“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

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    In this era and arguably in The Fountainhead, there is no decoupling of economic and political force. They are one entity.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bobsprinkle 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Triple dittos for the forums you mentioned. MAYBE I will watch a youtube every now and then. But, the Facehook and twitter are just idiocy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 years, 10 months 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by BiggestShoelaces 5 years, 10 months 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 5 years, 10 months ago
    I sure wish these people did not refer to themselves as Social Justice Warriors. There movement has nothing to do with justice.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 5 years, 10 months 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Using force to get what they want? Making rules for everyone to follow? Judging and executing people? Acting as a, government?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by bsmith51 5 years, 10 months 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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by PeterSmith 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's not wrong. It's a spot on assessment.
    It's the correct and clearly stated Objectivist position on the issue.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do, and I am using one of them for junk like this.

    Nevertheless, I don't want to provide my email every time I am accessing a site.

    It has a way of haunting and you don't even know where it is coming from.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by exceller 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't like being asked to provide my email.

    We are being monitored 24/7 for any activity and thought.

    I am not signing up for another one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Solver 5 years, 10 months ago in reply to this comment.
    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 | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 5 years, 10 months 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 | Permalink  
  • 10
    Posted by Lucky 5 years, 10 months 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 | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo