They believe they have a right and duty to keep you ignorant

Your choices are being limited by people on the left side of the political spectrum who prevent you from hearing alternative points of view because you might think these other views are actually correct. If they thought you would never agree with them, they would not try to stop you from hearing what these other points of view are.

It is an astonishing arrogance that Google, twitter, Facebook, and other forms of social media – the “they” in the heading – believe they have the right and the duty to keep you from hearing other people’s opinions.

Open debate is the only defence against wrong opinion. Google stops you from hearing the truth at least some of the time, and perhaps as much as half the time. We should not put up with it. Totalitarians keep you from hearing other opinions that they do not agree with. Their aim is to take your freedom from you as best they can by preventing you from hearing opinions they do not think you should be allowed to find out.

Funny enough, you can find both Mein Kampf and The Communist Manifesto on Google, as you should. You just can’t find all of the videos from PraegerU,

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to They believe they have a right and duty to keep you ignorant

  1. pbw

    Steve, Steve, what are you worrying about? The market will sort it out, over time. Ask Sinc.

  2. Rafe Champion

    Interesting how hard it is to find some conservative sites and items on Google. Sometimes you need to know the URl to get there.

  3. Anon

    1. Don’t you get tired of things always being a conspiracy? Youtube is well known for being a bit heavy handed about these matters – it’s something that many video bloggers complain about. This isn’t about Prager U.

    2. Given the above, why don’t they just post the videos on another site?

    3. Would you prefer that some sort of authority mandated that corporations did things in a particular way outside of their own policy positions?

  4. Rafe Champion

    Thanks Anon, I am really relieved to know that there are no conspiracies.

  5. Cassie of Sydney

    PragerU would have to be amongst the most tame and least offensive of anything you can find on Youtube. This targeting of PragerU accords with what some conservative and right-wing hosts have been saying recently……that Google, Facebook and Twitter are targeting mainstream libertarian, right-wing and conservative channels and ignoring and leaving alone the extreme right. This proves that what Google, Twitter and Facebook are doing is completely calculated and is designed to squash any mainstream conservative, right-wing and Libertarian opinion. Google and co, currently advised by venal and corrupt organisations like the Southern Poverty Law Centre and the ADL (the ADL is headed by a former Obama hack), know full well that mainstream right of centre voices are more dangerous than anything sprouted by lunatics. Interestingly, leftist Youtube channels are being left alone. This purge is just the beginning. But there will be a fight-back and there will be consequences to this assault of free speech. In the meantime, the only thing to do is to pack up and move to BitChute, Minds and so on. Oh and PragerU are suing Google.

  6. stackja

    Obviously, people who are ignorant, don’t know much. They get their information from MSM.

  7. stackja

    Cassie of Sydney
    #2664667, posted on March 19, 2018 at 11:56 am

    Thanks for BitChute, Minds.

  8. Confused Old Misfit

    It would be a little more acceptable if the various policies of the companies cited above were reflected in their advertising. If, rather than the cute little header Google puts up, the said: “Here are accessible everything in the entire world that WE think you should be able to find!
    If Facebook were to proclaim: Connect with your friends & family (as long as we approve of their opinions)!
    They’ve offered a service. They have every tight to control the terms & conditions of that service. But they have changed those terms & conditions (or how they interpret those terms& conditions) and it is only now, when they have achieved market dominance, that users are realizing how they have changed.

  9. Tel

    3. Would you prefer that some sort of authority mandated that corporations did things in a particular way outside of their own policy positions?

    Unless you have your own special way of reading English, there’s nothing in what Kates has said to indicate a call for any central authority to get involved.

    Seems to me that in a world of free speech, Kates is allowed to publish a negative opinion of google’s behaviour, and he’s found a bunch of real examples to support his claim. Maybe you don’t agree with this negative opinion of google, in which case your attempt to create distraction by bringing up irrelevant junk is unlikely to impress anyone… maybe try finding a counter-example?

  10. Anon

    Not sure that I agree with you Tel. Google / Alphabet (whatever it is that holds youtube these days) is a company that has professional directors and management who can run in it whatever way they want. If you don’t like it, or if you think that it isn’t being run in the search of enough profits, there is a pretty simple response – just don’t invest in it.

