“Youtube Has Censored My Video About Censorship, Yes Seriously”

Posted by  $  Solver 1 month ago to News
57 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

This Social Media Justice is getting out of hand.

“Youtube Has Censored My Video About Censorship, Yes Seriously. Recently there was a big story released by James O'Keefe and Project Veritas about Pinterest censoring conservatives. The story was covered by many outlets including far left and leftist digital media.

My video was me reading publicly available information from a website and no new information was revealed. Yet for some reason my video was quietly removed without any notice on youtube.

I only found out because someone emailed asking why I was being censored. The official reason? A Privacy complaint. But from who?

Not only did I get a complaint but James O'keefe and Steven Crowder got complaints. In fact the origianl report has been removed and Steven Crowder got a privacy complaint for interviewing O'Keefe about it.

Social media censorship is now coming for journalism not just commentary. Perhaps this is in result to recent reports, like from Vox, that conservatives are winning the internet. Maybe this wave of censorship hitting Youtube is a result of far left social justice activists taking the only action they have left.”

https://youtu.be/N4E5laxlehY


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 10
    Posted by Lucky 1 month ago
    "Freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government -and nothing else. It does not mean the right to demand the financial support or the material means to express your views at the expense of other men who may not wish to support you."

    If you are reading this on the Gulch you will know who said that.
    Anyone who does not agree, apart from being aggrieved, aggravated, upset, humiliated and suchlike, explain on what philosophical basis it is wrong ....

    (Suggestion, avoid the word censorship, the concept of private property may be useful.)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  1 month ago
      Very good. Although, I still consider what these social media companies are doing as censorship. I do not evade using the word “censorship,” but I do not conflate that with freedom of speech.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
        Subjectively "considering" private property to be "censorship" does justify the contradiction. Refusing to endorse that contradiction is not the "evasion" in this matter.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  1 month ago
          Censorship is the act of censoring.
          I’ll ask the same type of question I asked before.

          Has any private publishing company ever censored anything In any publication they have ever published?

          The question should have a simple yes or no answer.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
            That has been answered several times, such as here https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... Repeating the misuse of the concept 'censorship' over and over, ignoring the contradictions, is non-responsive and is not an argument.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  1 month ago
              For the record you said,
              “Private businesses cannot and do not "censor"

              We are at an impasse.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
                "For the record" exercising one's private property rights is not censorship. Private businesses do not have the power of censorship. Your "impasse" is supporting the contradictory populist demagoguery mixing private choice with government coercion in demanding government interference in the moral right to decide what speech to support or not support.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
      Unfortunately you can't assume that anyone reading that quote on this forum knows who said it. There are militantly populist conservatives here who have little understanding of Ayn Rand and no interest. They frequently erupt in inconsistent, emotional attacks opposing Ayn Rand's ideas, including the principles in Atlas Shrugged, and have no answer to refutations, just militant 'downvoting' and repeated slogans.

      A week ago when this topic came up (on several different threads) I posted a list of articles Ayn Rand wrote about it https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... They have nothing to say, just as they had nothing to say about the content of your post.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Lucky 1 month ago
        Unfortunately - you are right.
        Personally I find much of the behavior of those big corporations real bad, deplorable.
        I hoped to provoke some suggestions:
        - how to pull them in consistent with Objectivism, or,
        - explaining where Objectivism is wrong or inadequate so government powers have to be expanded (and yet controlled?).

        Censorship- one of those words that refers to an action but confined in usage to government, there are a few other words of this type. Also, consider that when government does it the effect is complete within the nation, when done by a corporation the effect is limited to the scope of that corp's activities. You may argue that in some cases that such scope is too large.

