Wednesday, December 5, 2018

YouTube Censors John Stossel Video on Socialism; Blocks Youth

John Stossel
It is getting worse.

Now they are going after John Stossel, whose career has spanned both ABC News and Fox Business Channel.

Stossel reports that YouTube informed him that one of his videos, a video about socialism leading to violence, would not be allowed to be viewed by young people.

This morning Google told me that it would not allow my YouTube video "Socialism Leads to Violence" to be viewed by young people. It violates "community guidelines," said the company in a computer-generated email.https://t.co/tekS4PBIvi
-RW 

16 comments:

  1. So... Tell me again why "private entities" censorship is not as dangerous as state censorship.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go build your own internet Cap! Ha!

      Delete
    2. It may be just as dangerous -- but it is not a rights-violating act.

      Delete
    3. I think that there's a difference in terms of consequences, in two ways.

      If the state censors you, and you violate that censorship, you can be thrown into a cage and/or your property can be seized. On the other hand, if a private entity censors you, you are free to try to get your material published elsewhere.

      In addition, if people object to the state's censorship, there is very little that they can do to change things. If the people object to a private entity's censorship, they can boycott that entity and patronize competitors.

      Delete
    4. The state brings a gun and a cage to the discussion.

      Delete
    5. The USA censors by making select private corporations the only means by which one will be heard by the masses. Through licensing, various regulation, subsidies, and more these companies that play ball are elevated to powerful market positions. Then the government is repaid through censorship, CIA writers on the payroll, etc and so on.

      Then most people when they notice the censorship go 'but it is a private company'.

      It's a very effective system. The issue is getting the interweb under the same level of control they had back in the 1970s. See you can have your snail mail newsletter so you're not censored.

      Delete
    6. @Jimmy Joe Meeker

      But is that really true of internet websites? I mean, sure, you have the occasional Silk Road, and DMCA is a pain in the butt, but for the most part, there's not a ton of regulatory compliance overhead involved in owning a web domain and publishing content.

      Sadly, I fear that the greater problem is not so much the supply of truth, but rather the demand for it. And that's a much tougher nut to crack.

      Delete
    7. A website lives at the whim of various services. From the giant regulated telcoms that control the connection to it to the data center the server sits in. And if you don't even own your own server then it there's the hosting service. Lets not forget the payment services either.

      The moment it is decided you're too much trouble the hosting service drops you and no other will take you. So you put your own server in a data center and the same thing eventually happens. Your server becomes homeless. Then you make your own data center but you can't get a line from any provider or telcom. You can't lay your own fiber because you don't have the required licenses, permissions, and rights of way. Let alone be able to plug it into the network somewhere. Or the payment services deny you and you can't make your own because of financial regulations, your operation has to run through checks in the mail until you get flagged in the banking system.

      It's all private companies all along the way but these companies are regulated and do as government tells them. Once you're marked and consider worth the effort you'll be back to a snail mail newsletter eventually. Sure you have a right to that. You can keep that. For now.

      We're just supposed to trust things won't be that way. I think we are slowly learning it is that way.

      Delete
  2. No one really had the balls to call this censorship front line censorship because no one wants to state unequivocally that MSM is state media which has been the pure truth for a few decades now. When it comes to media we are already as bad as many dictatorships socialist states and steadily marching toward all encompassing totalitarianism!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Sherlock, Jule and Napster,

      Shegottawideload answered for me. And very well, I might add.

      At one time I would have agreed with you, but granting the state sponsorship of these "media", I think that time is past.

      Delete
    2. I sympathize with your last sentence. I was being more thsn a bit tongue in cheek. Private ownership doesn't make behavior acceptable. What we have today is backroom Italian style facism.

      Perfect answer Shegottawideload

      Delete
    3. Capn Mike, while I agree that private media companies have a symbiotic relationship with the state, it is still the case that if you try to go around this media you are not subject to the violent sanctions that follow from trying to go around true state edicts. There is no personal danger. And alternative sites as outlets for alternative views have a habit of springing up all the time to challenge the state's control of the MSM, and they're not all shut down. This site, the Mises site, Anti-War.com, plus all the podcasts from our favorite libertarian intellectuals, etc. are all examples of that.

      Delete
  3. What a joke! Stossel may not be perfect, but he certainly points people in the right direction. Google and YouTube are looking more and more "evil", if I can use that word.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since when is Google a "private company"?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Womp womp. Go build your own internet in Ancapistan.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's called fascism/corporatism, i.e. the college level version of socialism. (IOW it's not a free market.) Hence those stuck on the high school level of communism, telling us not to worry.

    ReplyDelete