Page 5 of 5

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:30 pm
by oljames3
58 subscribers.

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:53 pm
by montgomery
puma guy wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 9:25 am Done, but forgot to post. I think I was #7.
My friend thanks all y'all!!

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:54 pm
by montgomery
DynamicDan wrote: Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:45 pm I subscribed
:cheers2: Thanks Dan!

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:54 pm
by montgomery
1wise1 wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:44 am Count me in; number 56
Thanks!! Love your profile picture!!

:txflag:

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 1:55 pm
by montgomery
JustSomeOldGuy wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 11:57 am Subscribed. Didn't notice what number....
Y'all #1 - thank you so much!!

:tiphat:

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:00 pm
by flechero
#59 here! Hope it's good! :lol:

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:25 pm
by montgomery
flechero wrote: Thu Sep 19, 2019 2:00 pm #59 here! Hope it's good! :lol:
Thank you Flechero!! It is going to be great!!

:cheers2:

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:12 pm
by The Annoyed Man
MAC just posted on Patreon that YouTube just removed his "verified" status. He’s only got 975K subscribers...

C0CAB07C-22E4-4A66-906D-92D3D2E2A6F9.png

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:05 pm
by Charles L. Cotton
The Annoyed Man wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:12 pm MAC just posted on Patreon that YouTube just removed his "verified" status. He’s only got 975K subscribers...


C0CAB07C-22E4-4A66-906D-92D3D2E2A6F9.png
Something needs to be done about YouTube censoring speech. Yes, it's a private company, but elected officials use it to communicate with the public and their constituents. There is a case prohibiting elected officials from banning posters from their Facebook accounts, when such accounts are used by elected officials for non-personal posting. I think that concept could be expanded to include all social media outlets used by elected officials. Otherwise, it will be quite easy to sway public opinion based upon who YouTube/Instagram/Facebook, etc. allow to post.

Chas.

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:29 pm
by longhorn86
Subscribed. 60 down, 40 to go!

Good luck!!

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:44 pm
by montgomery
longhorn86 wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:29 pm Subscribed. 60 down, 40 to go!

Good luck!!
Thank you very kindly!

:woohoo

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:49 pm
by montgomery
The Annoyed Man wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:12 pm MAC just posted on Patreon that YouTube just removed his "verified" status. He’s only got 975K subscribers...


C0CAB07C-22E4-4A66-906D-92D3D2E2A6F9.png
To clarify, my friend's Armed Citizen Armory is not going to be another youtube channel ... it is a website with relevant content for home defense and concealed carry to folks relatively new to firearms and carry.

The YouTube channel is part of the social media marketing only - all videos will be hosted on the main ACA website. He is just looking to publish a clean /ArmedCitizenArmory URL by first satisfying the 100 subscriber minimum to dump the current URL of /UCQZW9D-Ix1fUYJvYZ7S27Pg

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 2:38 pm
by The Annoyed Man
The Annoyed Man wrote: Mon Sep 09, 2019 8:43 pm Done.
5 months later, and still no content, and only 53 subscribers. Unsubscribed.

Re: ARMED CITIZEN ARMORY

Posted: Fri Feb 07, 2020 3:43 pm
by crazy2medic
Charles L. Cotton wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 2:05 pm
The Annoyed Man wrote: Fri Sep 20, 2019 12:12 pm MAC just posted on Patreon that YouTube just removed his "verified" status. He’s only got 975K subscribers...


C0CAB07C-22E4-4A66-906D-92D3D2E2A6F9.png
Something needs to be done about YouTube censoring speech. Yes, it's a private company, but elected officials use it to communicate with the public and their constituents. There is a case prohibiting elected officials from banning posters from their Facebook accounts, when such accounts are used by elected officials for non-personal posting. I think that concept could be expanded to include all social media outlets used by elected officials. Otherwise, it will be quite easy to sway public opinion based upon who YouTube/Instagram/Facebook, etc. allow to post.

Chas.
If your providing a public service such as gas, water, electricity, what prevents a public utility from "censoring" somebody their service? What's the difference from a CEO from turning off your water for political reason from removing your web page from their server for political reasons?