        Back in the day I heard nasty stories about IBM marketing, then the same about Microsoft. Even then they were not monopolies. If they were the marketing dirty tricks would have been pointless.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jbrenner 1 month ago
      One premise built into Rand's statement about freedom of speech is that those who slander will receive their just desserts. When slanderers do not, then the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world can abridge freedom of speech quite effectively.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
        Ayn Rand had no such premise preventing legal action against libel and slander or "those who slander will receive their just desserts" without that. Nor could "Ellsworth Tooheys of the world" "abridge freedom of speech" without government power.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by bsmith51 1 month ago
      Those are wonderful words. They were written in a time when the greatest threat to freedom in the world was tyrannical government, and millions striving to live free had been executed by such governments.

      What will be your last words before your execution, not by a government but by the world's largest private utility?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
        The date that Ayn Rand wrote that does not change the difference between government power and private property. Principles are not to be contradicted for political expedience and populist demagoguery.

        But at the time Ayn Rand wrote about censorship, freedom of speech and private property the network news was controlled by three corporations with a 'liberal' bias on government-granted monopolies to the 'air waves'. There was no talk radio presenting views against 'liberalism', and the government Fairness Doctrine preventing the use of private property for freedom of speech was in effect. In 1971 Edith Efron wrote her book The News Twisters describing and documenting the problem of 'liberal' control of news reporting.

        There are far more options for obtaining and disseminating information today on the internet.

        Demagoguery about "the world's largest private utility" "executing" people has no place on this forum.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by bsmith51 1 month ago
          You can make that argument all day long (tell it to Antifa), but your philosophy will do you no good when the left acts on Joe Biden's remarks that it's time to conduct a "physical revolution" against the right.
          I guess in your world the book, 1984, was demogoguery, too. Can you not make the mental leap to a future in which government has been replaced by GoogleFacebookTwitterApple?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
            You guessed wrong. 1984 was not demagoguery. Calling Google "the world's largest private utility" "executing" people is.

            If you don't think Ayn Rand's philosophy is relevant then what are you doing here? Unprincipled pragmatism is not an answer. Your post is non-responsive.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  1 month ago
        Using force to get what they want? Making rules for everyone to follow? Judging and executing people? Acting as a, government?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by bsmith51 1 month ago
          I can visualize a "private" utility working in concert with a tyrannical government to suppress "anti-democratic activities" (think of the Chinese government, now). What constitutes more of a Big Brother, the bunch of hacks in DC playing their stupid political games, or those who create and control every aspect of how every person here communicates and get things done?
          It is said that wealth devolves into complacency and apathy, which devolves into tyranny. What if the tyranny waiting in the wings is the technology that makes the world go 'round, and the people who control it?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  1 month ago
            My greater fear is that these businesses join as a giant intolerant and exclusive political party like the National Socialist Workers Party did. We see that starting now in their hive mind like communications between their far left run “Trust and Safety” divisions.

            But right now, this will likely be a game of economic ping-pong as they keep censoring like a publisher that can be sued. Companies that do this will start being treated as publishers and will be sued. These companies will complain bitterly and stop censoring, as much. Some of these companies will test the waters to figure out how much they can get away with and get sued some more.
            Meanwhile other free market solutions will create new platforms that promote free speech. These platforms for thrive while those that practice censoring as a publisher will be heavy in law suits.
            ...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
              Imposing restrictive laws and encouraging slip and fall lawyers to harass people in order to bludgeon them into compliance with your wishes is not civilized. It is you are destroying freedom of speech.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
            What you say you can "visualize" is not an excuse to encourage government power over private businesses.

            Wealth does not "devolve" into anything on its own. What people do with their wealth depends on their ideas. Technology is not "the tyranny", statist ideas cause that. You are advocating what you claim to fear.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by bsmith51 1 month ago
              OK. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it at that. It seems I've hit a personal nerve for you.
              Drop it.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
                Government force does not allow for "disagreement". Promoting government controls denying freedom of speech promoted with demagoguery is very personal -- against everyone. It has nothing to do with "hitting a nerve", which is more demagoguery and not responsive to rational discussion. Nor is a personal demand to "drop it". You are posting on an Ayn Rand forum in public and subject to response.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 1 month ago
    These days, Big Corporations act like, are structured like, and in many ways, Are government...think Corporate Socialism.

    So yes, whether the Federal Corporation of the United States or the Corporation of Google/youtube, they can censor anything they wish.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
      Anti-corporate misrepresentations like this one claiming they "are government" is more populist demagoguery. The internet companies are not "government".
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 1 month ago
    The common charge by which the Soviet Union sent millions to the gulags and/or to their deaths was: "Anti-Democratic Activities." Chief among these was uttering words incorrectly.

    As the Chad Mitchell Trio said decades ago: "I'm not afraid of atom bombs, said Khrushchev, and they know it. I'm not afraid of anything, except, perhaps, a poet."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 1 month ago
    It seems like the closer to the 2020 election there seems to be a concerted effort by YouTube in censorship. They demonetize Conservative and Right leading channels (some of the ones I subscribe to) first then they delete them because the YouTube managers deem as Hate Speech! I wouldn't be surprised that parent company Google will start doing the same. Unfortunately, the Dem run House won't do anything about this censorship. This seems to be the age of Big Tech controls what we think, shades of Orwell's 1984.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 1 month ago
    "I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

    To demand YouTube put themselves at risk for your financial gains is a violation of the code of Galt's Gulch.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 1 month ago
    "For years, the collectivists have been propagating the notion that a private individual’s refusal to finance an opponent is a violation of the opponent’s right of free speech and an act of “censorship.”

    It is “censorship,” they claim, if a newspaper refuses to employ or publish writers whose ideas are diametrically opposed to its policy.

    It is “censorship,” they claim, if businessmen refuse to advertise in a magazine that denounces, insults and smears them . . . .

    And then there is Newton N. Minow [then chairman of the Federal Communications Commission] who declares: “There is censorship by ratings, by advertisers, by networks, by affiliates which reject programming offered to their areas.” It is the same Mr. Minow who threatens to revoke the license of any station that does not comply with his views on programming—and who claims that that is not censorship . . . .

    [This collectivist notion] means that the ability to provide the material tools for the expression of ideas deprives a man of the right to hold any ideas. It means that a publisher has to publish books he considers worthless, false or evil—that a TV sponsor has to finance commentators who choose to affront his convictions—that the owner of a newspaper must turn his editorial pages over to any young hooligan who clamors for the enslavement of the press. It means that one group of men acquires the “right” to unlimited license—while another group is reduced to helpless irresponsibility."

    "Man’s Rights,”
    The Virtue of Selfishness, 98
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 1 month ago
    We do have somewhat of a free market in social media. Maybe its time to abandon ALL social media sites that engage in ANY censorship of any kind, no matter what.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 1 month ago
    Censorship in any form is repulsive! Who has the right to perform this action? Where did that right come from? Are they a special specie? The thought police? I don't like everything I read or hear and I may complain...censorship doesn't allow that!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  1 month ago
    Imagine a giant corporation called Google owned all the land of Rhode Island and invited anyone to use a small piece to build a home. Then after most of the work was done, most the homes were built, and most of the families businesses were established, the Google corporation started creating and enforcing progressive rules that ejected or demonetized people that they disagreed with, without any detailed explanation or compensation.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 1 month ago
    A private company has no ability to use force and therefore cannot censor you. Only the government can censor. Go read Capitalism: an unknown ideal
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  jbrenner 1 month ago
      I didn't downvote you, but you are completely wrong. Rand's comments regarding private citizens not having the ability to use force and therefore cannot censor you may apply to individuals, but certainly not to companies. I would argue that some companies actually now have more power over the marketplace of ideas than most governmental entities. While no private company can violate the portion of the first amendment regarding freedom of speech because that was written to put limits on governmental entities, we are now living out "Brave New World".

      In a way, Rand refutes her own argument via the character of Ellsworth Toohey. What Toohey did to Gail Wynand's newspaper in The Fountainhead was an example of one individual exciting a mob against another individual to abridge speech.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
        Private companies are individuals. They consist of private individuals. You don't lose your rights or gain government power by voluntarily joining a private organization.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo