Censorship for thee, but not for me.
That appears to be the mantra on the left, who have so little to say as the social media giants continue the great 2020 election purge, cleansing their platforms of unfavorable content.
Content from many who could have positive influence in the reelection of President Donald Trump.
In a blogpost titled, “Our ongoing work to tackle hate,” YouTube detailed its focus on “four pillars: removing violative content, raising up authoritative content, reducing the spread of borderline content and rewarding trusted creators.
“In addition to removing videos that violate our policies, we also want to reduce the spread of content that comes right up to the line,” the company explained.
The goal being to make YouTube “a safe place for all.”
In what amounts to a further crackdown on “hateful and supremacist” videos, those that don’t quite break YouTube’s rules will now face greater scrutiny and be scrubbed if determined appropriate.
But when this “demonetizing frenzy,” as described by The Daily Caller, swept up the Southern Poverty Law Center, suddenly the left found its voice.
The SPLC is a go-to source for the left because of its liberal assigning of the dreaded “hate group” tag to conservative groups — Christian groups opposing gay marriage is an example of those who can find themselves on a list many in the media swear by.
YouTube, which is owned by Google, decided last week to demonetize the channel of popular conservative star Steven Crowder, who has 3.8 million subscribers. Crowder was accused of using homophobic language in remarks directed at Vox writer Carlos Maza, who is gay. While it was determined that Crowder did not violate YouTube’s terms of service, “egregious actions that have harmed the broader community” were cited in the decision to suspend him.
And this was met with cheers on the left.
But when YouTube’s new convoluted censorship policies swept up a SPLC video of an interview of prominent Holocaust denier David Irving, journalist Max Blumenthal had a hissy.
@YouTube’s political purge, my video report for the @splcenter exposing Holocaust revisionist David Irving as a fascist and fraud historian was removed,” he said. “This purge has already gone well beyond its stated aim. It is carpet bombing style censorship
— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) June 7, 2019
Blumental linked to a Los Angeles Times article reporting on “unintended victims,” that being “researchers and advocates working to expose racist hatemongers.”
Not lost in the liberal journalists hissy fit is that he seemed to be aware a “purge” was underway and was apparently content with it as long as the right people where being targeted.
On another note, it appears we can officially call the ongoing social media cleaning a purge now that the left is on board.
It all brings to mind the famous post- war poem/confession from German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller, “First they came…”
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Here’s a sampling of responses from Twitter that were inevitable for all but the left:
First they came for…
— SETH WEATHERS (@sethweathers) June 8, 2019
. . . until they came for you.
— babsdallas (@babsdallas) June 7, 2019
Laura Loomer and countless others came before this. Maybe if we stood up then, this wouldn’t be happening
— Steph (@steph93065) June 7, 2019
Oh well. Things happen. A journalist was offended so these steps had to be taken. It's for the greater good. Apologies but it had to be done. https://t.co/WaXq4AbK70
— Stephen L. Miller (@redsteeze) June 7, 2019
The law of perfectly foreseeable consequences
In action https://t.co/Rkyg5b8kCx
— Jim Hanson 🇺🇸 (@JimHansonDC) June 7, 2019
Nobody could have predicted this… NOBODY! https://t.co/f84rY938L2
— Pradheep J. Shanker (@Neoavatara) June 8, 2019
Maybe (just a thought) this is evidence for the argument that free speech, in all its aggravating, offensive glory, should be the default.
Because controlling for "acceptable" speech will always suck. https://t.co/RpJFisMEuz
— J.D. Tuccille (@JD_Tuccille) June 8, 2019
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
- Did Sunny Hostin just admit on air to breaking the law by voting for her son? - November 8, 2022
- Stacey Abrams justifies trailing in the polls by suggesting black men are too stupid to back her - November 7, 2022
- Kevin McCarthy has message for Pelosi telling Dems to ‘change the subject’ away from inflation - October 24, 2022
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.