Is YouTube Censoring Dissent on Covid-19?

Did you see this video? If so, good. Because if you didn't, due to YouTube censorship, you'll never get a chance to see it again.

The Coronavirus statistics are pointing to a significantly different picture than first thought.


Why was Dr Erickson's video banned from YouTube?

YouTube says they pulled this video because it "violates their standards."

It's hard to know why the people who sit in big, rich corporations decide to do what they do. And as is the case with FaceBook, Google and YouTube, they seem to sit in great towers glowing with unapproachable light. Is this "YouTube censorship" over content related to Covid-19 and alternative approaches to Coronavirus?

Maybe. They definitely have a slant (like everyone else). And they come out of California, where things seem to lean left.

It's a private corporation and it seems they probably should be able to do what they want, right? 

YouTube says they will censor "bad" information that goes against the W.H.O.

Apparently, they said this video goes against the recommendations of the the World Health Organization. And they don't want to spread dangerous and harmful misinformation.

As reported on Fox News, that is where YouTube sets its sites for calibrating and containing what is allowable to pass for truth. You can see an editorial by Tucker Carlson here, where they come right out and say so. And where Tucker doesn't think that's too cool.

I'm not sure I can crucify them for intent.

In fact, I suppose that's commendable (if they're right).

Even in the age of free speech, in a country that advocates for free speech, you still can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theatre. Not that you can find one these days with mandated social distancing. But we can dream, can't we?

But if it is a private corporation, in the end, it's a free country. If I should be free to not bake a cake for a wedding when it means endorsing a lifestyle that troubles me, they should be able to put the brakes on message they feel could ultimately kill people. Right?

But, maybe (maybe) it's not just about censorship. Because if it's about them getting rid of inaccurate information, 

YouTube still has lots of flat-earth videos, too. Even though they said they're messed up.

YouTube said it was going to crack down on "flat earth" videos. According to an article on "Mashable," they were going to change their algorithm.

Even without Alex Jones, harmful conspiracy theory videos were running rampant on YouTube. Now, the company says it’s going to take action.
In a blog post published on Friday, YouTube said it would be making changes to its recommendations algorithm to explicitly deal with conspiracy theory videos. The company says the update will reduce the suggestion of “borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways.”
YouTube clarified what kind of videos fit that description by providing three examples: “videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”

But they're still out there. Many of them.

And as I've said before, if the people making the videos were half as good as understanding science as they were at creating the videos to spread their pseudo-science, we wouldn't have the videos.

But the videos persist. And YouTube lets them exist on their platform, even though they KNOW those videos are full of bad information.

Similarly, there are a LOT of videos still on YouTube that buck the convention that seems to be promoted by the CDC and the WHO regarding the amount of caution needed, and what the proper course of treatment for this virus should be.

So, why this video?

I don't know if this is exactly the reason the video was pulled. But as with most things Clinton, 9/11 and Trump hating, there is the evidence, there is the direction the evidence takes you, and then there is the room from pushback that comes from "plausible denial."

I don't know what the thinking is behind it, but Fox News did an interview with Dr. Erickson (you can watch the video HERE) and they touched on the fact that the American Medical Association released a statement that seems to indicate the AMA thought there could be something fishy here.

So if YouTube thinks the doctors were deliberately spreading misinformation with the intent of trying to sway public opinion, ultimately with the goal of lining his own pockets with influencing back to work (not sure how, but) I can see that maybe - maybe  - they were trying to right a wrong or something.

But I wonder if YouTube folk even ask this question:


Could there be self-serving motives at the W.H.O.?

One of the assumptions on the left is that the government is above self-serving interests (unless you're a republican, in which case it is assumed).

But whenever I bring up the nefarious things happening at the World Health Organization, and I bring up the possibility that there is corruption at the top, many people - especially on the left - ask, "what possible reason should we see that proves there are motives and bias in a place as supposedly politically neutral as the CDC and the WHO?


Well, what if the W.H.O. is skewed on what is "accurate" on Coronavirus because they are headed by a China-sympathizer?

If you're not familiar with the whole fiasco of how this could have happened (or if it even actually did) I would suggest that you look at another article I wrote recently about this very issue.

I believe the guy at the head of the WHO is in bed with Communist China and that he has a vested interest in skewing the data, covering for the Chinese, and (possibly) doing whatever he can, whether with scare tactics or skewing the data, to keep the US economy depressed for as long as possible.

Don't believe me? Please check out the article I wrote where​ I analyzed what Glenn Beck said about this and carefully documented virtually every point he strung together to prove the case that this guy can't be trusted.​​​

So what about free speech?

Free speech is a value we hold as a sacred right in America. Inalienable rights granted by a creator.

Canada has a charter of rights and freedoms. And even though Trudeau seems to be trying to dismantle fairness and equality in Canada like the Democrats are in the US, it's still official there, too.

The problem is this: 

Your God-given right to be able to speak freely doesn't translate to a God-given obligation for everyone to listen to you.

So the question becomes one of who gets to decide when your speech rights are violated and when YouTube's obligation to let people speak and lack of obligation to repeat everything everyone has to say (no matter what) collide.

Does YouTube have a legal obligation to "fairness?" Who decides what is fair? Can they censor anything? Do they have a right to police their own platform to try to reasonably control what they might legitimately feel is "harmful disinformation?"

Remember: there is always a lawsuit pending out there.

Is there a left-leaning bias in this move from YouTube?

Maybe. It's possible. There seems to be no question about the fact that Google (who owns YouTube) leans left. Just go to Google and search for something like "Hillary Clinton email server" and compare your result to what happens when you do the same search on DuckDuckGo and see for yourself.

But it is a big leap from taking down this video to conspiracy.

Honestly, my money is on the fact that they simply wouldn't buy into the idea that there is any bias at the WHO. In the left's world, that is a simple "right-wing conspiracy."

But even if it is deliberate, in some sinister plot to let Fauci and Gates hold the world at bay until they develop some vaccine with a chip in it, you'll NEVER be able to prove it.

Remember: there is always the factor of plausible denial. There is enough honest wiggle-room here to say that they really only honestly have a motive of protecting people from those who are dangerous. And remember. Even the AMA says Dr. Erickson is dangerous.

And so we don't always get all the points of view delivered to us on Google's platform (FREE, I might add) as we might like.

So what do you do, if you think videos like Dr. Erickson's should be in the realm of free speech? What if you think the left owns the big tech world and they're out to silence the opposition?

If YouTube, FaceBook and Google are stacked against the right, what can you do?

That is the million dollar question. 

But I have some ideas. First of all, momentum is a thing. Many of us (especially in the boomer and millennial generation) have gotten so used to Facebook that we haven't done much else except whine to each other when they censor us.

But we need to look at the alternatives. And we need to pioneer a movement to other platforms that are more accomodating to the point of view from the right.

Suggestions: there are:

  • MeWeTheir slogan is "Your private life is #Not4Sale. No Ads. No Spyware. No BS. Get Started - Free Forever. They are very "right friendly."
  • Gab, also very "right-friendly." Their page says, "A social network that champions free speech, individual liberty and the free flow of information online. All are welcome."
  • TrumpbookUSA"A place for free speech."  

So GO THERE. You don't have to dump Facebook. But use it as a recruiting field, so to speak, to invite folks who are tired of the left's tyranny on the big 3 (Facebook, Google, Youtube). Go there. Don't abandon it, necessarily.

And if you're tired of the search engines tracking you, try DuckDuckGo. They don't track. They're not quite as sharp as Google for honing in on all the data (yet). But they're getting there and they never track you.

But branch out.

If enough people abandon Google and FaceBook in favour of free speech oriented sites, those others will lose their grip on the monopoly of "what can be considered as true."

FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
FacebooktwitterFacebooktwitter FacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailFacebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail
FacebooktwitterFacebooktwitter

Related posts

>