Carlos Maza, Vox.
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.
And the identitarian left will respond to this censorship by saying “Muh platform.”
Look, the fact is government & politics are intertwined in the lives of people living in 2019. So that's it. I won't be posting back and forth with someone who seems lost to how people conduct their lives in today's world.
The same with your phone company.
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. Ditto for ISPs.
No such physical disruption is required for new social media platforms.
If you serve the public then you are required to serve everyone.
How does that apply to Facebook but not FR?
Still doesn't follow that their servers are NOT their property to allow use of or not as they choose. Your disregard for property rights will be more welcome on DU.
It’s National Review positions like yours that have crushed the Republican party, a party hopefully DJT can resuscitate.
These social media "providers" have been given special protections by law, and are treated as "carriers," much in the same way as communications carriers. So they are immune to FEC rules, as well as being given many other legal protections.
Sites like FR does NOT have anywhere near those sorts of protections.
Mark
bkmk
Protection of property rights crushed the Republican party? Rubbish.
They use cell towers which are regulated by the FCC. Therefore they can be regulated
If that's true, that seems inconsistent with screening content as they do.
Have any links confirming that social media platforms have legal carrier status?
I don't think your conclusion follows from your premise. Have any links to relevant court or regulatory rulings?
You just posted a message on one.
‘These social media “providers” have been given special protections by law, and are treated as “carriers,” much in the same way as communications carriers.’
This appears to contradict your claim:
‘Utility-style regulation of online platforms isn’t possible without an act of Congress designating the service as a common carrier — and lawmakers don’t appear interested in going down that path. Currently no regulatory agency has jurisdiction to fully regulate online platforms the way, for example, the FCC regulates the phone industry.’ - https://www.axios.com/why-regulating-google-and-facebook-like-utilities-is-a-long-shot-1513305664-9a388f01-f71a-4b45-8844-fec8b74d95d6.html
You agree with his effort, right?
Carlos Maza, Vox.
Heh. FR is social media. You’re soaking in it.
Why not, indeed.
Other than, given your position on this thread, your concren would be opposite to those as expressed by DJTs Justice department.
Beck?? A Conservative?? No chance, IMHO...
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.