With the Democrats in control of the government, these leftist internet platforms know they have nothing to fear by doing this, that if anything the Democrats controlling Congress will applaud them and encourage them to censor more conservative and Republican outlets, to shut them all down if possible.
Michelle Obama is calling on Silicon Valley to basically institute a full technocracy. She wants Trump perma-banned and policies that would control what politicians can and cannot say online.
“As we shared previously, we do not allow content that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election,” YouTube’s statement read. “This policy applies to videos uploaded on or after December 9.”
The corporate practices by Big Tech companies that shut down Biden scandals are already in place. Government regulations to get rid of free speech are new, but not new for Obama.
Obama had become infamous for having the producer of The Innocence of Muslims thrown into prison after the disaster in Benghazi. “We’re going to have that person arrested and prosecuted that did the video,” Hillary Clinton would tell the father of one of the men killed there, as if a YouTube video had killed Americans and then dragged their bodies through the streets of Libya.
It’s clear however that YouTube’s censorship of election reporting only goes one way, implemented for the first time two years after Imaginary Georgia Gov. Stacey Abrams has repeatedly refuted the results of her lost 2018 gubernatorial race as unfair contrary to the evidence.
Per YouTube, its December 9th decision was guided by its “main goal” of “connecting people with authoritative information, while also limiting the reach of misinformation and removing harmful content.”
In reality, however, the platform will likely axe a host of pro-Trump accounts, as it has done before.
USA Today uses left-wing college interns to censor news media and opinion articles they disagree with, working hand in glove with unaccountable social media giants to suppress it. Newspapers earn a lot of money performing this task for Facebook and its related companies, and are proud of the job they do to police public speech, even bragging about it publicly on social media platforms.
A number of users across Twitter have reported being unable to share links to lawyer Sidney Powell’s lawsuit relating to voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election. When attempting to share the link to the document, users receive a notification stating that the link has been identified as “potentially harmful.”
A slew of measures introduced by the federal government to control online content creates a framework that could be used for censorship, critics warn.
Recommendations in a June 2019 report by the Liberal-dominated justice and human rights standing committee titled “Taking Action to End Online Hate” included “a national database to retain and analyze hate crime and hate incident data.” The report also recommended a “civil remedy,” such as putting hate speech back in the domain of human rights tribunals.
And Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault has stated that stronger regulation is coming.
YouTube deleted two gender-focused episodes of PragerU’s “The Candace Owens Show.” Owens discussed gender and sexuality topics such as the biology of sex and the use of gender pronouns during the podcast. YouTube removed the episodes because they violated the company’s hate speech policy.
It seems the battle about the rights and privileges of transgender Americans has come down to what other people are allowed to say about them. The controversy over Abigail Shrier’s book, “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters,” demonstrates how far this battle has come.
