Stefan Molyneux giving a characteristically passionate analysis of the current wave of YouTube censorship:
His points:
Does this situation herald the beginning of a new day or the end of internet free speech?
He lists a number of 'alternative' YouTubers who have been censored. People who don't stand for the left-wing, politically correct status quo, including JP, Mike Cernovich, Dave Rubin, Sargon of Akkad, Steven Crowder,
Talks about the revolution of the internet as the modern day printing press for the sharing of ideas, particularly in video form.
That historically, it was the Left who were more for free speech and the Right who were more for censorship. That has reversed, now, as existing power-structures are manipulating people, especially young people, into attacking free speech.
That free speech is important because the truth is something that has to be acquired collectively through exploration of ideas, of which all viewpoints should be able to be presented.
That it's difficult to know which ideas are going to bear the best fruit going forwards, and censorship is like saying that you already know what's for the best for all in any scenario. No one can and should have that power of prescience.
He plans to start a new platform where audio and video can be hosted, including pre-existing work.
Asks for donations towards the endeavour.
Tucker Carlson interviews Eric Schiffer and Dave Rubin:
There then follows a report about the Southern Poverty Law Centre. It calls itself the "premier group monitoring hate groups". The centre have a map with dots all over the US showing groups it has identified - 917 of them.
Apple just donated $1m to the centre.
The centre list people like Ben Carson (Republican Politician), Laura Ingraham (political radio commentator and Fox News contributor) and Jeanie Pirro (Republican politician), but NOT ANTIFA.
In the words of the reporter, the centre is a "Left-wing, money-grabbing, slander-machine."
Carlson asks Schiffer how it could be that such an organisation could get end up policing content at the most powerful company in the world. Schiffer replies that it seems at one point, Google were getting criticised for not doing enough to censor actual extremist and terrorist sites, so they've turned to this type of company in order to appear more inclusive or moral, and it's just swung too far in the opposite direction.
He basically just expresses hope that Google will reverse its decision and get rid of Southern Poverty Law Centre and that Google should apologise.
Dave Rubin is kind of a 'former Leftist' who now considers himself more of a centrist. He hosts an interview show on YouTube called The Rubin Report where he interviews people of varying political persuasions.
Recently, YouTube have effectively 'Demonetised' him by not allowing ads on his videos.
Carson asks Rubin why he thinks this has happened to him.
Rubin begins by championing the platform first and foremost, that he wants YouTube to work for anyone and everyone, regardless of what kind of videos they're posting - political or otherwise.
Goes on to say:
Carson then presents a statement from YouTube that contradicts what Rubin says:
Paul Joseph Watson interviews Sargon of Akkad, a centrist philosopher, political/social critic and commentator, and full-time YouTuber who had his Google account suspended recently. After regaining access to the account, Sargon (real name, Carl Benjamin) posted a new video which has been promptly censored in the UK by YouTube:
Sargon has been given no indication by YouTube for reason of his account suspension.
Watson highlights the fact that the purge has been stepped up since the Parkland School Shooting.
Watson points out that the purge isn't/hasn't affected the actual far-right or alt-right and that the majority of the targets appear to be centrist conservatives and ask what should we deduce from that.
They then discuss the case of James Damore.
Discussion of Google's exclusion of and growing institutional animosity towards white people.
Watson theorises that the centrists are being attacked and the far-right are being left alone because the centrists are an actual threat, whereas the far-left and far-right need each other as bogey-men to shore up their own stances.
Sargon expands on that idea from a view that for him there's a very low probability that the far-right have any chance of becoming a serious political threat to the establishment, whereas the centrists have much more chance of appealing to the average person. He then points out how the principles of classical liberalism can act as an antidote the radical left-wind ideology when it comes to collectivism vs individualism, categorising people based on their race etc. vs treating all people fairly as human beings.
More detailed discussion and critique of current radical left wing viewpoints.
Exploring the idea that online social and political critique of the radical left is seen by seen as discriminatory cyber-bullying. Critics and thinkers being attacked and shut down by the radical left because their criticism is interpreted and labelled as hatred.
Examples of left-wing snowflakes with double standards.
They then move onto discussing the possibility of having their channels shut down for good and losing all of their work. That Sargon and many other people rely on their channels to make a living.
Sargon highlights the Wall Street Journal attack on YouTuber 'PewDiePie' for what were described as anti-semitic jokes. That this ties into what Schiffer talked about above, in that the WSJ continued to complain about content creators getting paid for views which a minority of people find offensive, and that's what really ramped up the demonetisation of videos (or ad-pocalypse) that has happened.
Mention of the hegemony of YouTube as a content provider, difficulty of creating alternative platforms. As a result, you have to try to take YouTube on and get them to change, so to speak.
Mention of a proposed 'YouTube Union' for content creators, which Sargon thinks might work.
The idea that YouTube is the main platform for alternative media and that traditional media companies can't compete any more and are laying people off, so why is YouTube cowtowing to them?
Watson expresses surprise that if this is indeed the start of a continuous purge, that it hasn't happened sooner.
Mention of groups with influence at Google like the Southern Poverty Law Centre who list Ayaan Hirsi Ali (ex muslim reformist) and Maajid Nawaz (Muslim reformist) as "anti-Muslim extremists", painting a target on their backs for actual Islamic radicals to target them. These are the types of groups advising Google and policing YouTube. The Southern Poverty Law Centre's business model relies on fanning the flames of hate speech, so we shouldn't be surprised at what is happening to YouTube, because they're going to characterise 'edgy opinions' or even conservative opinions as hate speech.
Examples of left-wing hypocrisy over private companies. On the one hand, criticising capitalism and small businesses rights to choose who they will provide services to, yet, a private company which pushes their agendas is just fine.
