ℂhute 🪂

Today a Los Angeles jury found @Meta and @Google liable for designing their platforms in ways that harm young users, awarding compensatory damages with punitive damages still to be determined after finding the companies acted with malice, oppression, and fraud. Yesterday a New Mexico jury ordered Meta to pay $375 million for failing to warn users about dangers and protect children from sexual predators. Two juries in two days reached the same conclusion. The dominant platforms prioritized monetization over user wellbeing. These verdicts are not about content. They are about design. The liability is moving from speech to system design. Meta and YouTube were not held liable for what users posted. They were held liable for infinite scroll engineered to prevent stopping, autoplay designed to extend viewing time indefinitely, and algorithmic amplification that maximizes emotional response regardless of whether it is true or healthy. These are deliberate design choices made in the service of engagement metrics and advertising revenue. This is a correct application of the harm principle. Mill's foundational argument holds that the only legitimate basis for restricting liberty is to prevent harm to others. The harm here is not offensive speech. It is not uncomfortable ideas. It is platform architecture deliberately designed to exploit psychological vulnerabilities for profit. That is a meaningful distinction and two juries drew it. BitChute's governance framework prohibits exactly this by design. Our algorithmic neutrality commitment is explicit. Your data will not be used to suppress, prioritize, or manipulate content. You control your feed. We do not optimize it for you. We do not optimize for engagement at the expense of user wellbeing. We do not have infinite scroll engineered to keep you from stopping. We do not have autoplay designed to maximize watch time regardless of harm. The platforms found liable are also the platforms that spend the most time telling regulators they need broad content removal powers to protect users. Today's verdicts suggest the protection users actually needed was from the platforms themselves.

Somebody MANIPULATED the market right before Trump’s “War is over” announcement. And that somebody has faces — people in Washington DC, White House Chairmen, Congressmen. That’s exactly why the investigation still hasn’t started. The United States remains the MOST CORRUPT country in the world Join my BitChute for more DAILY updates: bitchute.com/channel/4BfnNK…

Remember @IceAgeFarmer ? He's back! @UnshadowedShow 👇 Give him a follow if you remember his great content

WARNING! Total System Collapse Incoming old.bitchute.com/video/A17922AO…

This Is The Main Event - Mass Shutdowns Approaching - Prepare Now! old.bitchute.com/video/njKT8YHj…

I remember when it happened to me, I had 274k subs at the time and out of nowhere YouTube terminated my channel…luckily I was already on Bitchute and was able to continue because Bitchute had my back at a time when other platforms were censoring me, so I’ve been very thankful ever since and I’m glad others are finding Ray’s truly censorship free platform as well after the hammer came down on them! If you’re not watching us on Bitchute, what are you waiting for??

This is why Bitchute has always been my goto. No matter what happens anywhere I can trust that my podcast and content will be safe. Doesn't hurt that my biggest audience is there too.

Support free speech

YouTube decided to CANCEL me! They deleted my channel — just like that. 118,000 followers and tens of millions of views — gone. No explanation. No appeal. Looks like our facts didn’t match their narrative… So we move on. And we’re moving on to BitChute. Watch full story about what happened with YouTube LIVE today at 2:30 PM GMT on BitChute: bitchute.com/channel/4BfnNK…

Let’s see where the problem roots: YouTube —> Alphabet aka Google. The one and only monopolistic search engine A corporation that can turn switches to adapt the situation to suit oneself So when YouTube deletes your channel… It’s not moderation. It’s digital DISAPPEARENCE. But I have no such desire — JOIN me on BitChute: bitchute.com/channel/4BfnNK…

My personal @YouTube has been permanently banned for a bogus reason. @TeamYouTube sent me an arbitrary excuse that says they won't bring back my channel. What happened to free speech?

The YouTube channel is gone — it’s a reality we need to accept. It’s very unfortunate — but not surprising. When narratives are under pressure, the first thing that disappears is the TRUTH. But we keep going. And not to get lost — follow my BitChute channel: bitchute.com/channel/4BfnNK…

If you’re arguing about immigration policy without understanding how U.S. detention actually operates, you’re arguing in the dark. Professor Alina Das’s March 2025 Harvard Law Review article, The Law and Lawlessness of U.S. Immigration Detention, lays out something most people prefer not to confront. The United States runs the largest immigration detention apparatus in the world, and it does not function in accordance with the legal standards designed to govern it. This is not a political critique. It is a legal one. Das documents a persistent gap between the law on the books and the law in practice. ICE detention standards exist, but they are routinely violated with impunity. Courts are aware of these violations, but continually decline to enforce those standards in any meaningful way. The result is a structure where legal rules exist without effective remedies, an apparatus that looks like law but operates without constraint. The consequences are not abstract. Detainees have died from medical neglect, including COVID-19 deaths at facilities where federal courts had already concluded ICE had "met its obligations." That is not a failure at the margins. That is a failure of the enforcement mechanism itself. This matters now because the apparatus is expanding. Courts are being asked, in real time, to decide how much deviation from legal standards is acceptable. Yet most of the public debate proceeds as if those standards are actually being followed. They are not. If your position on immigration assumes the law is being enforced as written, your analysis is already wrong. You are debating a system that does not exist. This is the core issue Das exposes. It is not simply whether immigration detention is too harsh or too lenient, but whether it is meaningfully governed by law at all. If you care about immigration policy, in either direction, you need to understand that distinction. Otherwise, you are not arguing about reality. You are arguing about a story.

Welcome to BitChute, @RickSanchezTV. 118,000 followers. Tens of millions of views. No explanation. No appeal. This is exactly why we built BitChute. Your channel, your content, your audience. No one takes that from you here. See you at 2:30 PM GMT. 👉 bitchute.com/channel/4BfnNK…

Rick, it's our pleasure to host you. It's the same old suppression playbook we've seen for years from YouTube. No surprise, but it just proves why platforms like @BitChute matter: zero tolerance for deplatforming, no shadow bans, just raw hosting for real talk. The conversations that are most essential, the tough but necessary ones, are what help us solve problems. By banning them YouTube is misguided and counterproductive. They're only adding to the problem.

What should the name of my new livestream be on @Bitchute ?

Starting next Tuesday, I will be live-streaming twice a week with guests. The show will be live on @Bitchute You can follow me there bitchute.com/channel/4BfnNK…

Follow @RickSanchezTV new show on BitChute! bitchute.com/RickSanchez

Thank you @DanDicksPFT for this! @rayvahey built BitChute for exactly this reason — to give creators like you a home that can't be taken away. 🙌 Join us today and take back control of your content. #FreeSpeech #AlternativeMedia

24-HOUR POLL | Do you actually believe that Iran was planning to imminently attack the homeland of the USA considering it does not possess long-range missiles / long-range drones?