BREAKING: Vimeo BANS Project Veritas after Youtube dumps their video

Project Veritas is most certainly under attack by our liberal big tech overlords who run the video sites. First Google banned his video on YouTube and now Vimeo has deleted his entire account for the most ridiculous reason:



Vimeo is pathetic. Seriously. There was nothing “hateful, defamatory, or discriminatory” in his expose on Google.

Michelle Malkin asks “C’mon @vimeo – you’re carrying water for @google now?” Yes, yes they are and they are lying in order to do it.

If you thought Vimeo was any different than YouTube, think again. Pretty soon we’re going to have to have our won ConTube just to share videos with each other. Ok maybe with a better name.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

175 thoughts on “BREAKING: Vimeo BANS Project Veritas after Youtube dumps their video

  1. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/progressive-conception-of-rights-is-as-seductive-as-it-is-dangerous/

    It seems that we are increasingly expected to believe that rights are synonymous with whichever policies inhabit the progressive agenda on a given day. Universal health-care coverage? That’s a human right. Government-funded housing? Check. A four-year college education? Yup. Guaranteed employment in a well-paying job? Yes, that too.

    Youtube? Check. Pinterest? Uh huh. Reddit? Righty right. Twitter? Totally. Vimeo? Very much so.

    Yay progressivism.

  2. Conservatives: never forget you own the marketing demographics.
    Pick up and leave these sites, and they have no second act.

  3. “Pretty soon we’re going to have to have our won ConTube just to share videos with each other.”

    Project Veritas has a page with its videos over at Bitchute.

  4. Big business banding together to push a common political agenda is, to my knowledge, a new phenomenon and very disconcerting. They have essentially found a way to circumvent the Constitution to suppress dissension without using traditional political means. I’m all for free markets doing what they want. But when big business acts as a fifth column, something needs to be done.

        1. Don’t even bother to try to talk sense into her on this issue; her mind is made up and she refuses to be confused by facts.

  5. Conservatives: never forget you own the marketing demographics.
    Pick up and leave these sites, and they have no second act.

  6. Jokes on them:

    Conservatives are the only ones with money to spend, so how will they now sell their eyeballs? To loser liberals who need subsidies, free things and bailouts to get up every morning.

  7. Jokes on them:

    Conservatives are the only ones with money to spend, so how will they now sell their eyeballs? To loser liberals who need subsidies, free things and bailouts to get up every morning.

  8. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/06/progressive-conception-of-rights-is-as-seductive-as-it-is-dangerous/

    It seems that we are increasingly expected to believe that rights are synonymous with whichever policies inhabit the progressive agenda on a given day. Universal health-care coverage? That’s a human right. Government-funded housing? Check. A four-year college education? Yup. Guaranteed employment in a well-paying job? Yes, that too.

    Youtube? Check. Pinterest? Uh huh. Reddit? Righty right. Twitter? Totally. Vimeo? Very much so.

    Yay progressivism.

  9. Ironic that the same people screaming about Russia’s election interference are oblivious to Google’s, Facebook’s and Twitter’s. Remove their section 230 protection. Make one of them an example and the rest will fall in line.

  10. Ironic that the same people screaming about Russia’s election interference are oblivious to Google’s, Facebook’s and Twitter’s. Remove their section 230 protection. Make one of them an example and the rest will fall in line.

  11. Why does what these big tech giants are doing remind me of this verse?

    Revelations 13:17
    and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

  12. This just makes no sense, because the more Google / YouTube push people away, the more money Vimeo stands to make. That they are then protecting Google / YouTube is not only strange, but too coordinated for two separate companies. As part of a larger publicly traded company, I’d expect them to not attempt to protect their rival at their own expense.

  13. Kurt Schlichter

    @KurtSchlichter
    Why Libertarians Lose…

    “Well, if you liked our principled stand on dope, you’re gonna love our principled stand on allowing giant corporations to intimidate your into subservience by threatening your ability to participate in modern politics and in society!”

    1. How is anyone being intimidated? Lol. You are such a coward. Oh noes! Two places won’t carry content so I have no more first amendment – is that it?

      1. Google is 89% of the market and they have vimeo (a supposed competitor) also removing content critical of them. What free speech are they protecting?

  14. Ace has words for this:

    This is how Robust and Free Capitalist Competition is supposed to work, David French assures me. An tiny number of coordinated monopoly concerns — ten or so in total– all offering products with the same speech restrictions and political biases.

    And all competitors to this Ruling Caste Order squelched and stamped out by their other conspirators, like Mastercard and Patreon.

    The nation’s entire political discussion controlled — controlled — by a small group of people who all know each other and are all on the far left and in fact all live a mile from each other in the richest suburbs of San Francisco.

    A bunch of soybottomed hard-left oligarchs and venture socialists having a hippie high tea meeting and deciding who the next president will be, and who has the right to speak in the public square.

    Isn’t that what America’s really all about?

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/381999.php

    1. Ace wants to force companies to carry certain content. He is no better than the gay mafia who wants to compel people to express certain opinions.

  15. “Pretty soon we’re going to have to have our won ConTube just to share videos with each other.”

    Project Veritas has a page with its videos over at Bitchute.

  16. Big business banding together to push a common political agenda is, to my knowledge, a new phenomenon and very disconcerting. They have essentially found a way to circumvent the Constitution to suppress dissension without using traditional political means. I’m all for free markets doing what they want. But when big business acts as a fifth column, something needs to be done.

              1. Nah, you are the exact definition of TROLL and I don’t think I ever used that word on anyone else here before.

        1. Don’t even bother to try to talk sense into her on this issue; her mind is made up and she refuses to be confused by facts.

  17. I hope folks realize how sinister this really is. They’re going to do their damndest to make the presidential election turns out they want it. Who needs to worry about Russia trying to alter an election when the fox is already in the henhouse.

    1. Companies have been doing that for decades. And not just in presidential elections – but state, local, ballot initiatives, etc.

      1. You’re being so unwise. People have been killing for thousands of years, doesn’t make it right. And these companies haven’t been around for decades. I usually like playing along with you but you’re reaching a level of foolishness that I can’t possibly follow.

        1. I honestly don’t see your problem with what they’re doing.

          We don’t have a right to their service, ryan. We just plain flat out don’t. They can be as biased as they want. They’re breaking no law, depriving no rights, and harming nobody.

          1. They’re breaking no law, depriving no rights, and harming nobody.

            My gosh you have a thick skull. No matter how many times multiple people have shown you at least a half dozen times, it’s as if talking to a wall–you just can’t get it in your thick skull.

            1. They haven’t shown me though. That’s the thing. They say it. But they can’t show it. Every argument you’ve made, I’ve shot it down for its absurdity.

              At the end of the day, your position amounts to A) whining about fairness; and B) assuming you have a right to something someone else has to provide you.

              Both are bogus on their face.

              1. AT’s position:

                I don’t want government controlling freedom of speech, but big tech & corporations controlling, intimidating, threatening and silencing near unviersally one side of the political discourse in America today because they’re “private”, “I don’t see the problem”

                1. So it’s not a monopoly just a virtual monopoly. Break out the fairness doctrine for the internet!

                2. Well, A) they don’t control, intimidate, threaten or silence anyone they don’t have the right to. B) You don’t have a right to big tech or the products of a corporation. C) Big tech/Corps are not the same thing as government. D) You still have the right to political discourse in the public marketplace of ideas.

                  So – what’s your f***ing gripe on this people? All I can make out is that you’re really really really angry because a company isn’t acting the way you wish they would.

            2. You have no right to goods or services provided by others. That is not how rights work. Then again you think a guy who suspended the Constitution and committed war crimes against civilians is cool, so…

              1. “You have no right to goods or services provided by others. ”

                You gonna use At’s stupid red herring now? This is a nation of laws and contractual relationships. If you buy an apple from a grocery store, they can’t charge you a penny more than what’s displayed. Doesn’t mean you’re entitled to an apple, but when they opened the store for business and sell grocery at specific price, that’s a contractual agreement.

                1. And what happens when they violate their own terms? Your reply: “well, bend over.”

                2. They can change their terms whenever they please, and you’re free to walk away from them if you no longer agree to them.

                3. As long as they change their terms I a non-deceptive way like in the middle of you going from the grocery court to the check-out. You realize grocery stores have been fined for engaging in such practice?

                4. That’s not happening here. If they change their terms in a way you don’t like, you’re free to take all your videos down and delete your account at any time. They don’t keep them.

                5. You have proven to be an idiot. I just wonder if you do that on purpose or you really aren’t capable of retaining knowledge more than a few words. I’ve already stated multiple times, they admitted that he didn’t violate their agreement, dimwhit!!! WTF!

                6. It’s like you’re intentionally missing the point. You’re the one talking about changing terms, and now you’re pivoting back to something else.

                  Just admit that you can’t keep up your position on this one already. You’re wrong. Just own it.

                  Better yet, learn from it.

                7. “They can change their terms whenever they please”

                  This is where your ignorance shines through like a lighthouse.

                  No, they CANNOT change their terms whenever they please. Courts have ruled repeatedly that a contract (which is what a ToS is) cannot be changed willy-nilly by one side and still remain a valid contract.

                  If you didn’t have your head wedged up your colon all the way into your stomach, you might understand that.

                8. I didn’t say it was still a valid contract.

                  But I can change the terms of an agreement any time I want. Say I’m a gardener, and we contract for me to tend your garden for $50/mo. You agree to this and I start tending your garden.

                  Six months later, I say it’s now $60/mo. You’re not obligated to pay me $60/mo. You can walk away and end the contract right then and there.

                  So can a Youtuber. If they don’t like the change in the TOC, they can pull their videos and take them elsewhere.

                9. @atomicsentinel your obviously not familiar with the cases. You realize that YT actually admitted to Crowder that he DID NOT violate the terms, but they punished him anyways!? That’s like your electric company coming to you and saying, “hey, we don’t like you, so we’re gonna start charging you double starting ten years ago.

                10. “Anyways” isn’t a word.

                  Are his videos still available for viewing on youtube? Are they charging him double what they charge anyone else to put them up there?

                11. So what? Did he have some kind of right to monetized videos?

                  And you didn’t answer the question. Are his videos still available for viewing on youtube? Do they make him pay any more to do it than they charge anyone else?

                12. You can’t keep repeating a single sentence mantra. You actually have to give and take about the discussion at hand. You’re proving to be a one-trick pony.

                13. I am. You’re giving me bogus argument, and I’m taking them apart.

                  Again, are his videos still on youtube, free for him to post like anyone else can?

  18. A monopolized medium that all of society has come to depend on for all forms of information and use should not be allowed to selectively “prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. Uncle Sam needs to step in with a heavy foot.

    1. that all of society has come to depend on

      We don’t depend on it. It’s a luxury and a convenience. But we’re not reliant on it. We never have been.

      And if we have, that’s 100% our own fault.

      We always scoff at the millennials who can’t change a tire or sew a button. They’re reliant on service providers to do that for them. Does that mean they’re now entitled to that service on their own terms?

      Of course not. Google can do whatever the hell they want. If we don’t like it, maybe we should stop depending on them.

          1. So… you can have your cake and eat it too? Are we going to need the government to make this magic happen?

            1. @atomicsentinel so you think the government can get involved with every and any other company except BIG TECH because?

              1. They shouldn’t be getting involved with any company unless there is some kind of rights violation or law breaking going on.

                Hysterically shrieking that having a TOS magically turns a platform into a publisher doesn’t do so. If you think it does, I’ve got a 5-legged dog to sell you.

                1. A warning bell is going off–Thick skull alert–don’t engage, but I’ll bite anyways.

                  They shouldn’t be getting involved with any company unless there is some kind of rights violation or law breaking going on.

                  Ok, we agree. Government shouldn’t be involved with any company, but first Government needs to treat every company equally, agreed?

                2. Government shouldn’t be in the business of any company in the first place! UNLESS THERE IS SOME KIND OF RIGHTS VIOLATION OR LAW BREAKING GOING ON.

                  That warning bell you’re hearing, Frank – it’s because YOU can’t get THAT point through YOUR thick skull. You f***ing prog.

                3. I just said I agreed–in a utopian society, I totally agree with you, but we don’t live in a utopian society. And you didn’t answer my question!!! Good day!

                4. I don’t even know what your question was. Something about government meddling in private business, right?

                5. Google is breaking the law, notably the Communications Decency Act, Section 230. Google is not acting as a neutral public forum in return for specific protections guaranteed by this law.

                  And before you say, “Terms of Service”, those don’t override federal law

                6. So what is it you want them to do, exactly? Censor the libs? Become a free for all for anyone to post whatever they want, however trashy or offensive? Establish a Constitutional Right to Youtube? Shut them down? Sue them? That’s real popular these days, isn’t it.

                  All I hear on this subject is bitching and moaning and whining about fairness. It’s not FAIR what google is doing! WAH. WAH WAH WAH. We’re irrationally angry because something’s unfair but we don’t even know what we want to do about it. WAH.

                  So tell me, AFV – what is it you want done, exactly?

                7. Like Simon & Garfunkel sung in The Boxer, you’re hearing only exactly what you want to hear from other people’s arguments and are disregarding the rest.

            2. Cretin. These businesses wouldn’t EXIST without their special government section 230 carveout.

        1. No they’re not. I’ve never Facebooked, Instagrammed, Vimeo’d, Youtubed, or Pinterest’d a thing in my life – still trucking along just fine here in 2019. Have I seen some of those pages? Sure. Could I live without ever seeing them again? Absolutely.

          Google maps? I still have a Thomas Guide somewhere – I can live without it. Android cell phone? lol, you carry one of those!? “Alexa, get in my trash can.” The only thing I’ve ever used Gmail for is dump addresses. I don’t use Spotify. I don’t use Pandora. I don’t use iTunes. I still know how to play an .mp3 file, don’t you?

          You’re so full of shit on this, FF. You’re an addict trying to rationalize the high.

          Just cut the cord. You’ll be fine. I promise.

          1. Go F yourself, AT. I don’t even use .mp3s, I use .wav files ripped directly from compact discs. Stop bragging how you’re a Luddite and stop defending companies that would be happy to see both you and me die in a fire. F that.

            AT 65 years ago: Rosa Parks should have been happy she could ride the bus at all. After all, who needs the bus when you can walk or ride a bicycle?

            1. .wav files? How very 1995.

              It’s not being a Luddite. I don’t use these products because I don’t like my data being mined. I dumped my credit cards for the same reason. I doesn’t mean I live in some underground bomb shelter pretending it’s still the 50s.

              We don’t need this shit in our lives. We just want it. Well, it’s got a steep price buddy. I’m sorry you don’t think that’s fair, but nobody’s got a gun to your head to MAKE you use it.

              Rosa parks was being discriminated against because of the color of her skin. You’re being discriminated against because of the words coming out of your mouth. There’s an entire world of difference between those two things bro. And the latter is perfectly acceptable in a free society.

              1. The words coming out of your mouth tell me that you’re full of shit, but you keep chewing it and telling us how tasty it is.

              2. In California and DC amongst other places, it’s just as illegal to discriminate against someone because of the words coming out of their mouths as it is to discriminate against the color of their skin.

                But that knocks your tower of blocks down, so you ignore it, like you ignore everything else everyone is telling you that doesn’t fit in your tiny cramped worldview.

                1. Ahh, so you’re defending CA/DC politics now, are you?

                  Strange bedfellows and all that, I suppose, eh?

  19. The Soviet Union fell from this. They will fall too. If they want to be the national enquirer, then let them be. People aren’t that stupid. They know they are getting fed just one side.

    1. People aren’t that stupid.

      Going to disagree with you there slick.

      To quote one of my favorite movies: “A person is smart. People are are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals – and you know it.”

        1. There’s this hilarious scene where he shakes a dog for like a minute and a half. The dog is yelping and flopping about. I die laughing every time.

          1. Don’t use Men In Black to prove a point bro.

            At the very least, use a Godfather or Stanley Kubrick line to prove a point.

  20. I think crap like this from social media overlords is part of how the world is ruined.

    I REALLY do. Disinformation and spin are dangerous propaganda.

  21. I thought vimeo would be overjoyed that You Tube is doing this. All the more business for them! I guess not. What idiots. :facepalmg:

    1. What great insight you have. Time to call in the government goons I guess and kiss your limited government principles goodbye.

  22. Bitchute is still good.

    Since Vimeo is a competitor to Youtube, I can’t understand why they wouldn’t want to capture the user base rejected by UT unless they are trying to get bought out by them.

    1. Yup bitchute rocks. They’re based in the UK free from the Silicon Valley hive mind.

  23. Go to another platform they said…

    They won’t silence or censor opinions like Google does they said…

    1. You don’t believe in the fee market? Oh noes! Two bad actors means the whole system is bad! Call in the government! Help I can’t choose for myself anymore! Lol

      1. Facebook
        Twitter
        Instagram
        Vimeo
        Reddit
        Google
        Pinterest

        How much more evidence do you need that these asshats aren’t for a free market of ideas & are not going to stop until you, me and everyone are going to be silenced for not toeing radical progressive orthodoxy & continue to break Section 230 guidelines in regards to being a “neutral public forum” for protections they all now enjoy?

        But by all means, keep your head in the sand bro. I’ll remember you and laugh when you’re eventually kicked off the internet for saying something controversial.

