Skip to comments.Prager youtube lawsuit challenged based on technical technicalities instead of it's content.
Posted on 03/14/2018 3:15:15 PM PDT by yodalego
YouTube Shows Dennis Prager's Claim Of Discrimination Against Conservatives Is Laughable
You will recall that Dennis Prager, the conservative commentator who also runs a YouTube channel to inform his viewers of his perspective on a variety of topics, recently sued YouTube. The meat of Prager's claims is that YouTube is censoring some of his videos purely because he is a conservative -- with the clear implication being that YouTube is a liberal bastion of conservative-hating video hosting. Just to be clear, there is no real evidence for that. What there is evidence for is that YouTube is trying very hard to sort through its hilariously enormous trove of video content for objectionable material, and that it often does this quite badly. None of that amounts to, as Prager claims, a liberal conspiracy against some conservative guy.
(Excerpt) Read more at techdirt.com ...
But just because one particular platform doesn’t think your content is appropriate for all audiences, it is not censorship
That is EXACTLY what the Baker and Photographers said about Gay Weddings!!
YouTube, Facebook, etc. should be classified as common carries and treated like the phone company.
Just pure coincidence, I assume /s
Those technical technicalities are the worst ones. The non-technical technicalities are much easier to deal with.
Been saying this for years. They are effectively a monopoly or trust.
Liberals used to love busting those up.
Now that they are used to actually SUPPRESS conservative voices, they are an unaccountable machine.
Very dangerous for a free democracy or republic.
Sure, Google could say you could always use Bing, but how long until Bing pulls the same censoring of conservatives crap?
When it can be shown that this is happening to conservative content and not to liberal content - let alone blatantly racist and/or violent content - it is not a technical difficulty, it is bias.
Leftists at site like Techdirt (dirt is quite appropriate here) categorically deny any bias at Facebook, Twitter, Youtube... They even assert that O’Keefe’s Project Veritas videos don’t ever show any such bias.
So any attempt with logic and facts with them is useless.
Google and Facebook are engaged in systematic oppression of alternative viewpoints.
It ranges from outright banning/censoring to downranking so you’re harder to find to subtle “poisoning the well” tactics.
The Methods and Layers of Censorship on YouTube
They are so LARGE that their private business policies are interfering the rights of others to speak, to associate, to express their beliefs.
Gee. That is interesting. Why then are there a large number of well known conservatives such as Prager, Bill Whittle, and Colin Flaherty (just to name three) who have been in ongoing battles with having their accounts "demonetized" or outright removed, but...we don't hear about any Leftists who are having the same things done to them?
Agreed. Either regulate them as utilities or break them up under anti-trust.
Microsoft is starting to do the same. LinkedIn, owned by Microsoft, recently updated its terms of service to say you can be banned for hate speech.
” Just to be clear, there is no real evidence for that. “
Just this morning Twitter suspended me for sharing a Steve Crowder youtube video - which youtube banned two hours later. That’s the ticket, no real evidence.
Another lying lib.
Prager’s courses are on the Constitution and moved to “adult only” content.
Michele Malkin has long endured the same thing.
Prager’s investigation has found staffed youtubers doing the classification, it isn’t a software glitch.
They weren’t addressed in the so-called “net neutrality”. Their monopoly was actually made stronger by that power grab.
When something like this happens to minorities, the leftists claim that "disparate impact" is proof of racial bias.
At the Socialist Globalist conference SXSW in Austin this week, Youtube has said that they will partner with Wikipedia to dispel “conspiracy theories” that they don’t agree with.
Want to be that they do not apply that “truferism” rule to “Russia Russia Russia” 2016 election tales?
If it were erroneous, you should be able to request a hearing, content review, and get the status returned to all audiences.
But that isn’t happening, is it?
Liberals only check against liberal sources, so what they self-censor is flagged as not true or only partially true.
Then there’s the fact that they “check” conservatives thoroughly to find anything to list as fake while NOT fact checking provable lies by liberals.
Whos Checking the Fact Checkers?
A new study sheds some light on what facts the press most likes to check.
trusts and monopolies should be regulated and not allowed to stifle speech if they are “pubic monopolies.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.