Wednesday, October 25, 2017

A Shot Back at Google/YouTube Censorship

By now, everyone has heard horror stories about YouTube refusing to allow some small gun channels, like The Firearms Blog, and Royal Nonesuch to monetize their channels with ads.  I hate ads as much as the next guy, but I understand that for someone with legitimate costs for putting content on YouTube ads may be the only way they can make up some of those costs.  My YouTube channel has been unaffected, as far as I know, but I don't make any attempt to monetize it and it's essentially an extension of this blog.  Aside from a short video of cutting out the fire control pocket on an 80% AR lower, there's no gun content and no political content, so perhaps I'm under their radar.

It's worse than just shutting down small gun video guys; they're also censoring or even refusing to run videos from people with conservative viewpoints, or restricting them to their equivalent of XX rated.  Bill Whittle's channel has posted about this, as have comedian Steven Crowder and others.

The latest to suffer being shoved aside by YouTube is Dennis Prager, whose Prager University produces short, high content videos with a strong moral and conservative viewpoint - what everyone over the age of 40 grew up hearing as "common sense".  Unlike everyone else, Prager apparently has the resources to sue YouTube and Google for discrimination. On his own website, Prager lists a very short explanation:
Little David, PragerU, is taking on the mighty Goliath, Google/YouTube. It’s a free speech issue. Google is restricting over 30 PragerU’s videos for being violent, pornographic and unsuitable for children — no kidding. This is nonsense, of course, the real reason PragerU’s videos are restricted is ideological.
He then links to a longer explanation on Fox Business.
A lawsuit filed Monday evening in federal court in San Francisco says YouTube's more than 30 million visitors a day make the site so elemental to free speech in the digital age that it should be treated as a public forum. The suit argues the site must use the "laws governing free speech, " not its own discretion, to make decisions about what to censor. 
Since last year, more than three dozen PragerU videos -- on subjects including the Korean War and Israel and Palestine -- have been restricted by YouTube. As a result, those who use YouTube in "restricted mode," including students at some universities and children whose parents have put parental control filters in place, are prevented from seeing the videos; all potential ad revenue from the videos is also cut off.
I can't say that I've watched all of PragerU's videos, or even most of them, but calling them violent, pornographic or unsuitable for children doesn't sound like anything I've seen.  PragerU videos may touch on non-PC subjects, like why murder is wrong, or question that some cultures may actually be better than others, but being politically incorrect is not pornographic, nor violent, and may - horror of horrors! - lead children to think.

YouTube, like all online and broadcast media, has been hammered by well-orchestrated campaigns by groups like Media Matters, a far left organization that was founded to destroy Fox News and destroy any media voices they disagree with.  That's not me saying it, that's Fox News' liberal analyst Juan Williams.  And, yes, Media Matters is another one of George Soros' trained monkeys.  They apparently ran the campaign to get Bill O'Reilly kicked off the air, one of their biggest victories. 

One of Media Matters favorite tactics is to threaten companies with boycotts if they advertise with one of those voices they don't like.  If they convince YouTube not to allow those "icky gun videos", they're going to hurt TFB or Demolition Ranch, but Springfield Armory or Savage or any of  the other gun makers are going to still be there.  Their YouTube channels are part of their advertising budget.  They're monetizing YouTube, not the other way around.

Organizations like Media Matters and the rest of Soros' harem have focused world governments on the internet and turned the issue of censorship into government regulation issues - which is just what a globalist like Soros wants.  As Juan Willams says, "There are many words one could use to describe Media Matters but there is one thing they are not: liberal", and he's absolutely right.  They're tyrannical, One World Government types who want power over everyone.  Dictators don't care about your free speech, only their own.

Sharyl Attkisson wrote a very interesting sounding book about Media Matters (among others) and their tactics called, "The Smear", subtitled, "How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think, and How You Vote".  She's a victim of The Smear herself, and it's an interesting interview to hear her talk with Glenn Beck - how Media Matters got him off Fox is part of her book. 

Like it or not, this has turned into an argument over YouTube as a public utility, which invites the heavy hand of government and that almost never ends well.

The swarm of companies that all emerged from or were absorbed into Google - YouTube was one of the first, IIRC.  Now they're collectively called Alphabet.


  1. What's that word the big tech companies like? Net-neutrality? Throw it back in their faces so they can't limit access based on content.

    Good idea? Probably not. But they deserve it.

  2. Says he filed in the gay bay...... This suit is dead before it even starts. There is NO WAY IN HELL a !ibtard court will EVER rule against their holy ally Google and for a conservative. The commie left made sure to infiltrate not just the education system but even more importantly the judiciary. Subverting and corrupting the judiciary means there is no peaceful legal recourse for the conservatives in America. This is seen daily in the repeated rulings from commie judges blocking Trump's orders on limiting immigration from terrorist countries....even though Carter and other presidents have one he EXACT SAME THING.

    1. It is actually a good thing as it means a possible faster track to the Supreme Court. Yes, the Ninth Circus will rule for Alphabet in a ruling that is 180 degrees out from what they would rule if it was a conservative company actually restricting content that is violent, pornographic or unsuitable for children.

    2. The SCOTUS hears only a small fraction of the cases it is presented with. Very frequently they simply refuse to accept cases like this. By not getting involved they get the best of everything. The illegal ruling by the lower court remains in place AND the high court gets to continue pretending they uphold the Constitution.

  3. It is my understanding that Obama appointed over 300 federal judges during his eight years infesting the White House, while very few people noticed. whoever was operating that meat puppet, they knew where the power to control us resides.

    Think about how few cases mis-ruled upon by progressive federal judges will ever make it to the Supreme court to be - possibly - overturned. Damned few.

  4. Alphabet already IS "controlled" by the US government. They get a significant portion of their funding from the Deep State - the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, BATFE, and the rest, who openly browse through their users' records without any need for a warrant. Of course, the same is also true for Facebook, Apple, and at least Microsoft. Public utilities are regulated for a good reason. As are monopolies.

    Now if only the regulators actually CARED about the Mere Citizens, things would definitely be better. But if the Techs at least have to spend resources to defend their actions, those are resources they cannot use for OTHER actions which seek to destroy this country as an independent sovereign nation.

    By the way, didja notice that Billy Gates has finally admitted that his Common Core is a failure? Of course, dear ol' Jeb! and the rest of the Shrub swill have not yet reached that level of honesty...

  5. They need to sue Google/Alphabet/YouTube as a public accommodation. That's the same legal principle that was used to force Christian bakers to make gay "wedding" cakes, and to force people to host a gay "Wedding" on their own property. If you're open to anybody, you must be open to everybody. You don't get to pick and choose. YouTube is not a private club.

    1. The government ought to force you to marry the ugly, smelly, mean girl, because she got in line first.

      Youtube is not a regulated monopoly. Youtube did nothing to apply to become a regulated monopoly. They were merely successful.