Actually, YouTube has plenty of excellent videos on countless topics.
Without YouTube, we wouldn't have the raw footage of Mouldylocks and the fight. Liberal media spun her to be a total victim and ignored her FB page and countless other bits of info that showed she was no victim, but an instigator.
We also got to see how 4Chan proved the guy with the bike lock was Eric Canton.
We also get to see the lunacy of liberals. I love the Tucker Carlson interviews.
There's also videos proving the Earth is flat, ghosts are real, and proof aliens exist.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUEIiCcDqjwhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHvI-wJmGY4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbX7PaHEoI
Regarding Eric Canton, I hope the police have actual evidence because the technique the 4chan guys "invented" is not admissible as evidence in court and that's a really nasty setup for civil cases. That might be a valid technique to identify the suspect but if they don't have hard evidence then he's going to walk. To me, it looks like him, so if the police got a warrant, and found the bike lock, tested it, and found there to be blood traces on it, okay great, put him in jail. But, if he gets cleared in court this could backfire badly. I hope that's something the 4chan users who are playing "pretend police officers" thought about, if he's found innocent that's an extremely strong case for defamation.
As far as 4chan itself, there's literally people having conversations on there right now, asking whether they should go have sex with a horse or not. There's zero credibility there.
Tucker Carlson: A clever individual obviously, but the organization him and his former college room founded, Daily Caller, was recently called out for a tax evasion scheme that reveals how the site is funded by donations from political organizations. Typically, an advertiser can contribute to media legally and the FCC has setup rules which regulate this native media. In the case of native media, the publisher is always left with the option to exclude the media. As an example: if I am a politician that is against marijuana legalization, I can contract local news outlets to run stories about the destructive effects of marijuana on teenagers and since no product or service is being endorsed, no indication of an advertorial or sponsored content is required.
The Daily Caller scheme works around all of that by having a non-profit organization offer the media to the for profit corporation for consideration. So the scheme regarding both tax laws and compliance with FCC regulations is definitely very smart, but they lose all credibility, it's as fake as fake news could get. Even in their own tax filing, this is their mission statement: "to train up-and-coming reporters and editors, to carry out investigative reporting, and to perform deep policy reporting with a purpose of consumer awareness and education." So the organization is training their staff and there's no expectation of accuracy, since they are not "professional", which helps shield the organization from civil cases in the situation where they are sued for publishing false information about an individual or organization.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/06/02/charity-doubles-as-a-profit-stream-at-the-daily-caller-news-foundation/
Fox works around this expectation in a different way, since it's a broadcasting company, and the "Fox News" brand makes no claims that any of it's shows are "News", so there should be little confusion in court about whether or not the network has any duty to be accurate. The shows and published schedules are clearly titled and accurately describe what the shows are, so even to viewers, there should be no confusion about the fact that all of the shows are opinions or stories. Stories come in two varieties, fiction and non fiction, and they never disclose which. This is why Seth Rich's family members have little to no legal recourse against Sean Hannity's opinion about their son. There is a lot of internet folklore around Fox's "Right To Lie" case which they won, but the reality is, the "Fox News" brand is not really legally exposed in a situation where the facts are unclear or they are expressing their opinion.
I'm not suggesting the brand is "fake news" because the reality is, it's not even news in the first place, or at least, they don't claim it is. So no disclosure of opinion is needed, which makes it a great network for somebody like Tucker Carlson to be involved with. I would watch the show, but I already know it's just his opinion and it's a show for the purpose of entertainment. He could claim that Obama is a vampire who eats the fetuses of unborn babies and if I wanted to read or watch random opinions, there's plenty of entertainment, in the comment sections of everything ever linked to off drudgereport.com . Also, I'm not sure it Tucker will last on Fox, since I'm not sure if he's capable of pulling off some of the theatrics of somebody like Glenn Beck; the bit where he poured 'gasoline' all over his co-host was hysterical.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNp9GSbFQhQ