We can trump that 
The saddest thing is that these āaccidentsā almost never get a follow-up and tend to be forgotten by the press after a couple of years, while the damage remains and keeps causing illnesses.
ETA
I was watching the news about water shortage in european rivers and I noticed that the lowered rivers revealed lots and lots of āgarbageā and other suspicious installations that were hidden under the surface (pun intended).
Pollution is much worse in some places outside Europe. I almost got sick after watching this video.
a very neat and interesting subject and video 
He understands that there are other video hosting platforms, right?
Maybe but Iām taking it that the views expressed in rural places are not the most inclusive or tolerant. So much so in fact that YouTube will not host them. A good reminder that there is a long way to go in much of the world when it comes to acceptance of diversity.
Youtube ban lots of things. Funny how you mention acceptance and diversity, when youtube only wants one thing and isnāt accepting of anything else 
Since the video is down, we can only guess at the content.
I donāt know much about what YouTube wants but where to draw the line is an interesting question
The Pleasance said refunds were issued to those who bought tickets to the Saturday performance.
It declined to cover costs for those who had booked travel or accommodation.
Well, that was a bad move. Lawsuits incoming, by my guess. Especially since people from the first audience are coming in favour of the artist:
https://twitter.com/mark_thedrummer/status/1558551890585178113
On a different note, I always wondered what āunsafeā means in this context though. The āuncomfortableā part is fair enough, but how can a whole audience feel āunsafeā because of what is being said by one performer?
Unless he was armed with weapons, I cannot see how anyones actual safety could be threatened.
Or maybe he is a much better magician than I can ever imagine?
And suddenly I am curious to check āhow is this show after allā ā¦ donāt these people realise that this is actually advertisement? Iāve never heard of that artist. Now he is reaching audiences that would have never learned his name at all.
Anything that goes against monopoly and helps regulating prices and terms is good.
If everybody goes to youtube, youtube will have the power to do anything and the power to charge any price.
Personally I watch content based on search, so the search gives me lots of platforms to choose from and I am not only watching youtube content. However, since lots of people upload on youtube, itās true that the top search results are about youtube and viewers are geared towards this platform.
There are some youtube channels Iāve been watching for years and I liked their content, but they either had to leave or change their content to suit youtubeās everchanging rules. For example, rules about the video duration: the creator either has to add fluff to reach, say, 25 minutes or has to chop the meat to upload a short, because average video lenghts are not manageable or profitable and they donāt do well with the algorithm.
If it was just 4-5 channels, Iād say itās their fault, but they are more than 10 in my list, from different countries, with different content, so I canāt say itās their own fault, it must be youtubeās regulations.
Thereās nothing new in media censorship. It has been said that the greatest power of the media is the power to ignore. In the old days, newspapers had names like the Albany Republican and the Atlanta Democrat, but such transparency has been replaced by the hypocritical claim of neutrality.
Now, social media in the U.S. has special protection from liability not enjoyed by newspapers, book and magazine publishers, or broadcasters. This stems from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, passed in the early days of the Internet. The idea was to protect free speech on the Internet. The argument was that social media platforms are not publishers making decisions about content but only hosts of content created by posters and therefore should be free of responsibility for that content. This worked well for awhile. In recent years, however, the result has been the opposite. Now social media like YouTube and Twitter do act as publishers, making decisions about content beyond the traditional ones of obscenity and libel. They have a free hand to censor as they please, without fear of lawsuits, because of the lack of strict definitions and enforcement mechanisms in Section 230. And the immense inertia of laws advantageous to moneyed interests makes it almost impossible to change the status quo.
So, it will affect all those places were most people think that it is a hoax. Thatās going to be interesting.
Iām not sure climate skeptics are necessarily sincere. Maybe they just relay the propaganda because they donāt want to change their lifestyle and hope that other countries will make more effort. Like tobacco manufacturers who have claimed for decades that tobacco is not bad for health.
As with a lot of such things there are different categories in the āclimate skepticsā tag.
- There is the āI have personal gains out of thisā climate sceptic (e.g. like the people that commissioned those researches in the tobacco example you mentioned)
- There is the āpaid advocateā climate sceptic (e.g. like the people that wrote those researches in the tobacco example you mentioned)
- There is the āI hate those people that want to make money out of green energyā climate sceptic (which is an odd category because it is mostly comprised of normal every day people that really have nothing to gain from fossil fuels, yet hate the new technology with a passion)
- There is the āI do not know much about the subject, but I do not want any blame or changeā climate sceptic
- Then there the āit is a massive con(spiracy)ā climate sceptic
and the last I can think at the moment, but certainly not the least: - there is the āGod said in the Bible that it will be alright, so bugger offā climate sceptic ( if you havenāt talked with those, they are hillarious and you can bet that a good percentage of them live in those states that appear to be affected )
Iād say that it is logical to say that there is a varying level of sincerity depending on the category.
For example you can assume that the educated businessmen of the first category know what the science really says, but they just do not care, since their profit lies elsewhere, so they are climate sceptics of low sincerity (but high efficiency 
), but you can also assume that the mostly uneducated people of the last category believe sincerely and with all their heart that āGod promised it, so it will be fineā (there is a verse in the Bible where God promises that the Earth will replenish and remain green as long humans are on it, you see).
Counter-marketing on such a diverse crowd sure is tough. I recently saw a detailed article on how the lobbies did the initial marketing and it was very interesting:
considering that they didnāt really charge too much, it makes you wonder why there is no agressive counter-marketing. Or if there is and it is just not good enough
(There are a lot of newer and more balanced sources, but they are not in english or they are behind a paygate.)
- solar panels - why donāt we put them in deserts
- same subject, different article
- same, but with more finances in it
Summary:
We canāt use solar panels in the desert (Sahara) because:
a) it will be super expensive, the logistics will be a nightmare and the local status quo is not very stable
b) there is too much sun! and
c) it will kill the Amazon forest, among others, because the Amazon soil depends on Sahara winds for phosphorus.
I understand how the Earth is a circular system, but in my small, daily thoughts, I never thought some desert sand could be so powerful as to destabilize another continent. I see how it would change the local climate, but an ocean away somehow sounded safe enough.
(Also, I see why suspicious wildfires are so rampant. They are a covert ādeforestationā. It seems that ex-forests are better suited for ārenewable energyā installations, for technical and not political reasons.)
You know what, while theyāre at it, smoking helps you look cool and stay thin. Not to mention tobacco taxes.
Some French Minister of Agriculture once said on TV that wine is not like other alcoholic drinks and it doesnāt count.
I wonder what the French thought of his idea. The Japanese governement must have liked it a lot.
(Basically he said something like āyoung people get drunk because of other types of alcoholā and that he never saw a young person leaving a night club drunk on wine.)
(Iām not going to look up the Greek ministersā quotes, Iām too scared of what may crawl out. )