YouTube vs. Conservative Speech

Townhall.com ^ | October 25, 2016 | Dennis Prager

[Kaslin]

Last week, The Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial about YouTube restricting access to 16 videos -- down from 21 -- that were created and posted online by my nonprofit educational organization, Prager University. The subheading read, "YouTube thinks Dennis Prager's videos may be dangerous." The Journal said:

"Tech giants like Google and Facebook always deny that their platforms favor some viewpoints over others, but then they don't do much to avoid looking censorious. ... Dennis Prager's 'PragerU' puts out free short videos on subjects 'important to understanding American values' -- ranging from the high cost of higher education to the motivations of Islamic State.

"The channel has more than 130 million views. ... As you might guess, the mini-seminars do not include violence or sexual content. But more than 15 videos are 'restricted' on YouTube ... This means the clips don't show up for those who have turned on filtering -- say, a parent shielding their children from explicit videos. A YouTube spokesperson told us that the setting is optional and 'based on algorithms that look at a number of factors, including community flagging on videos.'

"PragerU started a petition calling for YouTube to remove the restriction, and more than 66,000 people have signed. YouTube is free to set its own standards, but the company is undercutting its claim to be a platform for 'free expression.'"

It is a good sign that YouTube's censorship of respectful and utterly nonviolent and nonsexual videos made it to The Wall Street Journal editorial page. It is a very bad sign that it had to. And it is a very bad sign that it made the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal but not that of The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times or any other mainstream newspaper that still purports to support the classic liberal value of free speech.

To understand what YouTube, which is owned by Google, has done, it is necessary to briefly describe what it has restricted access to.

Every week, PragerU (the generally used name for Prager University) posts at least one 5-minute video presentation online. These presentations are on just about every subject and are given by important thinkers -- some very well-known, some not. The list includes dozens of professors at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Notre Dame, Princeton, Dayton, Boston College, Stanford, UCLA, Harvard, and West Point, among other universities; a black member of South African Parliament; comedians Adam Carolla and Yakov Smirnoff; two former prime ministers (one of Spain, and one of Denmark); Pulitzer Prize winners George Will, Bret Stephens and Judith Miller; Mike Rowe of "Dirty Jobs"; Ayaan Hirsi Ali; Arthur Brooks; Jonah Goldberg; Alan Dershowitz; Nicholas Eberstadt; Larry Elder; Steve Forbes; Walter Williams; Christina Hoff Sommers; George Gilder; Victor Davis Hanson; Bjorn Lomborg; Heather Mac Donald; Eric Metaxas; Amity Shlaes; Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British troops in Afghanistan; and many others. I also present some videos.

Any responsible person, left-wing or right-wing, would have to acknowledge that this is a profoundly respectable list of non-bomb-throwing presenters. It's hardly conducive to censorship.

YouTube placed restrictions on the following videos.

--Two videos on race: "Are The Police Racist?" and "Don't Judge Blacks Differently."

--Six videos on Islam: "What ISIS Wants," "Why Don't Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?" "Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do," "Pakistan: Can Sharia and Freedom Coexist?" "Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology" and "Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?"

--Two videos on abortion (the only two offered): "Who's More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?" and "The Most Important Question About Abortion."

--Two videos on Israel: "Israel: The World's Most Moral Army" and "Israel's Legal Founding" (the latter video, presented by Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, was reinstated after much publicity).

--Three videos on America: "Why Did America Fight the Korean War?" "Did Bush Lie About Iraq?" and "What is the University Diversity Scam?"

--One on politics: "Who NOT to Vote For."

--And one on men and women: "He Wants You" (a video I present about men and women).

Think of these topics, and consider the list of presenters. Do you see any violent content or sexual content? Do you see anything you wouldn't want your minor child to view? The only possible "yes" might be to the video titled "He Wants You." Though void of any explicit content, it deals with the subject of men looking at other women yet most still wanting their own wives. It has almost 4 million views and has helped a lot of couples.

