Censorship is becoming a key issues as we approach the 2020 US Presidential Elections. Big Tech cannot afford another slip up in the form of a Trump re-election or a recrudescent right-wing populist movement materializing as a reaction against left-wing cultural hegemony. What’s important to know is that President Trump is monitoring the situation
Google has been embroiled in an underreported scandal where they had allegedly profited over selling technology to assist the Chinese Government’s cybertyranny. Facebook has been caught selling user’s private data for monetary gain. Twitter has suspended problematic political users, adopting a rose-tinted bias in their rulings. YouTube has also rid themselves of politically incorrect voices by either demonetization or direct termination of their accounts. Big Tech is known to have tampered with search algorithms in order to promote their preferred political causes while suppressing so-called ‘fake news’–news which contradicts the legacy media’ prevailing narrative.
Alternative and social media were both instrumental in shaping public political opinion in the run up to Brexit and Trump’s election. The Alternative Media’s counternarratives reporting on post-migrant-crisis migrant crimes diverted support away from globalist candidates in favor of nationalism. This simply shouldn’t have happened. The legacy media
lost its monopoly on the dissemination of truth on the advent of social media: power, through knowledge, has become decentralized, democratized. In order to regain their monopoly on truth–the narrative–the media and Big Tech must collude with politicians to draft legislation or prevent the passage of legislation which may pose a threat to their
continued position of money-power.
Below are some examples of how censorship has ramped up with intensity since 2016, put together by Millennial Woes:
Disallow hyperlinks to “naughty” websites (eg. Morgoth’s blog)
Shadowbanning (website dedicated to detecting whether you are shadowbanned!)
Unsubscribing people so as to keep your profile at a “cap”
Deleting likes from tweets
“I’ve looked at analytics of some of my tweets, some of them have had thousands of views, but only 3-4 likes.”
Implementing a “low-quality” filter, then assigning “low-quality” status to right-wing accounts
Monitoring who right-wing accounts follow, for ideas about whom to ban, shadowban, cap, etc.
Regarding replying to other users as “targeted harassment”
Banning aspiring politicians (Anne-Marie Waters)
Banning candidate politicians during election campaign (Carl Benjamin, Tommy Robinson)
Banning political parties (For Britain)
Banning identitarian organisations (Generation Identity)
mysteriously freezing follower count, perhaps by silently un-subbing followers, or by simply faking the count.
Seeking/accepting “advice” from ADL+SPLC but not from opposing organisations
Famous people will get away with tweeting things that normal people won’t get away with tweeting.
When someone is typing a tweet, systematically mis-spelling current hashtags that they don’t want to proliferate
“Every day, I’m locked out for “suspicious activity.” To log back in, I have to get a code texted to me. This happens every day.”
CUSTOMER SERVICE / APPEALS PROCESS:
No “3 strikes” process or warning that you are on your final chance etc. – banning is sudden and unpredictable, and often random since the TOS are subjectively applied
No elaboration on why/how your tweets violated the TOS
No ability to speak to a human being and state your case and answer their objections
No sign that appeals are handled by human beings
Unsubscribing people so as to keep your channel at a “cap”
Claiming that a video has inaccurate/misleading tags or titling as a reason to sanction the channel
Using demonetisation strategically as a way to disincentivise content creators from continuing with their channels
Deleting dislikes on the Gillette video
Making certain comments invisible (except to the commenter and the channel owner)
- see Metokur’s video “Throttling Theory” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAAUD7jtFas
Not notifying subscribers when you are livestreaming
Banning political parties (eg. the official Vox Espana channel)
Automatically placing every Tommy Robinson video into limited state as soon as it is published
Automatically banning every Xurious video within Europe as soon as it is published, even one that was just 10 seconds of mute blackness.
Arbitrarily deciding that a video is “borderline” (against the TOS) and sanctioning it with either limited state or non-strike deletion
CUSTOMER SERVICE / APPEALS PROCESS:
No ability to contact a human being
@TeamYoutube on Twitter have no teeth
Appeal is judged by a person of the same (SJW) mentality as the person who first placed the sanction being appealed
Only one chance at an appeal
Strikes can be triggered by older videos – you would have to constantly revise your catalogue in accordance with the changing TOS (if you could even guess how the TOS will be subjectively applied) in order to avoid strikes. it is immoral, in any case, to punish people for actions they committed under now-obsolete rules.
If you have three strikes at once, your channel is automatically terminated. thus, antifa strategically report many of your videos within a short timeframe so as to maximise the chances of three strikes overlapping.
Whereas your channel being terminated used to mean that you were free to create a new channel, Youtube now terminate new channels if they detect them. Banning is now PERSONAL; the person themselves is permanently banned from the platform – as on Twitter and Paypal.
Preventing certain channels (those in the Data&Society report) from appearing in “recommended” lists [* does this affect your subscribers as well, or just general users?]
Systematically recommending left-wing videos while you are watching a right-wing video, instead of other right-wing videos. this eliminates one of the most common ways in which people discover new channels, and therefore eliminates one of the major benefits of having a channel on YouTube.
UNCERTAINTIES (TWEET FOR CLARITY)
- Banning politicians?
- Is there evidence/examples of YouTube systematically demoting videos in search results?
Banning nationalist content (and individuals/organisations)
Disallowing the praising of certain individuals/organisations, but allowing castigation of them. threat of banning in case of repeated offences of this type.
Temporarily removing your ability to “like” images, if you have “liked” images they disapprove of.
Banning people, including for simply being who they are (ie. Martin Sellner)
As demonstrated by the techniques employed by these Tech oligarchs, it seems as if they wish to drag the Overton Window
towards the left as we enter another election cycle. By removing/burying dissident voices, many of whom command impressive
followings, Big Tech can ensure that allowable discourse be within a narrow scope, benefiting their interests.
Some mainstream conservatives and libertarian voices have expressed their concerns with the now meme-worthy “They’re a
private company–they can do what they want!” Unfortunately, they’ve become a massively powerful conscious-engineering
political force–and must be treated as such. By playing a self-deifying role in deciding which information, narratives,
users, and stories are promoted, they should no longer be considered a mere private company. If the avoidance of tyranny
is desired, the political ends which Big Tech companies seek will be far more tyrannical than simple regulation.
- Social Media Censorship Techniques - July 15, 2019
- Dutch University Refuses To Hire Men, Calls it ‘Positive Discrimination’ - June 20, 2019
- Teacher Tells 6 YOs There is ‘No Such Thing as Girls and Boys’ - June 20, 2019
- Mother Beats Son To Death For Refusing To Dress Like Girl - June 20, 2019
- What I Learned Writing My First Book - June 12, 2019