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.
How does blocking posters do that?
False - disclosure of use is not use.
If one is not allowed to use their property without a required disclosure, and a threat of punishment, then one is absolutely NOT free to use their property as they like.
That's now your third Big Government belief that you've expressed.
That social media has a "monopolistic conglomeration of power" and not "private property". The conclusion seems obvious.
I simply started our conversation by pointing out that you are not for small government as you claim.
All you showed is that I am not for NO government - which I never claimed to be.
you think that property gained through Big Government crony capitalism, is private.
No I don't. How did social media allegedly gain property through Big Government crony capitalism?
If one is not allowed to use their property without a required disclosure, and a threat of punishment, then one is absolutely NOT free to use their property as they like.
False no matter how often you repeat it.
Jim Robinson - https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3749261/posts?page=19#19:
The government has no say over the politics, religion or viewpoints of any website or association.
Facebook, et al, also enjoy the same rights. The difference is we openly declare up front that we are a forum for like-minded traditional Judeo-Christian conservatives and that liberals, trolls, disrupters, etc, will be dismissed and removed at our moderators’ convenience. The others pretend to be open to all opinion, but obviously, they are not.
Like all other areas in our free market economy, free enterprise systems and free press publications and services, it’s always buyer’s choice/buyer beware. If you don’t like the service or can’t tolerate the politics of the service, don’t subscribe, don’t read, don’t use it.
He’s hopeless, not to mention ill informed. He actually believes that FB has all of it’s 2.3 billion users data on private “servers.” Maybe Hillary has them in her basement?
Where do you think they keep it - index cards?
That social media has a "monopolistic conglomeration of power" and not "private property". The conclusion seems obvious.
Interesting comment.
You've now twisted yourself into a pretzel, making the very point of some of the people that you've been arguing with.
So when Big Crony Capitalist Social Media has a monopolistic conglomeration of power, the "obvious conclusion" is what?
False no matter how often you repeat it.
Wow!
So the if Big Government tells you that you can't have as private property, a gun, without registering, without paying a fee and without barking like a dog at the moon, you think that that isn't a restriction on private property.
I have nothing further to add.
You've now twisted yourself into a pretzel, making the very point of some of the people that you've been arguing with.
I've seen no evidence that they have no private property.
False parallel on multiple fronts: "have" is not "use," and "register and pay a fee" is not "disclose."
I have nothing further to add.
Probably true.
I missed your answer to this question.
Start with global social media companies that want to do business with big tyrannical, anti American governments around the world.
Take Google and China for example.
It's those interests, and that crony capitalist relationship that makes Big Social Media an anti freedom, anti American, pro big government and pro tyranical, crony capitalist monopoly.
I missed your answer. What is the "obvious conclusion" on a course of action, when social media has a "monopolistic conglomeration of power"??
You implied that the "obvious conclusion" on a course of action is the very thing that you argued against, up and down this thread.
Yes, they did. Trump and his followers' social media engagement was instrumental in getting him elected. Trump cannot afford to lose a single vote next year. Shutting out voices of his support on social media will be devastating.
What "crony capitalist relationship"?
As I said, I’ve seen no evidence that they have no private property, which was one of your premises. Obviously, if that were true they’d have no property rights.
GOOGLE PLANS TO LAUNCH CENSORED SEARCH ENGINE IN CHINA, LEAKED DOCUMENTS REVEAL
Any private property they "earn", that results from an illicit crony capitalist relationship that they may have, theoretically is not their private property.
Epstein cited a piece he wrote for U.S. News and World Report entitled “The New Censorship” in which he explained that Google is “literally every day blocking access to millions of websites.”
“The power that these companies have to impact opinions, purchases, beliefs, attitudes, voting preferences – there’s never been power like this. No government has ever had power like this.
. In fact, I say in this upcoming article that if these companies in November all happen to be favoring the same political party, I estimate conservatively – and I emphasize conservatively, even though I’m not a ‘conservative’ – that they could shift upwards of 12 million votes,” he warned.
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.