    There are hundreds, probably thousands, of competitors to youtube that will publish the Prager U videos – instead of filing suit why not just publish elsewhere? If the concern is that youtube is too big and gets all the attention and the other sites are just also-rans, then that is a totally different issue.

  11. struth

    Cassie of Sydney.
    Thank you so much for telling me about Bitchute.

    I hope you are telling as many as I now will.

  12. Tel

    Anon #2664690,

    You disagree that Kates is entitled to express an opinion of google?

  13. struth

    There are hundreds, probably thousands, of competitors to youtube that will publish the Prager U videos – instead of filing suit why not just publish elsewhere? If the concern is that youtube is too big and gets all the attention and the other sites are just also-rans, then that is a totally different issue.

    Like gays and wedding cakes?

  14. Tim Neilson

    Anon
    #2664690, posted on March 19, 2018 at 12:23 pm

    This is absolutely correct! Free speech means you’re NOT ALLOWED TO CRITICISE CENSORSHIP!!!

    You KNOW it makes sense!

  15. egg_

    I recall when being challenged by the Aristogeiton troll* to show research of negative female behaviour – e.g. infanticide, but even stuff so lame as infidelity, it was difficult to find via Google – the search results were all slanted towards bad male behaviour.
    The irony is that some of the top researchers in these fields are females, so their work is basically kept behind the closed doors of research institutions and probably only surfaces when an important finding is reported to the Press – but tough luck should you wish to research same via Google via a general search soon afterwards.
    Julia Gillard would be proud.

    *Implying da great misogyny, of course.

  16. egg_

    Anon
    #2664660, posted on March 19, 2018 at 11:49 am

    So the internal charges of virtue signalling, tokenism and political correctness by Google employees isn’t represented in their search engine results?
    Get.a.grip.

  17. Leaving out Twitter, which is not worth considering, Google, Facebook and YouTube are ostensibly monopolies. While there are alternatives, they hardly register on the public’s radar. You become anonymous if you decide to go elsewhere. For example, I used to use Vimeo, but it wasn’t until I started posting videos on YouTube that anyone really noticed.

    It’s not enough to say that they are private entities and should be able to do what they want. Where else in this world can private entities operate as they wish when it comes to the way they want to run their business? And I don’t mean doing illegal things, but simply being able to do things like sack useless workers without fear of having to go through court etc. How about not baking a cake for a gay wedding because it goes against the religious beliefs of the baker.

    They are now controlling news, ideas and information, it’s a very significant leap from just maintaining civil discourse.

  18. Cassie of Sydney

    “There are hundreds, probably thousands, of competitors to youtube that will publish the Prager U videos”. Wrong, there are not hundreds or thousands of competitors to youtube.

  19. egg_

    3. Would you prefer that some sort of authority mandated that corporations did things in a particular way outside of their own policy positions?

    Does Google publish their policy positions on political issues?
    Even down to binary Gender-based policy?

  20. egg_

    Anon must have flown in from the alternate clown universe.

  21. Anon

    Okay, here we go…

    Tel at 12.26pm – Of course Kates can express whatever opinion he wants. I’m wondering if what he’s saying makes much sense. What does he actually want google / youtube to do? The people who run those companies have determined whatever policies that they believe are appropriate (whether they are actually appropriate is a totally separate topic). Those companies don’t want to make certain videos available in certain circumstances. Fine – surely you agree that that is okay in some cases, eg, pornography being available to kids. From where I sit, nobody here is being censored – Prager U can go publish its videos elsewhere and there are plenty of sites that will happily host them. What they want is to go to the dance with the prettiest girl, and unfortunately the prettiest girl isn’t very interested. Tough luck – happens to the best of them. As to the topic of those policies being appropriate or not, you and I can go and try to get involved and change them (but frankly that probably won’t be very successful), or you can choose to not be involved with a company that you disagree with (which is pretty easy to do – just don’t own any shares). Clearly the current shareholders think that the management is doing okay, because nobody appears to be seriously pushing for a change.

    Struth at 12.29 – I 100% think that the people who could have very easily gone to a different cake shop but instead decided to sue should have just gone to a different shop. Just because there is a principle to fight for doesn’t mean that you have to go and fight – the only thing they achieved is that they galvanised everyone’s positions, wasted everyone’s time and money, and give their 15 seconds of pointless fame.

    Tim at 12.30 – Whose speech is being restricted? It’s the forum that is restricted, not the speech. If I turn up at your house and start saying things to offend you then you can kick me off your property. Youtube can do it too. They aren’t telling Prager U to stop saying it, they are just telling them that on youtube they can only say it subject to certain restrictions. As I’ve said, plenty of websites will let them say whatever they want with no restrictions and youtube will not have any issue with that at all.

  22. Cassie of Sydney

    And Anon, what about the hundreds and probably thousands of other bakers out there? I would wage a bet that there are more bakers in the USA than there are tech platforms.

  23. mh

    Liberty Quote

    Bend over libertarians, open your theory books and get ready to scream “this wasn’t meant to happen” or “you’re doing it wrong” or “if you look at page 59, you can’t actually be doing this” as the communist fist is shoved up hard.

    — struth

  24. Stimpson J. Cat

    Delete Your Facebook – Poppy.

  25. duncanm

    Anon– what you say makes sense, but I think you’re reading something into Steve’s post that isn’t there (as are others on this thread).

    If I read it correctly — he’s criticising their arrogance in ‘knowing better’… not their right to filter as they want, nor claiming there is some conspiracy (well, no more of a conspiracy than occurs when a bunch of lefties get in a room and have a circle-jerk. Sort of like lav prod).

  26. Anon

    Cassie, my point is that youtube is not censoring anyone. They are saying, if you want to publish on my platform, you follow my rules. That is perfectly fair and quite frankly I think that it would be a far bigger problem for most people on this blog if someone could force them to publish things that they did not want to, or to publish things in a way that they did not want.

    As for the bakers, I don’t think that a baker should be forced to make a cake for a customer if he doesn’t want to. If my employer brought in a new client that I had a deep fundamental opposition to, then I wouldn’t want to work for them. But by all means, someone else can. The people who wanted the cake should have just gone to another shop.

  27. JohnA

    A number of my friends (Christian conservative, culturally aware) have become fed up with Farcebook and moved to MeWe

  28. egg_

    If I read it correctly — he’s criticising their arrogance in ‘knowing better’… not their right to filter as they want,

    If Google are to apply search filters, presumably their search algorithms are based on past searches/browsing by the user – particularly if browsing via Chrome?
    Why should Google’s political slant enter the arena at all, if it’s a commercial enterprise?
    ‘Rednecks’ need corralling or something?

  29. Neenee

    I have been following two threads in the US, #internetbillofrights and Net Neutrality Bill 2017. There are arguments for and against both proposals, but at least they are having a mature debate. I’m not sure that many of the comments here can be so described,

  30. duncanm

    Why should Google’s political slant enter the arena at all, if it’s a commercial enterprise?
    ‘Rednecks’ need corralling or something?

    ‘why’ is anyone’s guess — and their business, not your’s or mine.

  31. Tel

    Cassie, my point is that youtube is not censoring anyone. They are saying, if you want to publish on my platform, you follow my rules.

    Sorry but that’s total BS, and I’m fairly sure you know it too.

    Google have never put forward a clear set of rules that says they refuse to host content based on political opinion, and yet there’s strong evidence that this is exactly what they do. They often use algorithm shifts to silently hide videos without contacting the owner of the video and without openly discussing the tricks they deploy. When they do explicitly contact the owner of the video, in many cases they refuse to provide any information about what was wrong with the video, and refuse to listen to any questions about this.

    So in a nutshell, google does not even follow their own rules.

    What’s more, if google did openly admit their political bias, they would lose their “common carrier” protection and become legally liable for all content. That’s how US law works, so those are the rules google has agreed to follow. If anyone can consistently collect proof of the bias (and the data is growing) suffice to convince a court, they could potentially sue google for illegal political activity.

  32. mh

    CNN is Directly Lobbying YouTube to Shut Down Infowars

    CNN is now directly lobbying for YouTube to terminate Infowars from its platform entirely, with the news network brazenly admitting as much in an article published today.

    The piece, entitled, How the Florida school shooting conspiracies sprouted and spread, notes how an Infowars video questioning whether Parkland school shooting survivor and now anti-gun activist David Hogg was being coached on what to say during interviews was removed by YouTube.

    CNN then relates how it “identified three similar YouTube videos from InfoWars” which were brought to YouTube’s attention for potential removal. A YouTube spokesperson responded that those videos were also now under review.

    CNN then openly acknowledges that the goal behind this lobbying effort is to have the Infowars YouTube channel permanently terminated.

    In other words, CNN, a news organization, is now actively lobbying for a third party hosting platform to censor and shut down another news organization simply for offering a different perspective.

    CNN subsequently devoted an entire article to the lobbying effort entitled InfoWars is two strikes away from being banned from YouTube.

    This is the culmination of almost a year of media-driven moral panic concerning YouTube.

    Having lost the political argument, the legacy media is now turning to censorship in an attempt to silence alternative and competing voices…..

  33. Diogenes

    They are saying, if you want to publish on my platform, you follow my rules.

    Fine and dandy, but the problem arises when the rules are being selectively invoked as is very very much evident. A video posted by a {insert whatever this weeks correct term of melanin enhanced persons } saying ‘kill all the whiteys’, is left alone , yet a very mild ‘maybe we should rethink immigration from Somalia’ is taken down, when the former is very much against the T&Cs, yet the latter is very much borderline .

    It is the double standard that is galling and scales are definitely weighted against anything even remotely to the right of Jo Stalin.

  34. Iampeter

    believe they have the right and the duty to keep you from hearing other people’s opinions.

    They certainly have the right as its their property. That’s pretty muc the end of issue right there for anyone who is actually not a leftist. Private enterprise cannot censor you only the government can do that.
    Once again though with the Prager lawsuit and the general attack on the property rights of tech companies proves that conservatives are not an alternative to the left.

  35. struth

    Anon, I agree with you in principle.
    In theory, and I am sure that further on down the track it will come to this. Using competitors.
    However, theoretically no one is forced to use any.
    I get that.
    However, I have not wanted to start up a facebook page but really had to for my business.
    They not only discriminate against private but also business users as this clip demonstrates.
    In a road toll situation, only allowing the left wing drivers to use the road, while it’s alternative is a goat track taking hours longer, gives the left a distinct advantage.
    This is discriminatory.
    It’s discrimination that you would disagree with if all of a sudden they came out and said only whites could post on youtube.
    It’s no different.
    There are discrimination laws that would be where I would be looking to sue.
    Use their own standards back at them.

  36. struth

    The theorists here will think it’s all a lovely level playing ground and their monopoly existence just happened………………………………………………

    It’s the same as the free trade argument as before.
    No wants to ask why they are such a monopoly………………………………………..

  37. egg_

    The theorists here will think it’s all a lovely level playing ground and their monopoly existence just happened………………………………………………

    It’s the same as the free trade argument as before.
    No wants to ask why they are such a monopoly………………………………………..

    Nailed it.
    Google’s acquisition of YouTube probably should have been outlawed.
    Thank gawd TheirABC is not dictating ISP policy here – yet.
    The same tards who support Google would be outraged if their ISP blocked access to many of their favourite sites.

  38. The BigBlueCat

    JohnA
    #2664748, posted on March 19, 2018 at 1:04 pm
    A number of my friends (Christian conservative, culturally aware) have become fed up with Farcebook and moved to MeWe

    I can understand why, but I am also of the view that unless we can see and respond to what the left does and says, then we are capitulating to their point of view. I would much rather we continue to challenge their viewpoint with facts and logic, even though we know we get pushback. It’s not the ones that pushback that we’re trying the help, but the silent others who read the posts and conclude that the leftist viewpoint is seriously wanting.

    I think the recent announcements by Shorten and Bowen re: tax refunds for fully franked shares is a case in point. Clearly this attacks small individual investors with no deductions, and also smaller SMSF’s rather than the rich ones. In my experience, the leftists will consistently toe the party line and will ignore the logic, even when the numbers are presented to them (which they often struggle to understand). But for the many who don’t respond, perhaps they will see the logic and reasoning, and perhaps their loyalty to the party will wane. We can hope and pray they change their tune.

    Keep up the good fight!

  39. egg_

    Why should Google’s political slant enter the arena at all, if it’s a commercial enterprise?
    ‘Rednecks’ need corralling or something?

    ‘why’ is anyone’s guess — and their business, not your’s or mine.

    M’kay – will Trump666 launch deplorable.net search engines inc. and poach Google staff?
    Eff Google Ads and put in some odd browsing and searches via robots to screw with Google’s algorithms?
    Go Ruskis!

  40. John Brumble

    Some seem to be struggling with the difference between “censorship” and “in-contravention of American Constitution First Amendment Rights.”

  41. Youtube Twatter Fakebook etc are CARRIERS just like phone companies are. They carry communications.
    Unless I’m breaking a law, they don’t have the right to censor me from expressing my right wing Neanderthal opinions to another right wing Neanderthal.
    Did Telecom have a right to shut my phone down because of my opinions?
    Being a private business is no excuse for discrimination.

    If these tech companies want to restrict or censor, that’s fine BUT THEY CAN’T THEN CLAIM TO BE CARRIERS and therefore would be legally liable for ALL content on their services. They’d go broke overnight from law suits.

    Newspapers are not carriers. They are liable for anything they print. TV stations are not carriers, they are liable for opinions uttered on their service.
    Tech companies want to behave like newspapers and TV stations yet they want the law to treat them like carriers.
    They want it both ways. I say no way.

  42. closeapproximation

    FB, Google, Microsoft, Apple.

    All getting too big, with too much centralization of personal data and control of information channels.

    So far has worked out OK, but cracks starting to appear.

    Blockchain on the scene just in time. Expect next gen clones of FB, Google Drive, Twitter et. al. built with distributed crypto technology like Blockstack

  43. They are now controlling news, ideas and information

    That’s been the plot for a couple of Bond movies IIRC.
    I’m not sure if it is culture driving entertainment or vice versa.

  44. tgs

    Unless you have your own special way of reading English, there’s nothing in what Kates has said to indicate a call for any central authority to get involved.

    Kates has repeatedly called for social media companies to be regulated as if they were public infrastructure/common carriers, for example here and here. So it’s probably not all that much of a stretch to assume that’s the tack he’s taking with this post.

    I’m not convinced by this argument given that there are plenty of competitors to search engines (many conservatives and libertarians have already moved to duckduckgo in response to recent complaints with google for example.

    Social media platforms are more interesting but I can’t help but think the argument that once a social media platform reaches critical mass it therefore becomes a public utility is somewhat simplistic. By that logic as soon as any technological platform reached a certain amount of users it would then be fair game for intrusive government regulation – surely not a good outcome.

  45. egg_

    Blockchain on the scene just in time. Expect next gen clones of FB, Google Drive, Twitter et. al. built with distributed crypto technology like Blockstack

    Just as Google used unfolding technology against its competitors, so can others.

  46. duncanm

    Once again though with the Prager lawsuit and the general attack on the property rights of tech companies proves that conservatives are not an alternative to the left.

    well, yes and no.

    My understanding of the Prager lawsuit was to force disclosure of Youtube’s actual policies and internal procedures vs. their published ones.

  47. Cassie of Sydney

    I use Duckduckgo now and it is very good.

  48. Jannie

    I do not use Google unless I want to look up MSM type issues. My default search engine is DuckDuckGo which seems to give a wider scope and different results. Its hard to tell for sure.

    You tube is good to access various documentary stuff, but I don’t know what I am missing.

  49. Cassie of Sydney

    “My understanding of the Prager lawsuit was to force disclosure of Youtube’s actual policies and internal procedures vs. their published ones”. Yes and I hope that PragerU is successful. Because it will be interesting to unearth whatever Google and Youtube’s actual policies and internal procedures are and expose how they are using them. It is becoming quite clear that the new algorithms are targeting right of centre channels and leaving left of centre channels alone. They may well have that right however they need to be consistent and transparent.

  50. Duckduckgo is basically an aggregator, it scours Google, Bing, Yahoo etc and filters/combines results that it gets from those services. The only difference is that it doesn’t (supposedly) collect user information. It’s also not always as comprehensive as Google (unfortunately).

  51. Gary

    As a consumer I have the option to switch but I also have a right to complain and sue if the product is defective or in YouTube case not being consistent with its own terms of service.

    Why are Iampeter/ Anon being selective with the libertarian bible?

  52. egg_

    Youtube Twatter Fakebook etc are CARRIERS just like phone companies are. They carry communications.

    They should at least fall under the same guidelines as ISPs.
    Our Economics brethren need some educatin’ in public networks – teh intarweb.

