Posted on 06/06/2019 8:11:26 AM PDT by Liberty7732
Steven Crowder’s gigantic Youtube site was demonetized Wednesday after a gay writer at Vox complained repeatedly about being made fun of in a hurtful way. Within hours, online seller Shopify said they would stop selling Crowder’s hugely popular merchandise, such as the Mug Club.
Later in the day, Glenn Beck’s Facebook page was notified that it was put in “time out” and won’t be able to post until Saturday for posting clickbait. This followed Tuesday’s demonetizing by Twitter of pro-life fireball Lila Rose and her Live Action accounts.
Twitter. Facebook. Youtube. All within 48 hours. This gives, at the very least, the appearance of a coordinated attack on conservatives. Perhaps even collusion within an industry.
Every right-of-center, or just not politically correct, creator on Youtube, Facebook and Twitter understands the censorious nature of the leftists that run and populate the social media universe. But this expands considerably when it includes companies such as Shopify and efforts to shut down personal actual web sites by major web platforms such as WordPress.
Crowder is not only conservative, he’s decidedly politically incorrect and is always pushing boundaries. But he also has a team in daily contact with Youtube to make sure they are following the so-called “community guidelines.” He actually tries to follow the rules.
Vox’s Carlos Maza sent out a tweet storm where, in the end, he called for demonetizing Crowder, because Maza is a leftist and that’s what they do:
“Anyway, if you want to help, I guess you can go to this dude’s videos and flag them? But @YouTube isn’t going to do anything, because YouTube does not give a f*** about queer creators. It cares about ‘engagement,’ and homophobic/racist harassment is VERY ‘engaging.’”
At first, Youtube said there was no violation of their rules. But later, they changed in mid-stream and demonetized all of Crowder’s videos. That is a huge hit to a guy with nearly 4 million subscribers and a full production company to pay for.
Then later yesterday, Glenn Beck’s The Blaze got a notification that it would not able to post items on its Facebook page until Saturday. Officially, the reason was for sharing clickbait. But one Facebook flagged was a “completely legitimate story,” according to a spokesman who said it was about a mom who recorded abuses of her handicapped child at school and was seeking changes.
The other story Facebook tagged as clickbait was a video by Will Witt, with PragerU, who does humorous on-the-street interviews on hot topics.
“This is the second time in a month we’ve had to fight Facebook over something ridiculous,” the spokesman said. Their fight has temporarily paid off as they seem to be able to post again — although with no explanation from Facebook.
On Tuesday, Lila Rose tweeted:
“Twitter banned @LiveAction & my account from all ads. When we asked why, @Twitter said we could resume ads, only if we deleted the following content from our Twitter AND website:
-Anything about abortion procedures
-Investigations of Planned Parenthood
-All ultrasound images”
That’s a pretty impossible standard for a pro-life organization. And it includes their web site. This is nothing more than simply attempting to completely shut down Lila Rose and Live Action.
Ben Shapiro went off on the Crowder action yesterday, but it applies to all of them:
“If you’re in the public eye, you’re going to be mocked and insulted in ways you find deplorable. If your solution is to target the platform for destruction — or to target advertisers who advertise on a wide variety of political programming — you’re the actual problem.
It’s far more dangerous to the country and the discourse to work to shut down the entire public square on behalf of your feelings than it is that people sometimes call you mean names. Grow the f*** up.”
But they won’t. Anti-free speech is a congenital condition of the left. Other solutions will be in order.
Not so. They socials have moved into politics and government.
They have "moved into politics and government" in the sense of apparently favoring some political and governmental viewpoints over others - as does FR. How does it follow that their servers are NOT their property to allow use of or not as they choose?
Neither Twitter, Facebook, nor Youtube are ISPs.
I’m sorry, but I find this argument absurd. Do you really want to live in a world where regressive left thugs are able to get essential service providers to unperson somebody because they don’t like their political views? The left has already been forcing companies to fire people who have made comments they don’t like for many years now, now they are forcing social media companies to shut them down on social media platforms that are so important to modern life they ought to be considered public utilities.
If you use the ‘private companies can do what they want’ line, the next thing the left will be doing is preventing dissidents from being able to use bank accounts or get mortgages. Companies providing essential services absolutely have to be regulated otherwise the left will make it impossible for anyone who doesn’t kow tow to them to live a modern civilised life.
I've never been to a 'social media site'.
Guess what?
