3 thoughts on “You-Tube’s New Role as Censor”
You-Tube sent a message announcing that no videos may be posted that alleged fraud or, astonishingly, irregularities of any kind, with the German federal elections – quite obviously we must now trust unconditionally that our governmental processes are without corruption. Most seriously, many previous exposures of malpractice has started with an ‘allegation’ which is then championed by an investigator who proves or disproves. Again, this is censorship.
We’re reaching out to inform you about our elections misinformation policies. We will be applying our election integrity policy to false claims regarding the outcome of the German federal election, once the final results are determined by the Federal Returning Officer.
Key information to know about the election integrity policy:
• Content advancing false claims that widespread fraud, error, or glitches changed the outcome of the German federal election will be removed from YouTube. This applies to false claims concerning the outcome of the German parliamentary (Bundestag) elections, the formation of the new government, or the election and appointment of the next German Chancellor.
• YouTube videos that link to content containing false election outcome claims off of YouTube (e.g. on a third-party video website) will also be removed.
• This policy will only be applied to videos uploaded to YouTube on or after the date on which the final results are determined by the Federal Returning Officer.
• We want to give creators time to get familiar with this update, so we’ll be removing videos that violate this policy without giving a strike to the channel for 30 days after the day the results are determined.
You can read more about our elections misinformation policies in the YouTube help center, which we’ve recently consolidated into a single article here.
We understand that we sometimes make mistakes. If you think that your content doesn’t violate the Community Guidelines and either received a strike or was removed in error, you can appeal following the steps detailed here.
The YouTube Team
YouTube recently removed a video of our Sept. 27, livecast with Jason Yates of My Faith Votes.
During our interview, referring to the recently released report on the audit of 2020 election results in Maricopa County, Arizona, Jason simply expressed the opinion “Isn’t it interesting – there’s a bit of silence happening in the media and even with conservatives . . . there were some really disturbing things that were found that would say there were some discrepancies, or at least concerns, in the operations and processes of that election.” …
…That thoughtful analysis of a story widely reported by mainstream media was apparently enough for YouTube to justify pulling down the nearly hour-long video, the focus of which was primarily Jason’s work motivating Christians to vote and participate in government.
For me, that last line is the really significant one – if Christians voted and participated in government, we would have far better government.
YouTube admits to removing over one million videos in the name of “keeping people safe” from COVID and over 10 million other videos in the first quarter of 2021. Hidden within the defence of this “reasonable” policy, is a new committment to their role as a censor using only “trusted sources” of information and filtering content: You-Tube Press Release. You can easily miss this committment as the writer distracts you with a preamble that disarms you by pretending to be on the side of free speech:
However, immediately following this is a tremendous qualification and a new committment to their role as censor:
All these “investments and innovations” are a committment to censoring material and are designed to cement You-Tube as politically acceptable, indeed a political partner, of the makers and shakers of the political elite. If a “sensible balance” equates to the opinion of government ‘experts’ and consesus science, they are a censor. At one time these platforms were about allowing people to assess the information for themselves and to judge it for themselves, even create it themselves and directly reach their audience, bypassing the big-players. The very concept of an open-platform was because government information or official science were engendered and could not be trusted, the official or approved COVID-sources have repeatedly been demonstrated to be in that category.
The tragedy is people are living in fear unncessarily or are suffering severe side-effects or are dying from a vaccine which in the vast majority of cases they do not need and which is predictably becoming ineffective in the places where it has been used most extensively. It should be no surprise Israel is seeking alternatives to the vaccine (particularly early treatment and prophylactic ues of HCQ, Ivermectin, Vitamin-D, Zinc therapy and similar immune boosters or anti-virals) as the double-vaccinated are now seriously ill in hospital. We should be hearing about this but are not, at one time social-media was a way of getting this information out.
The positive aspect of this is that there are now a number of alternative platforms such as BitChute and Rumble which have made anti-censorship committments. For this reason, there can be some distasteful and unpalatable material on them which detractors like to call ‘far-right’ or ‘conspiracy’ but you can sift through material as you should. If material is unlawful, it can and should be removed, preferably by a self-policing community but what we need to avoid is the above ‘ordering of takedown of material’ that politicians and their allies arbitrarily demand because it is ‘off-message’. If people, including you, start moving onto them to escape censorship from the big-players and this diversifies the market, makes these hosts for less fringe opinion, a viable alternative and helps the cause of free-speech, we can rejoice and be glad!
Acknowledgment: originally brought to my attention through Gary North – Specific Answers