More examples of left-wing lobbyist influence over companies.
His points:
Does this situation herald the beginning of a new day or the end of internet free speech?
He lists a number of 'alternative' YouTubers who have been censored. People who don't stand for the left-wing, politically correct status quo, including JP, Mike Cernovich, Dave Rubin, Sargon of Akkad, Steven Crowder,
Talks about the revolution of the internet as the modern day printing press for the sharing of ideas, particularly in video form.
That historically, it was the Left who were more for free speech and the Right who were more for censorship. That has reversed, now, as existing power-structures are manipulating people, especially young people, into attacking free speech.
That free speech is important because the truth is something that has to be acquired collectively through exploration of ideas, of which all viewpoints should be able to be presented.
That it's difficult to know which ideas are going to bear the best fruit going forwards, and censorship is like saying that you already know what's for the best for all in any scenario. No one can and should have that power of prescience.
He plans to start a new platform where audio and video can be hosted, including pre-existing work.
Asks for donations towards the endeavour.
Tucker Carlson interviews Eric Schiffer and Dave Rubin:
There then follows a report about the Southern Poverty Law Centre. It calls itself the "premier group monitoring hate groups". The centre have a map with dots all over the US showing groups it has identified - 917 of them.
Apple just donated $1m to the centre.
The centre list people like Ben Carson (Republican Politician), Laura Ingraham (political radio commentator and Fox News contributor) and Jeanie Pirro (Republican politician), but NOT ANTIFA.
In the words of the reporter, the centre is a "Left-wing, money-grabbing, slander-machine."
Carlson asks Schiffer how it could be that such an organisation could get end up policing content at the most powerful company in the world. Schiffer replies that it seems at one point, Google were getting criticised for not doing enough to censor actual extremist and terrorist sites, so they've turned to this type of company in order to appear more inclusive or moral, and it's just swung too far in the opposite direction.
He basically just expresses hope that Google will reverse its decision and get rid of Southern Poverty Law Centre and that Google should apologise.
Dave Rubin is kind of a 'former Leftist' who now considers himself more of a centrist. He hosts an interview show on YouTube called The Rubin Report where he interviews people of varying political persuasions.
Recently, YouTube have effectively 'Demonetised' him by not allowing ads on his videos.
Carson asks Rubin why he thinks this has happened to him.
Rubin begins by championing the platform first and foremost, that he wants YouTube to work for anyone and everyone, regardless of what kind of videos they're posting - political or otherwise.
Goes on to say:
Carson then presents a statement from YouTube that contradicts what Rubin says:
Paul Joseph Watson interviews Sargon of Akkad, a centrist philosopher, political/social critic and commentator, and full-time YouTuber who had his Google account suspended recently. After regaining access to the account, Sargon (real name, Carl Benjamin) posted a new video which has been promptly censored in the UK by YouTube:
Sargon has been given no indication by YouTube for reason of his account suspension.
Watson highlights the fact that the purge has been stepped up since the Parkland School Shooting.
Watson points out that the purge isn't/hasn't affected the actual far-right or alt-right and that the majority of the targets appear to be centrist conservatives and ask what should we deduce from that.
They then discuss the case of James Damore.
Discussion of Google's exclusion of and growing institutional animosity towards white people.
Watson theorises that the centrists are being attacked and the far-right are being left alone because the centrists are an actual threat, whereas the far-left and far-right need each other as bogey-men to shore up their own stances.
Sargon expands on that idea from a view that for him there's a very low probability that the far-right have any chance of becoming a serious political threat to the establishment, whereas the centrists have much more chance of appealing to the average person. He then points out how the principles of classical liberalism can act as an antidote the radical left-wind ideology when it comes to collectivism vs individualism, categorising people based on their race etc. vs treating all people fairly as human beings.
More detailed discussion and critique of current radical left wing viewpoints.
Exploring the idea that online social and political critique of the radical left is seen by seen as discriminatory cyber-bullying. Critics and thinkers being attacked and shut down by the radical left because their criticism is interpreted and labelled as hatred.
Examples of left-wing snowflakes with double standards.
They then move onto discussing the possibility of having their channels shut down for good and losing all of their work. That Sargon and many other people rely on their channels to make a living.
Sargon highlights the Wall Street Journal attack on YouTuber 'PewDiePie' for what were described as anti-semitic jokes. That this ties into what Schiffer talked about above, in that the WSJ continued to complain about content creators getting paid for views which a minority of people find offensive, and that's what really ramped up the demonetisation of videos (or ad-pocalypse) that has happened.
Mention of the hegemony of YouTube as a content provider, difficulty of creating alternative platforms. As a result, you have to try to take YouTube on and get them to change, so to speak.
Mention of a proposed 'YouTube Union' for content creators, which Sargon thinks might work.
The idea that YouTube is the main platform for alternative media and that traditional media companies can't compete any more and are laying people off, so why is YouTube cowtowing to them?
Watson expresses surprise that if this is indeed the start of a continuous purge, that it hasn't happened sooner.
Mention of groups with influence at Google like the Southern Poverty Law Centre who list Ayaan Hirsi Ali (ex muslim reformist) and Maajid Nawaz (Muslim reformist) as "anti-Muslim extremists", painting a target on their backs for actual Islamic radicals to target them. These are the types of groups advising Google and policing YouTube. The Southern Poverty Law Centre's business model relies on fanning the flames of hate speech, so we shouldn't be surprised at what is happening to YouTube, because they're going to characterise 'edgy opinions' or even conservative opinions as hate speech.
Examples of left-wing hypocrisy over private companies. On the one hand, criticising capitalism and small businesses rights to choose who they will provide services to, yet, a private company which pushes their agendas is just fine.
More examples of left-wing lobbyist influence over companies.
