Connect with us

Uncategorized

What Is Brime, The Latest Streaming Conspiracy Involving Ninja, Shroud And Doc?

Published

on

What Is Brime, The Latest Streaming Conspiracy Involving Ninja, Shroud And Doc?


In the wake of Dr Disrespects cryptic tweet last night saying that even he doesnt know the specific reason why Twitch has banned him, speculation has run wild to the point where theres at least one conspiracy that I think is worth addressing.

And debunking.

While many theories about whats going on with Dr Disrespect involve potential legal trouble that neither he nor Twitch can talk about, theres a very out-there idea that was recently elevated into the mainstream by Keemstar, spread to his large following.

All of this seems to stem from an anonymous 4chan post that says a whole lot of wild things.

In summary, the idea here is that Doc, along with Ninja and Shroud, the two of them recently departed from Mixer, are going to start their own streaming service backed by Spotify. Dr Disrespect approached creators about the service, Twitch found out, banned him and are now bringing action against him. No one can talk about any of this due to NDAs.

This was elevated by Keemstar to a new level where he featured a Twitter account called @WatchBrime, which is reportedly a new streaming service that will start answering questions about its operations tomorrow on Monday. The account appears to have been created within this past week. The only person tweeting about Brime before this appears to be an ex-Mixer person.

The evidence cited here is that Brime is following Shroud, Ninja and Dr Disrespect, and only 15 people total, but that also includes the likes of Ewok (who just left Mixer) and DrLupo (who just re-signed with Twitch). Theres also a prepare for the 29th image on Docs stream, implying some sort of announcement.

Okay, lets go through this theory, though its kind of generous to call it that.

First of all, Spotify is not owned by Google. That invalidates about half of what that initial 4chan post says right off the bat. There were rumors Google wanted to acquire Spotify a few years ago, but that never manifested.

Second of all, if Doc was going around attempting to poach streamers from Twitch, someone would have spoken up about that by now other than some anonymous 4chan person. The fact that no one is talking about the reason Doc is banned implies something more serious than this, and we would not see this kind of silence around simple contract breach issues.

Third of all, while Ninja and Shroud have not announced where they are heading yet, and likely had more of a heads up about Mixers closing than everyone else, it would be a huge stretch to imagine they would get involved with a brand new streaming site after what just happened with Mixer, and that seems like it would be a totally boneheaded play unless Spotify was literally staking them like $50 million each.

Fourth of all, Doc just signed a multi-year, multi-million dollar contract with Twitch in March 2020. Say what you will about Doc, but it does not seem any kind of logical you would jeopardize that by suddenly going off the reservation, breaking your deal to sign with some brand new service and trying to steal other streamers on your way out.

Fifth of all, Brime is a terrible name. Brime.com is still for sale (for $50,000), and that Twitter account was just created this month. It seems unlikely Brime could shell out millions for high profile streamers and not even buy their own damn domain name ahead of their official reveal. WatchBrime.com is parked and owned by a domain wholesaler site, though it was purchased on June 25. Brime.tv and Brime.gg were also just purchased this week. Whether Brime is a real streaming service or not I cant say for sure. I can also not rule out that given that its literally just a Twitter account right now, it could be a 4chan troll that duped the likes of Keemstar and others. Maybe well find out tomorrow.

Anything is possible in the wildness of 2020, and yet there is so much about the idea that Brime has landed Ninja, Shroud and Doc and thats the reason for Disrespects ban that doesnt make sense, I have a hard time taking this seriously. Well find out more tomorrow, perhaps, but I would not be surprised to see none of this pan out at all.

Update: Brime actually had a different logo when the account was first created, stolen from a web design company:

Update 2: Brime has tweeted a bit more today and says that you shouldnt read into anything based on who its following (in fairness, it has never claimed to be landing these streamers, this is just the theory everyone ran with). I am leaning toward this not being a troll, but probably just being someones small passion project that received an undue amount of attention due to this situation. I very much doubt this is some big tech-backed play.