  53. egg_

    Who will Google silence next?

    Clayton Bigsby?

  54. testpattern

    Detained and interrogated for insulting Gusmao on Facebook. No wonder Julie Bishop is being so nice to him.

    ‘Ema Nain 2 Tolok Xanana Iha FB, Submete Ona Ba Prosesu Investigasaun’

    https://timoragora.blogspot.com.au/2018/03/ema-nain-2-tolok-xanana-iha-fb-submete.html

  55. Iampeter

    As a consumer I have the option to switch but I also have a right to complain and sue if the product is defective or in YouTube case not being consistent with its own terms of service.

    Why are Iampeter/ Anon being selective with the libertarian bible?

    You can’t sue re anything in the TOS because you have no right to any of YouTube’s services. The TOS is not some contract both parties negotiated and countersigned, it is simply the terms YouTube set forth that you agree to unconditionally or you don’t use their service. They can be whatever YouTube wants and they can change them whenever and however they want and if you don’t like it, don’t agree to them and don’t use their services. It’s not wise for YouTube to annoy their users by constantly changing them and not applying them consistently but no rights are violated by this and so there’s no legal issue here and trying to sue YouTube on these grounds is exactly the same as suing a baker for refusing to make a cake for your gay wedding.

    Now if YouTube took your money and signed a contract to create a stream of ads and then banned those same ads because they breached their TOS or something (I believe there is actual examples of this, but no one has actually sued) then you have a legitimate breach of contract and at the least there should be compensation if not damages. But “not being consistent with its own terms of service” is not a thing, since they’re not negotiable and are whatever one party wants them to be.

  56. Tel

    My understanding of the Prager lawsuit was to force disclosure of Youtube’s actual policies and internal procedures vs. their published ones.

    The trouble is, that Google has signed Non-Disclosure Agreements with a large number of other entities such that they cannot now explain openly what they have been up to (and very likely if they did, it would blow their “Common Carrier” status, which would be a disaster for their business).

    http://dailycaller.com/2018/01/19/google-youtube-censorship-demonetize-hate-speech/

    More than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies around the world help police YouTube for extremist content, ranging from so-called hate speech to terrorist recruiting videos.

    All of them have confidentiality agreements barring Google, YouTube’s parent company, from revealing their participation to the public, a Google representative told The Daily Caller on Thursday.

    A handful of groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and No Hate Speech, a European organization focused on combatting intolerance, have chosen to go public with their participation in the program, but the vast majority have stayed hidden behind the confidentiality agreements. Most groups in the program don’t want to be publicly associated with it, according to the Google spokesperson, who spoke only on background.

    YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program goes back to 2012, but the program has exploded in size in recent years amid a Google push to increase regulation of the content on its platforms, which followed pressure from advertisers. Fifty of the 113 program members joined in 2017 as YouTube stepped up its content policing, YouTube public policy director Juniper Downs told a Senate committee on Wednesday.

    The third-party groups work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, Downs said and a Google spokesperson confirmed. First, they are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the partner groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers who design the algorithms policing YouTube but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.

    It’s not just terrorist videos that Google is censoring. Jordan B. Peterson, a professor known for opposing political correctness, had one of his videos blocked in 28 countries earlier this month. A note sent to Peterson’s account said YouTube had “received a legal complaint” about the video and decided to block it.

  57. Tel

    Now if YouTube took your money and signed a contract to create a stream of ads and then banned those same ads because they breached their TOS or something (I believe there is actual examples of this, but no one has actually sued) then you have a legitimate breach of contract and at the least there should be compensation if not damages. But “not being consistent with its own terms of service” is not a thing, since they’re not negotiable and are whatever one party wants them to be.

    A contract legally is a “meeting of the minds” it does not need to be signed. Content providers put time and effort into producing valuable content, as evidenced by the ability for some YouTube channels to get large audiences and to make money via advertising. YouTube provides up-front documentation regarding acceptable usage, and offers to host the content. The content provider agrees… that’s a meeting of the minds, and thus a contract.

    The following link is about using bogus copyright claims as takedown munition, which is not exactly the same as taking down political speech but anyhow it’s pretty similar in terms of mysterious accusation of TOS breach without explanation, refusal to communicate and ripping off the content provider. Ultimately we won’t ever know why this site was taken down, could have been political, could have been a grudge because someone’s feelings got hurt.

    https://www.maxlaumeister.com/blog/google-is-deleting-your-favorite-youtube-videos/

    Doug Walker qualifies for YouTube email support because his channel is watched an average of over 160 viewer-hours per day (15k hours per 90 days). So he emailed YouTube to ask why this copyright strike disabled his entire channel’s monetization privilege, when previous copyright strikes had only affected the video containing the alleged copyright infringement.

    After contacting support on January 5th (support claims that they respond within 24 hours), Doug Walker waited 3 weeks for a response, all the while not making any money from his entire YouTube channel. Finally on January 28th, he posted a video titled “What The Hell YouTube” where he shared that YouTube was not responding to his support request and that they had cut off his revenue stream.

    Within 4 hours after Doug aired his video “What The Hell YouTube”, YouTube decided to restore monetization on his channel.

    The next day, Doug posted a video titled “What The Hell YouTube? Part 2” about how his channel was back to normal, but that he believes his experience underscores a bigger problem with YouTube’s support process. In the video, Doug argues that there needs to be a big change in how YouTube treats its content creators:

    I might point out that YouTube continues to benefit from the online content during the time they are refusing to pay the content provider.

    Another point: when fairly big-name people (like Jordan Peterson) explain in public how they have been blocked, and get a bit of attention onto the issue, quite often YouTube will back down (again, without explanation) and switch them back on again. So getting on blogs and complaining about this behaviour is not only legitimate use of free speech, it is also effective (on a case by case basis) to get YouTube to reinstate the channels. This to me says YouTube is somewhat sheepish about getting dragged out into the light with their censorship, and it’s worth keeping public awareness focused on them.

  58. egg_

    Now if YouTube took your money and signed a contract to create a stream of ads and then banned those same ads because they breached their TOS or something (I believe there is actual examples of this, but no one has actually sued) then you have a legitimate breach of contract and at the least there should be compensation if not damages. But “not being consistent with its own terms of service” is not a thing, since they’re not negotiable and are whatever one party wants them to be.

    What if someone embeds malicious software in an uploaded YouTube video that infects YouTube itself?

  59. Iampeter

    A contract legally is a “meeting of the minds” it does not need to be signed. Content providers put time and effort into producing valuable content, as evidenced by the ability for some YouTube channels to get large audiences and to make money via advertising. YouTube provides up-front documentation regarding acceptable usage, and offers to host the content. The content provider agrees… that’s a meeting of the minds, and thus a contract.

    What this is missing is that you have no right to anyone’s product or services. You have no right to YouTube’s platform. If you want to use it then you have to agree to their one-sided, non-negotiable TOS, which they have the right to change and apply however they want. That’s it. There’s no way around this if you respect individual rights and in this case specifically property rights.
    What you don’t get to do is use someone’s services free of charge and dictate terms to them about how they are to provide those services to you under cover of “meeting of the minds” and threat of lawsuit. That’s just expropriation.
    Now one could hypothetically argue that if you have a conservative media group, billing itself as a place with alternative ideas to the left and calling itself a University and then have all these videos claiming to be on the side of capitalism and then engage in a blatant, socialist attempt to violate a companies property rights, then one could argue a “meeting of the minds” has been breached and if anyone gave any money then those people would be well within their rights to ask for their money back and sue if required.

  60. Iampeter

    Another point: when fairly big-name people (like Jordan Peterson) explain in public how they have been blocked, and get a bit of attention onto the issue, quite often YouTube will back down (again, without explanation)

    I don’t disagree with any of these points and I even agree they are incredibly stupid on the part of YouTube, but I think this is a consequence of the first time in history these kinds of “content policy” issues have been encountered by any business and everyone is muddling through it as best they can. I doubt there’s a conspiracy here just from my own experiences.

    Having said that, even if there was, YouTube has every right to do what they are doing and those of us who are not leftists must be on the side of their property rights. PragerU has failed and the conservative movement (as always) has not only failed but are actively making leftists arguments to regulate private enterprise while still claiming to be an alternative to the left.

  61. Gary

    Iv had plenty of legal advice to be consistent with my own terms of service. A Pub can say “no shirt no shoes no entry” but if its selective then it can be sued for discrimination. (I’m not claiming to own a pub)

    [youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4?ecver=1&w=854&h=480%5D

  62. Iampeter

    Iv had plenty of legal advice to be consistent with my own terms of service. A Pub can say “no shirt no shoes no entry” but if its selective then it can be sued for discrimination.

