This Goes Beyond Censorship: YouTube Over The Past Two Years

YouTube is currently demonizing videos due to comments. This is not just the latest in a long line of censorship, this is also a very convenient way to allow the critics of those who are anti-establishment or in any way different to silence those they don’t like.

On March 24, 2017 — a little under two years ago now — Wall Street Journal ran an article called “Google’s YouTube Has Continued Showing Brands’ Ads With Racist and Other Objectionable Videos.” The article made the claim YouTube had been putting ads on racist videos. What is there evidence? Online screenshots, of course. Here, a YouTuber by the name of 
TheMysteriousMrEnter shows just how easy it is to fake screenshots on the internet.

But they had a source. The software which allowed them to find these screenshots was created by a man named Eric Feinmen. He panted this software by the way, so Google would not be able to use it without paying him billions. The fact this wasn’t a “strike one, you’re out,” for the media should tell you something.

The owner of Wall Street Journal —a man named Rupert Murdoch — has a media empire which he seems to use to defend his right to have more. It is very easy to call him the George Soros of the right, but that doesn’t even start to describe it. Besides the Wall Street Journal, he also owns the British tabloid The Sun. He previously owned (and only stopped owning because it stopped printing) The Weekly Standard, the neoconservative magazine which pushed for war with Iraq nonstop during the Clinton and Bush administrations. He also helped launch the Fox News Channel with the help of Roger Ailes.

While this list of conflicts of interest could go on all day, I will leave you with one more: The Fox News Channel was launched a day short of eight months after President Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act into law.

After that, YouTube went into full force. Demonetization of videos became constant for anyone who talked about news, or anything that could be considered controversial. Unless you were a big corporation.

YouTuber Casey Neistat had his video on the Parkland shooting demonetized, despite his promise all ad revenue would go to a charity to help the victims. They did however allow Jimmy Kimmel to have a call for gun control falsely labeled as a video on the Parkland shooting — where none of the money he or ABC made was even mentioned as possibly going to charity — to remain monetized. They also allowed every major news network to have a monetized video on the shooting.

A YouTuber named Kyle Kulinski — better known as the host of the channel “Secular Talk” — was having all of his videos demonized. One infamous example involved him getting 400,000 views in one day, and getting $1. Oh, and he broke YouTube’s rules by telling his audience this.

This was also in spite of the fact that groups were paying for ads specifically on progressive channels like him. Oh, did I not mention that? Kyle is a progressive social-democrat who opposes the Trump presidency in many areas. This has also happened to many progressive YouTubers, David Pakman being an example.

YouTube has also been caught actively demonizing LGBT related content. This is how you stop hate speech now, by making sure no minorities are on your website to complain about it. Quick question, why are people so up in arms about a small business denying a gay couple a cake, but no one talks about YouTube not allowing the LGBT to make a living (we’ll go into more detail on this later)? Why is one held up as okay but the other gets scorn from media for months on end? Why does firing someone because they are gay get reacted to with boycotts offline but not online?

Or how about the fact that if YouTube finds a super-chat (a message from someone who donated to a YouTuber during a stream) offensive, they just give the money to “charity?” What charity? Wouldn’t you like to know. It’s just some vague charity YouTube is giving money to.

This brings us to the latest YouTube censorship attempt. A woman who was uploading videos on her child doing gymnastics had her videos demonized. When asked why, YouTube said it was because of the comments.

Once again, YouTube is trying to stop hate speech by silencing the people who are victims. What’s stopping a racist from commentating on the videos of a minority, a homophobe on the videos of a gay man, or a sexist on the videos of a woman? Now the bigot has power over the oppressed simply because YouTube tried to stop said oppression.

For that matter, this is clearly YouTube demanding we be the censor. Previously, the comments were a place where the creator set the rules. If the creator wanted Orwell’s nightmare, they could have that. If the creator wanted to allow people to comment whatever they wanted, that was also okay. Now, YouTube is so ashamed of being called bigoted under false pretense they instead wish to go in the other direction, regardless of who it also hurts. YouTube is now forcing you to censor those regardless of rather or not you like what is being said.

They say YouTube is a monopoly, and I must now believe that. Only a monopoly can act this idiotic and not go out of business within a week.