling them what they must allow or cannot allow.

If you don't want to pay to see the ads deleted, don't pay. Go elsewhere. I
seldom watch YouTube so the ads don't bother me. I believe there are other
sources of vids on the internet. I haven't looked.

If you have a video they do not want to host, you can put it on your own
website. As I did. It is now embedded.

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Well it has been free initially, next expectation -> initially it was 
not censored,  can you/we expect them not to eventually censor


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Saturday, 18 Sep, 21 At 21:29
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


ROGER ANDERTON <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > wrote:




Not really new, its the same old trick everytime; its like how illegal 
drugs are pushed -> the dealer gives you them free until you are hooked 
then you have to pay; Youtube were giving a free service, now they are 
looking for getting money from it.



Well, you can't expect them to provide it for free if it is costing them 
money. The Premium upgrade to no ads is $12 per month. That does not 
seem onerous to me. I am not going to pay it because I seldom watch 
YouTube.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

I revised the Video Introduction page to embed the video, and I told the
reader there are no subtitles in the downloadable version but the scripts
are below.

https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

ROGER ANDERTON  wrote:

Not really new, its the same old trick everytime; its like how illegal
> drugs are pushed -> the dealer gives you them free until you are hooked
> then you have to pay; Youtube were giving a free service, now they are
> looking for getting money from it.
>

Well, you can't expect them to provide it for free if it is costing them
money. The Premium upgrade to no ads is $12 per month. That does not seem
onerous to me. I am not going to pay it because I seldom watch YouTube.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Not really new, its the same old trick everytime; its like how illegal 
drugs are pushed -> the dealer gives you them free until you are hooked 
then you have to pay; Youtube were giving a free service, now they are 
looking for getting money from it. No such thing as a free lunch -> 
there always turns out to be  a catch. When it looks too good to be true 
then it was too good to be true.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: "Vortex" 
Sent: Saturday, 18 Sep, 21 At 19:10
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads



Oh. You learn something new every day. I see you can pay them to delete 
the ads for $12 a month, with YouTube Premium. This I did not know, 
because I am out of it. Far, far out of it. Light years away from it.




- Jed



On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 7:12 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com> > 
wrote:


Youtube has started putting adverts on all videos now; they should have 
sent you a message telling you what they were going to do; maybe its in 
your spam folder.

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[Jed Rothwell]

Oh. You learn something new every day. I see you can pay them to delete the
ads for $12 a month, with YouTube Premium. This I did not know, because I
am out of it. Far, far out of it. Light years away from it.

- Jed


On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 7:12 PM ROGER ANDERTON 
wrote:

> Youtube has started putting adverts on all videos now; they should have
> sent you a message telling you what they were going to do; maybe its in
> your spam folder.
>

Re: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without YouTube ads

[ROGER ANDERTON]

Youtube has started putting adverts on all videos now; they should have 
sent you a message telling you what they were going to do; maybe its in 
your spam folder.


-- Original Message --
From: "Jed Rothwell" 
To: c...@googlegroups.com; "Vortex" 
Sent: Friday, 17 Sep, 21 At 19:12
Subject: [Vo]:Copy of "A Brief Introduction to Cold Fusion" without 
YouTube ads


Around July of this year, the number of people viewing my video fell. 
Recently I watched the video and discovered that YouTube is stuffing 
advertisements in front of it. I guess that is why fewer people are 
watching it. There does not seem to be a way to override this. The 
"monetization" option is not turned on. So, I downloaded it and put a 
copy at LENR-CANR.org in mp4 format. You can view it anytime, or 
download a copy:


https://lenr-canr.org/Collections/Brief%20Introduction%20to%20Cold%20Fusion.mp4 




This does not have the subtitles the YouTube one has. The YouTube 
version is still here:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjvL4zNLOGw 




The script in various languages is here:


https://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=1618