I don't miss it.
I’m not sure that the American founding fathers or the philosophical influence, John Locke, could have foreseen that tyranny can come from places other than the government. We are living in a world where corporations are often more powerful than governments, and if they are not regulated and bound by laws limiting their rights to refuse essential services, they will press their boot into our necks just as surely as any government.
This is exactly what I discovered 2 weeks ago.
It is much, much bigger than just this.
I’m still not sure how to get the info to those who need to know.
The GOP-e is clueless and useless.
Hanity will talk it to death.
100 years ago there older people who had never lived with running water or electricity either and would have said the same about not missing them, but in the 21st century, they are as important for modern life and commerce as those utilities were then. They should not be allowed to withdraw those services on a whim in order to virtue signal to leftist bullies and tyrants.
Blacks were refused services in the past by private and public institutions. Some private companies chose to do business with them, ie sears catalog.
But, the argument was always that a business has the right to refuse service to anyone. .Gov comes along and pushes the reforms of the 60's.
Do you really want to live in a world where regressive left thugs are able to get essential service providers to unperson somebody because they don’t like their political views?
I want even less to live in a world where private property rights are disregarded.
social media platforms that are so important to modern life they ought to be considered public utilities.
In the case of public utilities, the physical disruption of e.g. laying multiple phone/power line grids was something we decided we wanted to avoid. No such physical disruption is required for new social media platforms.
If we make "important to modern life" the basis for socializing property, we've opened a Pandora's box; medical care is important to modern life, but conservatives don't want socialized medicine.
If you use the ‘private companies can do what they want’ line, the next thing the left will be doing is preventing dissidents from being able to use bank accounts or get mortgages.
There are many banks, and they've amply proved they'll take anybody's money - it's government that stops them from e.g. opening accounts for state-legal marijuana businesses.
Alphabet (Google), Facebook, and Twitter are going to be facing questions from the FTC and SEC on whether their heavy-handed censorship violates US securities laws (these companies have stock listed on US equities markets).
DI’m not sure that the American founding fathers or the philosophical influence, John Locke, could have foreseen that tyranny can come from places other than the government. We are living in a world where corporations are often more powerful than governments,
So get a Constitutional amendment passed; until then, the First stands as a limit only on government, making others free to host or refuse whatever speech they choose without government interference.
sand if they are not regulated and bound by laws limiting their rights to refuse essential services
If we make essential-ness the basis for socializing property, we've opened a Pandora's box; medical care is essential, but conservatives don't want socialized medicine.
I don't see how it would - but by all means let's have those questions asked ... along with the question of whether any such securities laws are consistent with a free society.
Political registrations.
Town Halls and Council Meetings
Public Service Announcements (PSA)
Construction Updates and Road Closings
Job applications
Since they took it upon themselves to curate the content on their servers, and in the EULA claim they can use that content as they like, it is THEIR content: they own it, they publish it to the public. Sue them for the death threats, libel, slander, and whatever else. It happens to other information outlets, why not them?
Not a free-market solution at all, I admit, but there is NO way they can curate content and then say it’s not theirs. The time for them to have it both ways needs to go.
Police departments are posting crime prevention tips, AMBER Alerts and using social media channels to seek information on wanted criminals in the area.
Political registrations.
Town Halls and Council Meetings
Public Service Announcements (PSA)
Construction Updates and Road Closings
Job applications
That's government moving into them, not the reverse as you claimed. No basis there for determining that their servers are NOT their property to allow use of or not as they choose.
These social media companies are private companies, and can do as they please. That said, they must give up their protections as “carriers,” and instead step up to their roles as editorial providers. As such, they need to be held to legal standards, such as libel and in-kind political contributions.
They have abandoned their roles as “carriers” by making editorial decisions, and must live with their decisions.
Mark
So your ISP should be able to block your Internet access because you post to FR?
The same with your phone company.
I don’t think so.
If you serve the public then you are required to serve everyone.
Not a free-market solution at all
Sure it is - "free market" does not imply the right to make death threats.
Look we have a free market here in United States of America
Everybody just turn off Facebook YouTube Instagram all that crap
And go to free Republic!!!!!!
Tim Pool on Twitter:
“Carlos Maza used to work for Media matter, and activist organization.
He now works for Vox doing the same thing he did at MMFA.
Journalism is dead and these sociopaths killed it.”
http://www.twitter.com/TimCast/status/1136589944305127427
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.