Follow me on TwitterYouTube and Instagram. Pick up my sci-fi novels Herokiller and Herokiller 2, and read my first series, The Earthborn Trilogy, which is also on audiobook.



Uncategorized

Hillary Clinton Blames Russia and Facebook for 2016 Loss, Says She’d Win in 2020

Published

on

Hillary Clinton Blames Russia and Facebook for 2016 Loss, Says She'd Win in 2020


Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed her defeat in the 2016 presidential race on “the Russians” and “WikiLeaks” while touting that she would be President Donald Trump if she was on the ballot in November in a recent interview.

Although Clinton will not be on the ballot in November and said she doesn’t plan on running for president again, she told The Hollywood Reporter that she would beat Trump in 2020 if they were facing off again.

“Yes, but I think people believe that this is a referendum on him,” the former first lady said.

Clinton’s documentary series “Hillary” started streaming on Hulu on March 6, and Critics’ Choice Real TV Awards this week named it the Best Limited Documentary Series of the year.

The Hollywood Reporter’s Scott Feinberg asked the 72-year-old Democrat if she was ever afraid Trump would actually “lock her up,” as crowds chanted at some of his rallies in relation to her email scandal.

TRENDING: Fox News Fires Veteran Anchor After Sexual Misconduct Allegation

“You know, I’ve never done anything wrong,” Clinton responded.

“I’m, you know, as some people like to say, the most investigated, exonerated person in recent history.”

She added, “But if he could have found anything that he thought could impose some kind of cost on me — because, at the root of this, Scott, is he fears that his win — that narrow win in the Electoral College — was not legitimate.”

Do you think Clinton would beat Trump in 2020?

Clinton said that Trump “knows” the Russians and WikiLeaks helped him win in 2016.

“So if he could [have gone after me] … he would have, because he’s a vindictive score-settler and he doesn’t want the legitimacy of his election ever to be questioned, although history will continue to question it,” she said.

The former secretary of state said she believes “in the rule of law” and if there’s evidence that Trump should be investigated after he leaves office, he should be.

Clinton also blamed Facebook for her loss in 2016.

“Facebook has to be held accountable because they trafficked in conspiracy, they trafficked in misinformation, they trafficked in Russian disinformation,” she said.

RELATED: Trump, Prominent Republicans Dismiss Biden’s Lead in Polls

“And they’ve got to be held accountable because we’re gonna have another election, and everybody should know what’s at stake and then cast their vote accordingly.”

Clinton claimed she would also have done a much better job at handling the coronavirus pandemic than Trumphas.

“I don’t think we necessarily should have had as deep an economic assault on livelihoods and jobs as we have,” she said. “So I know I would have done a better job.”

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.



Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Colorado Court Elaborates the “Reasonable Exercise” Test Under the Colorado Constitution’s Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Published

on


Article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution reads:

The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

Monday’s decision in Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis clarified and summarized the “reasonable exercise” test, which the court had announced in the 1994 Robertson case; recall that state supreme courts are free to interpret their state constitutions as more protective than the federal Constitution, as protective, or less protective (though they must also enforce the federal Constitution, when litigants ask them to do so):

[T]he reasonable exercise test [set forth in the 1994 Robertson precedent] demands that government enactments implicating the article II, section 13 right [to keep and bear arms] have a legitimate government end within the police power, such as promoting the public health, safety, or welfare. And as its name suggests, it requires a “reasonable” fit between purpose and means. But in the article II, section 13 context, the ultimate function of the reasonable exercise test is to effectuate the substantive constraints imposed by article II, section 13 on otherwise rational government regulation.

Reflecting that function, the article II, section 13 reasonable exercise testunlike ordinary rational basis reviewdemands not just a conceivable legitimate purpose but an actual one. And, importantly, it does not tolerate government enactments that have either a purpose or effect of rendering the right to bear arms in self-defense a nullity. In short, the reasonable exercise test permits restrictions that may burden the right to bear arms but that still leave open ample means to exercise the core of that right; on the other hand, the test forbids restrictions that are so arbitrary or onerous as to amount to a denial of the right.

