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

Posted by Solver 5 years, 11 months 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

All Comments

  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    For the record you said,
    “Private businesses cannot and do not "censor"

    We are at an impasse.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How ironic that the demagoguery claiming that youtube "censors" is posted on youtube.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Thinkspot is not "testing the concept" of not censoring, as if that had never been done. They will, however, find it necessary to not allow some to use their platform.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Subjectively "considering" private property to be "censorship" does justify the contradiction. Refusing to endorse that contradiction is not the "evasion" in this matter.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Private companies do not have the power of censorship. The right to "perform the action" of what ideas to support comes from private property.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Anti-corporate misrepresentations like this one claiming they "are government" is more populist demagoguery. The internet companies are not "government".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 5 years, 10 months 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months 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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 years, 10 months 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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/eco...

    "You had said that you saw no difference between economic and political power, between the power of money and the power of guns—no difference between reward and punishment, no difference between purchase and plunder, no difference between pleasure and fear, no difference between life and death. You are learning the difference now." -Galts speech.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo