KlowdTV (Subscription-Based Conservative News Network) - 42 Channels Free (Some Require VPN)

195

For those conservatives out there that are missing their Orange Man, or others who want to broaden their subjective viewing beyond mainstream news media, KlowdTV is a streaming platform which also has a free subscription option. Quite a few of the channels are viewable to worldwide audiences, but a bit more than half require a VPN as they are intended for US viewers only. There's mainly news networks on offer, with a few specialty channels, including NASA TV, horse lover and dog lover channels.

Disclaimer: Due to some of the viewing options (e.g. Infowars) this post may cause some community turbulence, so please grab your popcorn, or your bible, and let the fun begin!

Notable mentions:

  • One America News Network
  • AWE (A Wealth of Entertainment)
  • EuroNews
  • France24
  • NewsmaxTV (VPN required)
  • Fido TV (dog lovers)
  • Law & Crime (daily live coverage of court trials)

Related Stores

KlowdTV
KlowdTV

Comments

  • +27 votes

    They spelt clown wrong…

  • +6 votes

    How is this a bargain? Isn't this a forum post?

    • If fake LEGO from Bunnings at full price and movies on a streaming service are “bargains”, then so is this.

      • +2 votes

        Highly doubtful that this should be listed as a bargain according to:
        https://www.ozbargain.com.au/wiki/help:deal_posting_guidelin...

        But its up to moderators to decide in the end.

        • From the guidelines, the relevant one:

          Free Multimedia Content & Websites
          There are so many useful free multimedia content (e.g. ebooks, videos, photos, software, apps etc.) and websites out there that if we listed every great one, then we would be inundated with deals. Feel free to discuss any of these in one of our forums. Alternatively, add the freeware to its dedicated free software wiki page – Useful Free Software.

          In general, multimedia content that are always free and available to everyone should be posted in the forums, but if something that was not previously free is offered free temporarily or permanently, it qualifies as a deal.

          I think that your point is that the above streaming platform has always offered the free video streams. It is able to do so because is has received to sponsor their agendas.

          Is Klowd TV free?
          It' free through 2020! Starting January 1st 2021 OAN and AWE will not be included. No credit card input needed, just an email and username and you are good to go.

          • @twocsies: The service is more akin to Foxtel. There are paid monthly subs, with a sprinkling of free channels for those inclined. Point being it's not a 'free' site, but I was surprised to see that 'some' channels were free.

            • @wizzlesticks: So "KlowdTV is a streaming platform which also has a free subscription option" is "KlowdTV is a streaming platform which is offering a free package option during COVID pandemic" ? i.e. the free channels offer may be temporary, was not free before COVID, and may or may not be free after COVID?

  • what is conservative?

    • Username checks out.

    • Legit question. Didn't the alt-right call conservatives 'cuckservatives'?

    • think opposite of "Leftie", "Commie", anarchist, social justice, social equity, tax the rich and feed the poor etc and you get the idea ;p

      or
      promoting or retaining traditional ideas and values.

      • opposite of tax the rich and feed the poor

        tax the poor and feed the rich — that was one cause of the French Revolution.

    • I thought that's a more acceptable term for a racist? But I am an ignorant man, so…

  • given some of these channels are constantly spreading misinformation on current affairs globally, is this a deal to make you stupider?

    • is this a deal to make you stupider?

      I once watched a show about a man who shoved crayons up his nose to achieve this outcome.

    • I think virtually ALL news and current affairs programs are making people dumber. The best thing you can do is keep your viewing to multiple viewpoints, and don't let one news outlet control your every line of thought. An example in Australia is The Project: It's on the other end of the spectrum (misrepresents the story by only telling part of the truth, and is heavily subjective).

      • In West you need to know multiple languages so you would actually hear news from multiple view points as you say, 95% of "free speech" media is under the paw of Rupert Murd(5 points star emoji to replace letter O)ch and Fairfax media, freedom isn't free!

      • The project is utter trash yet morons continue to lap it up sitting on the edge of their seat waiting for waleed Aly to tell them how they should think

    • +2 votes

      No that is CNN and MSNBC.

    • these networks also shape voter choices, change the facts and hurt viewers' abilities to make informed decisions.

    • I used to watch murica politic news for entertainment. With orange man gone, I had to go back to watch our sad old hypocritcal clowns we call aussie goverment.

  • If I wanted to see clowns I'd go to the circus

    • You just have to turn to anything media, multimedia, no need to go to circus, every singl tv show, movie, music is politically correct and adjust to suck up to everyone.

  • And I thought Shitizen KKKane Murdoch's Sky News night time line up was bad.

  • Can we see Modi media fake news here ?

  • I think this is the same One America News Network that was on Last Week Tonight
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnSILVWDKL8

  • Ignore my neg, this is a great deal which will really help anyone needing to lose some brain cells quick!

  • Thanks OP.

    Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.

    • Yeah! The movie is about to start but I’ll just start yelling “fire”.

      I think you will find people differ on what is free speech and what is irresponsible/dangerous speech. I have a hard time, for example, with sites about child love, even if no law is broken. Yet I wouldn’t favour banning Nabokov. There are plenty shades of grey.

        • +2 votes

          The irony of this comment is that it's the conservatives who need create these "safe spaces" to protect their unresearched opinions, banning anyone who dares to disagree. See: r/conservative and pretty much any other right wing echo chamber.

          And yes, any misinformation, left or right, should be labelled as dangerous, although i'm sure whatever Murdoch-branded media you subscribe to will say that's only true if it's not what they want you to think.

          But somehow it's the "left" who are the snowflakes..

      • People that use this analogy should at least understand the background to it, and why it has little application today to free speech - at least in the US where it was coined.
        Read Schenck, then read Brandenberg to see why it is (largely) no longer applicable and a new analogy is required.
        As there is nothing inherently dangerous or likely to bring about imminent lawlessness about a news channel with a conservative bent, it is certainly an inapt analogy in connection with this deal.

        • The lefties don't need a new analogy for free speech. They need to go back to the basics. This applies more than ever to the snowflakes. They need to man up stop being cry babies, not a new analogy

          • @gto21: Do you have any substance to your comment, or just a strawman? You’re the only one here who seem s threatened by snowflakes and cry babies. Maybe toughen up a bit if you are so sensitive to others viewpoints?

            • @mskeggs: Do you have any substance to your comment, or just a strawman? You seem threatened by me. Maybe toughen up a bit if you are so sensitive to others viewpoints?

        • Since I raised the analogy in the first place, let me be clearer.
          Shouting fire in a crowded theatre isn’t some analogy for stifled political speech, I mean literally shouting fire when there isn’t one as an example that is clearly dangerous, and nobody would seek to protect it.
          Without wandering down the USA free speech confusion where they protect all sorts of speech from government restrictions, in Australia we obviously don’t have a bill of rights, but have implied protections for political speech in case law, and the common law basis allows things that aren’t explicitly illegal.

          I don’t see any need to protect harmful health advice or speech that is whipping up hate. And nobody is restricting peaceful speech that is racist or sexist or whatever, but being able to say it doesn’t mean there won’t be consequences if the audience finds it objectionable.

          I find the ‘snowflake’ call especially funny when applied this way, because it is almost always from somebody who feels that censorship is when there is blowback for having unpopular opinions. Imagine if Martin Luther (either one) had got all upset that people didn’t like what they were saying! If a person feels their views are important, they should stand up for them.

          • @mskeggs: There absolutely are legal penalties for peaceful speech that is racist.

            • @Almost Banned: I guess you mean vilification.
              I can say all day I am exasperated by the Irish because of their inflexible ethics and strict observance of laws.
              That is unquestionably racist, but I am allowed to say what I want.

              If I seek to offend or insult or humiliate them in public on the basis of their race people so insulted/humiliated/offended can lodge a complaint against me. I might then be required to enter into mediation, which if failed could then be taken to court.

              So yes, there is a law against it, but it isn’t a criminal matter. It is much more like defamation law applied to a group rather than an individual.

              • @mskeggs: 'Seeking' is not an element of the offense under the Federal RDA. Your intentions are irrelevant.
                The issue is whether the comment, made in public, is reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a group of people because of their race or national/ethnic origin.
                It is nothing like defamation law because defamation law has never applied to an indeterminate group, nor is there a government body specifically commissioned to address and prosecute defamation.
                And while the Federal RDA is not strictly criminal, you are still able to wind up in the Federal Court.
                However, most State laws do indeed criminalise certain types of racist speech. Generally these require 'incitement' of hatred, ridicule or contempt. They do not only cover speech which incites violence.

  • Conservative dumb.
    Progressive (me) smart.

  • I think everyone needs to watch Infowars at least once to see just how hilariously unhinged it is. Got some real belly laughs watching their coverage following last year's US election - truly insane!

  • I get all my news for free off youtube

  • The SJW cancellation crew have come in to neg

  • The cancel culture mob a group of snowflakes.

  • Said it before…Ozbargain the new Twitter/Facebook Sooks.

  • Are leftie, commie, anarchists allowed to subscribe or do we have to find or form our own nut-job channel?

  • Lefties have the right to get offended. You have my full support.