These features of the reasonable exercise test are apparent from our earliest application of article II, section 13. In Nakamura, the challenged legislation prohibited unnaturalized foreign-born residents from hunting any wild bird or animal except “in defense of persons or property” and, “to that end,” made it “unlawful for any unnaturalized foreign-born resident … to either own or be possessed of a shotgun or rifle of any make, or a pistol or firearm of any kind.” We acknowledged that the state’s identified interests were permissible ones: “[t]he state may preserve its wild game for its citizens” and “prevent the hunting and killing of same by aliens.” But we struck down the law nonetheless, reasoning that it was apparent that it was actually “designed to prevent possession of firearms by aliens, as much, if not more, than the protection of wild game within the state.”

Importantly, we found it “equally clear” that the act had the effect of “wholly disarm[ing] aliens for all purposes.” We held that the state “cannot disarm any class of persons or deprive them of the right guaranteed under section 13, article 2 of the Constitution, to bear arms in defense of home, person, and property.” In other words, “[t]he police power of a state … cannot be exercised in such manner as to work a practical abrogation of its provisions.”

Our later cases just as clearly demonstrate the independent bite of the reasonable exercise test. In Blue, we held that a statute prohibiting individuals with prior felony convictions from possessing weapons was a constitutional exercise of the police power under article II, section 13. “To be sure,” we explained, “the state legislature cannot, in the name of the police power, enact laws which render nugatory our Bill of Rights and other constitutional protections.” But we did not read the felon-in-possession statute “as an attempt to subvert the intent of [article II, section 13].”. And in Ford, an as-applied challenge to the same statute, we expressly stated that “the specific limitations of [article II, section 13] must be superimposed on the statute’s otherwise valid language,” and that a state may “validly restrict or regulate the right to possess arms where the purpose of such possession is not a constitutionally protected one” such as defense of home, person, or property. see also City of Lakewood v. Pillow (Colo. 1972) (striking down ordinance that made it unlawful for a person to possess a firearm in a vehicle or in a place of business for purpose of self-defense).

[I]n Robertson, we again explicitly noted that the right to bear arms in self-defense under article II, section 13 could be regulated but not prohibited. In upholding the Denver ordinance [that banned so-called “assault weapons” -EV], we looked to evidence confirming the city council’s expressed intent to “promote the health, safety, and security of the citizens of Denver” by “curbing crimeparticularly homicides.” We further relied on evidence that although the city sought to prohibit the possession and use of approximately 40 firearms, closer to 2,000 remained available for purchase and use in the United States. Given this evidence of the “narrow class of weapons regulated by the ordinance,” we had no trouble concluding that it did not “impose such an onerous restriction on the right to bear arms as to constitute an … illegitimate exercise of the state’s police power.”

In sum, under article II, section 13 of the Colorado Constitution, the government may regulate firearms so long as the enactment is (1) a reasonable exercise of the police power (2) that does not work a nullity of the right to bear arms in defense of home, person, or property. This test differs from rational basis review in that it requires an actual, not just conceivable, legitimate purpose related to health, safety, and welfare, and it establishes that nullifying the right to bear arms in self-defense is neither a legitimate purpose nor tolerable result. In these ways, it ensures that the specifically enumerated “right to bear arms in defense of home, person and property” in article II, section 13 stands as an independent, substantive limitation on otherwise rational government action.

The court went on to apply this to uphold a Colorado statute limiting “large-capacity magazines,” defined as magazines “capable of accepting, or … designed to be readily converted to accept, more than fifteen rounds.” (The court made clear that the magazines had to be designed to be readily converted to do that, and not just capable of being readily converted.) The court didn’t discuss how the statute would be analyzed under the Second Amendment, because plaintiffs had raised only a state constitutional challenge.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Today in Supreme Court History: July 3, 1941

Published

on


Florida Just Passed the Most Sweeping Occupational Licensing Reform in History

The Occupational Freedom and Opportunity Act “will save thousands of Floridians both time and money for years to come,” says Gov. Ron DeSantis.

|

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2017 Zox News Theme. Theme by MVP Themes, powered by WordPress.