  24. Why does what these big tech giants are doing remind me of this verse?

    Revelations 13:17
    and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

  25. This just makes no sense, because the more Google / YouTube push people away, the more money Vimeo stands to make. That they are then protecting Google / YouTube is not only strange, but too coordinated for two separate companies. As part of a larger publicly traded company, I’d expect them to not attempt to protect their rival at their own expense.

  26. Kurt Schlichter

    @KurtSchlichter
    Why Libertarians Lose…

    “Well, if you liked our principled stand on dope, you’re gonna love our principled stand on allowing giant corporations to intimidate your into subservience by threatening your ability to participate in modern politics and in society!”

    1. How is anyone being intimidated? Lol. You are such a coward. Oh noes! Two places won’t carry content so I have no more first amendment – is that it?

  27. Ace has words for this:

    This is how Robust and Free Capitalist Competition is supposed to work, David French assures me. An tiny number of coordinated monopoly concerns — ten or so in total– all offering products with the same speech restrictions and political biases.

    And all competitors to this Ruling Caste Order squelched and stamped out by their other conspirators, like Mastercard and Patreon.

    The nation’s entire political discussion controlled — controlled — by a small group of people who all know each other and are all on the far left and in fact all live a mile from each other in the richest suburbs of San Francisco.

    A bunch of soybottomed hard-left oligarchs and venture socialists having a hippie high tea meeting and deciding who the next president will be, and who has the right to speak in the public square.

    Isn’t that what America’s really all about?

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/381999.php

    1. Ace wants to force companies to carry certain content. He is no better than the gay mafia who wants to compel people to express certain opinions.

  28. I hope folks realize how sinister this really is. They’re going to do their damndest to make the presidential election turns out they want it. Who needs to worry about Russia trying to alter an election when the fox is already in the henhouse.

    1. Companies have been doing that for decades. And not just in presidential elections – but state, local, ballot initiatives, etc.

      1. You’re being so unwise. People have been killing for thousands of years, doesn’t make it right. And these companies haven’t been around for decades. I usually like playing along with you but you’re reaching a level of foolishness that I can’t possibly follow.

        1. I honestly don’t see your problem with what they’re doing.

          We don’t have a right to their service, ryan. We just plain flat out don’t. They can be as biased as they want. They’re breaking no law, depriving no rights, and harming nobody.

          1. They’re breaking no law, depriving no rights, and harming nobody.

            My gosh you have a thick skull. No matter how many times multiple people have shown you at least a half dozen times, it’s as if talking to a wall–you just can’t get it in your thick skull.

  29. A monopolized medium that all of society has come to depend on for all forms of information and use should not be allowed to selectively “prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press”. Uncle Sam needs to step in with a heavy foot.

    1. that all of society has come to depend on

      We don’t depend on it. It’s a luxury and a convenience. But we’re not reliant on it. We never have been.

      And if we have, that’s 100% our own fault.

      We always scoff at the millennials who can’t change a tire or sew a button. They’re reliant on service providers to do that for them. Does that mean they’re now entitled to that service on their own terms?

      Of course not. Google can do whatever the hell they want. If we don’t like it, maybe we should stop depending on them.

          1. So… you can have your cake and eat it too? Are we going to need the government to make this magic happen?

            1. Cretin. These businesses wouldn’t EXIST without their special government section 230 carveout.

  30. The Soviet Union fell from this. They will fall too. If they want to be the national enquirer, then let them be. People aren’t that stupid. They know they are getting fed just one side.

    1. People aren’t that stupid.

      Going to disagree with you there slick.

      To quote one of my favorite movies: “A person is smart. People are are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals – and you know it.”

        1. There’s this hilarious scene where he shakes a dog for like a minute and a half. The dog is yelping and flopping about. I die laughing every time.

  31. I think crap like this from social media overlords is part of how the world is ruined.

    I REALLY do. Disinformation and spin are dangerous propaganda.

  32. I thought vimeo would be overjoyed that You Tube is doing this. All the more business for them! I guess not. What idiots. :facepalmg:

    1. What great insight you have. Time to call in the government goons I guess and kiss your limited government principles goodbye.

  33. Bitchute is still good.

    Since Vimeo is a competitor to Youtube, I can’t understand why they wouldn’t want to capture the user base rejected by UT unless they are trying to get bought out by them.

    1. Yup bitchute rocks. They’re based in the UK free from the Silicon Valley hive mind.

  34. Go to another platform they said…

    They won’t silence or censor opinions like Google does they said…

    1. You don’t believe in the fee market? Oh noes! Two bad actors means the whole system is bad! Call in the government! Help I can’t choose for myself anymore! Lol

Comments are closed.