    Yes I understand but what separates those of us on the right from the left is that we support the right of individuals to discriminate. We might not like it, but that’s the price of living in a free (ie rights protecting) society.

  63. Gary

    Iampeter

    For all I not you could be like those 70’s evangelist who’s private life is lot different to what they preach.

  64. Tel

    What this is missing is that you have no right to anyone’s product or services. You have no right to YouTube’s platform. If you want to use it then you have to agree to their one-sided, non-negotiable TOS, which they have the right to change and apply however they want. That’s it. There’s no way around this if you respect individual rights and in this case specifically property rights.

    Contracts modify property rights all the time. That’s the whole purpose of such things.

    Whether the “change when we feel like it” aspect of their TOS takes precedent over the property rights of the content provider depends on what the courts decide, that’s why we have courts. Plenty of times courts have come to decisions about who contributed what and ruled that one or other party cannot just squib out on what they had previously offered, or even what was implied as an offer.

  65. Iampeter

    Contracts modify property rights all the time. That’s the whole purpose of such things.

    Contracts protect the rights of all the parties involved, they don’t modify rights, nothing can do that. Prager has no contract with YouTube and is not entitled to use their services. YouTube has every right to refuse him service for any reason whatsoever. Just like the Christian baker has every right to refuse a same sex couple’s request for a wedding cake.
    It’s black and white.
    Everything else is just semantics to support violating property rights without having to admit that’s what you’re doing.

  66. Howard Hill

    Unless you have your own special way of reading English, there’s nothing in what Kates has said to indicate a call for any central authority to get involved.

    Unless you have your own special way of reading English, there’s nothing in what Anon has said to indicate that Kates has called for any central authority to get involved. In this particular occasion, anyway. Just sayin!

    IAW Anon and Iampeter.

    Google directors are entitled to run their business how the see fit. If you don’t like their product, then use another, there are alternatives.
    Forcing the heavy hand of government to put a gun to their heads because you don’t have the courage to do it yourself is how we’ve got into this socialist mess.

  67. Tel

    Unless you have your own special way of reading English, there’s nothing in what Anon has said to indicate that Kates has called for any central authority to get involved.

    What do you make of this then? (Anon #2664660)

    Would you prefer that some sort of authority mandated that corporations did things in a particular way outside of their own policy positions?

    I’m pretty sure that was intended as a response to Kates, and “some sort of authority mandated” has a bit of a central authority suggestion to it. True, it might be an unelected sub-department and we could quibble over the meaning of “central” but clearly he isn’t talking about normal rule of law and even handed justice here.

  68. Howard Hill

    Would you prefer is a question, not a claim.

    I’m pretty sure that was intended

    Dunno; I don’t assume anything as I can’t read minds so I read it as a question.

    To my mind he was asking Kates if that’s what his post was implying?

  69. Kneel

    “YouTube has every right to refuse him service for any reason whatsoever.”

    YouTube’s rights (and duties) are restricted if they claim “Common Carrier” status. Part of the limitation of rights and foray into duties as a common carrier is the limitation of both the right to what content is made available and what censorship rights they have – they can choose to either be responsible for the content and thus have censorship rights, or they can waive their censorship rights and at the same time gain protection from what he content actually is. They can’t have the best of both worlds, they need to choose if they are a Common Carrier or not – if they chose to be a common carrier they give up their right to censor content (other than as directed by law), if they chose otherwise, they are responsible for ALL content they provide.
    They appear to be currently wanting to censor and still claim common carrier status – they will eventually be forced to choose one or the other, if for no other reason than a law suit.

  70. Louis

    Yeah but how long before they take all that information they collect and use it to end conservatives’ employment or nomination for appointment?

  71. egg_

    Youtube Twatter Fakebook etc are CARRIERS just like phone companies are. They carry communications.

    The youthful economics ignorami present are probably blissfully unaware of the US (and our own) Carriers monopoly breakup for competition purposes and Google should have been blocked from acquiring YouTube – hopefully, unfolding technology will create more diversity in the marketplace to the current rule of censorial behemoths.

Comments are closed.