Liberals cry censorship after YouTube demonetizes SPLC content

Daily Caller: Liberal activists are crying foul after YouTube’s demonetizing frenzy slammed the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization known for labeling conservative groups as hate groups.

A video SPLC published was among those nixed after YouTube announced plans Wednesday to remove videos and content that promote white supremacy. Journalist Max Blumenthal lashed out at the company after the video, which reports on Holocaust denialism, was pulled for violating the new policy.

“In ’s political purge, my video report for the  exposing Holocaust revisionist David Irving as a fascist and fraud historian was removed. This purge has already gone well beyond its stated aim. It is carpet bombing style censorship,” Blumenthal wrote on Twitter Friday.

YouTube used the new policy to demonetize conservative commentator Steven Crowder, citing several inflammatory statements he directed at Vox writer Carlos Maza, who posted several tweets before the policy change urging the company to deplatform Crowder.

Heidi Beirich, director of the SPLC’s Intelligence Project, mirrored much of Blumenthal’s concerns. YouTube needs to weed out bad actors from those who are trying to call out racism and white supremacy. She blamed a sloppy algorithm for the problem.  more here

15 Comments on Liberals cry censorship after YouTube demonetizes SPLC content

  1. Wow, YouTube has stumbled into doing something right! I hope this is the start of a pattern.

    11
  2. More than likely a sacrificial lamb so they can claim objectivity when they’re in front of congressmen.

    18
  3. …I don’t like the racist SPLC either, but it should demonstrate to the Left as much as it does the Right that, at some point, the President just has to declare that YT, FB, Twitter, etc., are acting as publishers, and therefore NOT protected from liability by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.

    …pull that protection.
    …then fix their wagons.

    …they are nothing but illegal campaigners for Democrats at this point, and even if they throw an easy sacrifice like the widely discredited SPLC under the bus as a pretense of “fairness” it is still OVERWHELMINGLY conservative thought they censor, and that will only get WORSE in the run-up to 2020…

    22
  4. I’m with you nightshade but it’ll be long past the next important election before anything is done about them if it happens at all.

    9
  5. “it is still OVERWHELMINGLY conservative thought they censor, and that will only get WORSE in the run-up to 2020…”

    I thought it was only going to be this bad if Hill won. Wow, was I wrong. They have gone full-tilt crazy fascist since then. Out and out blatant antifa tactics and they don’t care how crazy they get.

    They blame the right for every action they take. “They made us do this”.

    Big Tech and social media are weaponized against conservatives. Amazing that the right is growing stronger from it.

    If we only had big media – it would be riots every day and America would be destroyed already.

    6
  6. Liberals? Nah, more like closed minded ideologues who don’t have the first clue what it even means to be tolerant

    Totalitarian assholes don’t have it in them to even be moderately liberal, besides their worldview cannot suffer liberal inquiry.

    Now there’s your “settled science” for ya’ and so far as their other self applied descriptive labels go, it takes idiocy to accept that applying any of their self descriptive labels is anything other than opportunistic manipulation of the language

    10
  7. What part of the algorithm is sloppy? Take 1A and feed it to the robots. I’d like to have a list of companies that don’t agree with 1A and claim “not advertiser friendly,” but I have a feeling YT makes that claim automatically. All YT needs to do is come up with their own modified version of 1A and have it published so all content providers can follow. Currently, everyone needs to violate YT’s 1A to find out via the sloppy algorithm (written by YT) that they are in violation. YT constantly admits their rules are sloppy, so why do they continue to waste everyone’s time with their ineptitude? YT is more wasteful in this regard than the government.

    Feed this directly to the robots, YT:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    Simply change “congress” and “government” to YT departments. It has served our country very well, why get sloppy over re-writing it? The better wheel has already been invented!

    3
  8. I don’t like it. If/when You-Tube, Google, and Facebook merge, the newly formed company will be referred to as “You-Gook”. That’s racist!

    5
  9. Prediction:

    These ‘platforms’ will be GONE in ten years or mere empty vessels of what they once were.

    Our ‘generation’ having not grown up with it has grown tiresome at best. We were introduced to the net all at once seemingly and THEY did it quite seamlessly and we are on the hook.

    The new generation, I do not think will tolerate it much more, given they did grow up with it and will want something new soon!

    There are other platforms ‘out there’, just have to look.

    4
  10. @Left Coast Dan June 8, 2019 at 8:55 am

    > What Facebook, YouTube, Google et al need is competition. People will move to an equivalent platform that doesn’t censor based upon ideology.

    No, they won’t. Because they can’t. Ever.

    “Facebook, YouTube, Google et al” exist, as they are, because they are de facto monopolies. (Like Microsoft, “de facto” is important when bribing “de jure”.) Were there to be effective competition, the ability to extract cash would plummet. For all in competition. People can’t pay the rent by letting other people watch them play video games, when they have to choose between two, otherwise identical, platforms, both of which are making a quarter of what a single monopoly would skim from the same “product”.

    And banksters ain’t gonna let that happen (see “bribing ‘de jure'”).

    2
  11. @Claudia June 8, 2019 at 9:54 am

    > Are these giant social media monopolies publishers or the new public square?

    Since there never was a “public” square (any more than “free” with “reasonable limits”), I’ll have to go with the former.

    1

Comments are closed.