Obviously, then, the explanation is not that "algorithms" catch violence and sex. Rather, YouTube doesn't want effective conservative videos to be posted (each video has at least 1 million views). Does that mean that it has left-wing censors looking for every widely viewed conservative video? If so, it doesn't have to. Left-wing viewers simply flag our videos and others' as inappropriate, and YouTube does the rest.

I have never devoted a column to PragerU. But I have done so today because if YouTube gets away with censoring as big a website as PragerU -- after a major editorial is published in The Wall Street Journal, after coverage in the New York Post, The Boston Globe, Fortune, National Review and many other places, and after a petition signed by over 70,000 people (which is on the PragerU website) -- what will happen to other conservative institutions?

For the probable answer, see your local university.

The question, then, is this: Will YouTube do to the internet what the left has done to the University?

[bk1000]

I’d release the exact same video under the Prager U name and a false name. See if both get banned.

[Still Thinking]

I think rather than do that, I’d made a conveyed organized effort between a bunch of people to flag liberal videos and see if they react the same way. If they’re spring the same rules the same way to everybody, I wouldn’t call it censorship. If they don’t, then you have them.

[Still Thinking]

Stupid Android. Conveyed = concerted

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

This article by Dennis Prager is a screed against freedom of the press.

What! He’s complaining about censorship of conservative videos by YouTube - and I am calling that "a screed against freedom of the press?!!!” What is wrong with this picture? I shall explain.

I am posting this reply on FreeRepublic.com, a web site which I do not own - just as Dennis Prager does not own YouTube. The consequence for me is that if Jim Robinson, who does own FR, is not willing that my post should remain up on his site, it will be gone - and I have no recourse.

And I am good with that. First, because without moderation there would be porn plastered all over this site by libs, in order to repel conservatives from the site. Second, I freely admit that, as little influence as my posts here may have, I am not ambitious enough, and capable enough, to create my own web site which would give my posts even that modicum of influence. So, I choose to post on FR, to contribute financially to FR, and to hope that its influence increases.

Dennis Prager has an organization. He is well able, I presume, to establish and sustain his own web site and his own capability to host his own videos. Thinking that he can, rightfully even if he had the power, force another organization to do it for him is just fuzzy thinking.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Ping.

[dsc]

You make a number of valid points. However, there remain a few things to consider.

When an entity advocates for evil but pretends to objectivity or neutrality, seeking to deceive private citizens, I think it should be exposed for what it is and does.

Perhaps we lack the confidence in our own understanding of right and wrong that we would need to silence such entities, and therefore find ourselves allowing, and even protecting, evil itself. Still, making public the wrongful conduct of such entities should fall within the purview of even such delicate snowflakes as we have become.

There is no other YouTube. There are sites that can be said to compete with FR where one could go to post, but YouTube stands alone. Unfortunately, with the spread of functional illiteracy, YouTube has influence beyond that of a site like FR, which requires one not only to read and write, but to think. When, therefore, YouTube acts as an agent of influence for the forces of evil, oportet allatrare canes. (“It behooves watchdogs to bark,” attributed to an unnamed but great Spanish Bishop.)

As another FR poster wrote, “Evil in any of its manifestations should never be allowed to masquerade as a ‘responsible opposing viewpoint’ to good.”

Is Prager really trying to force YouTube to host things they would rather not, or is he rather attempting to expose the masquerade?

The people who run YouTube are evil scum, and should be exposed as such. YouTube should not be allowed to masquerade as objective, neutral, or even honest.

IMV, freedom of the press should only apply to people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart. As even people who should know better balk at that principle, I think we should at least publicize the bias of the evil.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

IMV, freedom of the press should only apply to people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart. As even people who should know better balk at that principle, I think we should at least publicize the bias of the evil.

Of course this would be a better world if "people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart” were the only ones printing, or even speaking.

