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.
Please provide a link to Facebook advertising revenues that support your claim.
Total ad revenue is affected by many things other than blocking posters. My "claim" is self-evident: what FB sells to advertisers is eyeballs, and blocking reduces eyeballs.
So you claim - along with the left, who claim Russian use of SM elected Trump.
Breitbart did a study on the 2016 election and said that SM swayed 3 million voters towards HC.
I’m sure you can find it if you try.
Breitbart isn’t exactly leftwing and I am not a Russian bot!
And your solution is more government? Fight fire with gasoline much?
You're the one who believes in Big Government truth-in-labeling requirements. You just said so in your previous post.
And you're also the one who said property gained through crony capitalism is "private property".
You're surrounded by fire and you don't even know it.
So then why do you think that FB knowingly reduces eyeballs??
I’m sure you can find it if you try.
I just spent several minutes doing your homework for you, and found no such Breitbart story.
Ball's in your court - put up (a link) or shut up.
Still less government than what you're proposing.
#23 those companies are already doing this!
“the next thing the left will be doing is preventing dissidents from being able to use bank accounts or get mortgages.”
So then
You concede that blocking posters is not a monopolistic use of pricing power?
why do you think that FB knowingly reduces eyeballs??
Because they're run by leftists - did you think I disputed that point?
That isn’t FBs business model. People & their personal data is. Users are FB.
I heard it on breitbart news with linda Mansor and Joel Pollak. They have had the expert on muliple times.
I will send you the link later today.
I look forward to it.
Blocking posters certainly doesn't increase the data FB has to sell - so it still has nothing to do with exercising pricing power.
Again, you don’t understand. Once FB has my data it has my data, regardless if I’m on the platform or banned.
And what exactly did I propose to you?
I simply started our conversation by pointing out that you are not for small government as you claim.
And I gave you two examples, one of them being a very big example, which was that you think that property gained through Big Government crony capitalism, is private.
Assuming that we have a Big Government crony capitalist monopoly, how would you stop that?
Both - they may use as they like and must disclose the criteria of that use. No contradiction.
If they are required to disclose the criteria of that use, then they are NOT free to use their property as they like.
You are indeed contradicting yourself.
There is something VERY wrong with your ideas if they can't stand up to public scrutiny and you try to shut down anyone who disagrees with you.
They block some of their posters, to maintain their crony capitalist monopoly, which will ultimately give them more eye balls than if they had to compete freely on an un-crony-capitalist playing field
False - disclosure of use is not use.
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.