Just as this would be a better world if "people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart” were the only ones to be armed. Just who do you think will decide who is, and who is not, "people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart?”

SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. - Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

[dsc]

“Just who do you think will decide who is, and who is not, “people and entities that are honest and have the best interests of the United States of America at heart?”

You ask that question as though there could be no answer.

Before our legal system was turned to crap by the forces of evil, we had a concept, inherited from centuries of English common law, called the “reasonable man standard.”

That standard provides a basis for adjudicating such matters.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

You are advocating for the “Fairness” Doctrine.

Surely you understand that what we disdainfully call “the MSM” - and other Democrats - defined “Fairness” under that doctrine?

The Fairness Doctrine was de facto censorship of conservatism. Impose anything at all like it again, and it will devolve into that same thing faster than you can say, “Jack Robinson.”

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The fundamental problem was defined by Adam Smith:

The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing.

The man whom we believe is necessarily, in the things concerning which we believe him, our leader and director, and we look up to him with a certain degree of esteem and respect. But as from admiring other people we come to wish to be admired ourselves; so from being led and directed by other people we learn to wish to become ourselves leaders and directors . . .

The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)

“The natural disposition is always to believe” - and the MSM has metastasized into a persuasion monster. Again, Adam Smith:

People of the same trade ^Journalists seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion,^{let alone virtually, as on the AP newswire, to discuss what is news} but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

The AP and all wire services exist to conserve expensive telegraphy bandwidth in the dissemination of the news. The sole reason that the wire services have withstood challenges to their legitimacy is that that mission made them “too big to fail.” In the 21st Century, telegraphy bandwidth is no longer expensive: the Internet exists as we know it because bandwidth is now dirt cheap (comparatively).

The Wire services should be sued to oblivion under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Lots of luck with that, if Hillary replaces Scalia with constitutional law professor Barak Obama . . .

[dsc]

“You are advocating for the “Fairness” Doctrine.”

Not at all. I am saying that the left should be treated as the lunatic fringe they are.

A robber shooting a clerk is not on the same moral footing as a cop who returns fire and puts the robber down.

One shooting is felonious murder, the other is meritorious homicide.

[a fool in paradise]

Facebook and Youtube purport to be neutral carriers not imposing censorship on political views (that do not espouse violence or racism).

Try flagging Islamist videos or BLM videos and see if they get removed.

Facebook has ignored every “report” I’ve filed no matter how “anti” or “violent” the poster is.

Michelle Malkin also had her videos moved to 18+ or deleted.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Facebook and Youtube purport to be neutral carriers not imposing censorship on political views (that do not espouse violence or racism).

Anyone who claims a virtue is arrogant. The root (ancient Greek) word “soph” means “wise;” the Sophists claimed, not merely to seek but to have wisdom - and “sophistry” is now a word for tendentious argumentation. The proper response to a sophist is not to argue on his terms by claiming to be wiser than he - that is descending to his level - but to claim to love wisdom, and ask for proof of his claims. The root word “philo,” of course, means (brotherly) “love.” And thus, “philosopher” means “lover of wisdom.”

Of course in the media context, you have trouble being heard when you say that; journalists stonewall you. Thus the critical need to have Talk Radio. The salient point is that a “conservative” talk radio host does not claim to be objective. A “lover of wisdom” does not claim superior wisdom, only that he is willing to hear logic and facts whether they are congenial his viewpoint or not. A sophist will not grant a hearing to uncongenial facts. Claiming to be objective is one way that they use to try to justify their stonewalling.

Allow the return of the Fairness Doctrine, as dsc claims (erroneously) that s/he is not advocating, and you empower the Sophists to shut up the Philosophers. Because the Fairness Doctrine was exactly what held back the tide of Talk Radio which burst forth upon Reagan’s action which caused the elimination of that pernicious FCC doctrine.

[dsc]

“Allow the return of the Fairness Doctrine, as dsc claims (erroneously) that s/he is not advocating”

Bite me.