“This will not end well” – Ted Cruz reacts to YouTube demonetizing Steven Crowder

After announcing that Steven Crowder didn’t violate YouTube’s terms of service, they still decided to demonetize his channel anyway.

This morning Ted Cruz responded to the announcement, calling for YouTube to stop playing God and trying to silence voices it disagrees with:

“This is ridiculous. YouTube is not the Star Chamber — stop playing God & silencing those voices you disagree with. This will not end well.”



Indeed it is ridiculous.

As Ben Shapiro pointed out, YouTube essentially created NEW rules just so they could appease the left and demonetize Crowder:

And those new rules YouTube created includes new protected classes, including “hate speech” against someone’s immigration status:

Lastly, PragerU reminds us that this isn’t just YouTube doing this:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

204 thoughts on ““This will not end well” – Ted Cruz reacts to YouTube demonetizing Steven Crowder

  1. Conservatives and Libertarians kicked off Facebook.
    Kicked off Twitter.
    Demonetized and banned from YouTube.
    Back-paged on Google searches.

    And yet, still, there is not a viable alternative to these providers? Where are our conservative/libertarian programmers? There has to be a better system than Gab or Minds. And there’s for sure money in it.

    1. @texas-chris Full30 has been hosting many of the gun channels getting screwed by YT.

      1. Hey, Doc. Thanks for posting about Full30. I just shared a link to them with my husband. I don’t know if he knew about it already or not (I texted him), but he was really unhappy when YT started banning those videos.

    2. @texas-chris there are alternatives, but they are miniscule compared to the monopoly of Twitter, YouTube, etc… Break up the monopoly and that will allow the small fish to thrive.

  2. Since the Constitution is in the Left’s way, they just circumvent it where they can. Truly pathetic people. Being a fat wussy shouldn’t get rewarded. Geez

  3. My D-Life group at church always brings up “pray for revival in this country.” I always sit there and think “It’s never going to happen.” Reading these articles about this, abortions, and how such a small minority in this country has a large voice, we are on our way to destruction.

    Amazing how they want to remove the electoral college because it’s not fair yet if we were in a true democracy most the things they’re screaming about would probably be voted down by the majority to which they need representation versus democracy.

    1. I am convinced these tech giants are doing this on purpose. They’re aiming for government regulation, and they’re planning on writing that regulation in order to keep new, less-than-left-leaning platforms from being able to compete.

  4. If conservative people want to hit the fascist social media companies where it hurts them the most then stop using their products.

    1. NRO had a great line about that today, as side note of all things to a larger article.

      These episodes of conservative-leaning writers and broadcasters making themselves highly dependent upon the whims of California-based technology companies attest, I think, to the wisdom of National Review’s business model.

  5. For all of those who favor litigation, remember the fable about the two farmers who were caught up in a lawsuit over property lines. It became so expensive for each that the lawyers wound up with the deeds to both farms, and the farmers had to file for Chapter Seven.

    1. How is it different from not being able to make a living in the first place? Sometimes you just have to fight as an alternative is even bleaker.

  6. Twitter, Facebook, and most other Social Media sites have become , for all practical purposes, public utilities. They deserve the same consideration, oversight, scrutiny, and the mandatory personal liberty. They might deserve to be broken up? They have definitely created their own path toward destruction, or takeover.

    1. IMO, this battle will likely need to be resolved in the marketplace. The legal tests for asserting that YouTube and the other Social Media sites possess the market power that warrants the kind of regulation that applies to public utilities are rigorous. Market share, alone, is insufficient. Market power is more than a simple function of market share. As YouTube has direct competitors in the online video segment whose services can be scaled up e.g., Vimeo, and at low marginal cost, not to mention substitutes that exist over the broader Social Media landscape, it would probably be difficult to assert that YouTube has “interfered substantially” with constitutionally-protected speech to the satisfaction of the courts.

  7. The media lost control of the narrative. Online freedom occurred and independent voices rose. Now, they are attempting to reassert the control by co-opting the platforms that allowed independent thought and alternative views and ‘tame’ the internet. Will they succeed? I don’t think so. I have been trying alternatives out:

    bitchute – for video
    gab – for twitter
    minds – for facebook
    duckduckgo – for search engine
    brave – for browser

    They have their faults and their own crazies, but I am trying… need to get off of gmail next.

    1. I can’t completely escape even though trying to though. One of my corporate clients makes us use a program called ‘workplace’ – basically facebook for corporations (and owned by facebook) and I have to use the chrome browser when working off their computer… so there you go. Yeah — sometimes we don’t have options.

      1. Microsoft does the same thing. They bought skype and now parts of the federal government are tied to “skype for business.”

        There are also employers who only allow certain platforms through their web-filters because they’re “trusted.”

        On the USAF networks, the privacy search engine duckduckgo is blocked.

    2. Protonmail. It costs, but is is very secure, based in Switzerland and very solid. No ads, no data mining, and as close to absolute privacy as you will ever find on the internet.

  8. If conservative people want to hit the fascist social media companies where it hurts them the most then stop using their products.

    1. NRO had a great line about that today, as side note of all things to a larger article.

      These episodes of conservative-leaning writers and broadcasters making themselves highly dependent upon the whims of California-based technology companies attest, I think, to the wisdom of National Review’s business model.

  9. What we need are ALTERNATIVES to YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, etc. They are driving the bus and creating the direction of any discussion out there. We don’t need to fear the government telling us what to do, these social medial services that millions use eve4ry day mold thought, discussion and values. WE ARE ALLOWING THIS TO HAPPEN!!! For Gods sake, when will we wake up??

    1. We won’t. We’ll just bitch about unfairness, as if it’s some kind of harm or wrong committed upon us. Just like the left does whenever they snowflake out about anything.

      “OH MAH GAWD I HATE THE WALMART SO MUCH – but I’m still going to shop there because hey can’t beat those low low prices.”

      Remember that idiocy? It’s the same thing here.

      I don’t know why the right wing is so insistent on using FB, YT, Twitter etc. They constantly gripe about it, but refuse to use anything else. That makes no sense to me.

      1. Oh please! Another stupid non- applicable Walmart argument. Like I said to someone else below, Walmart isnt. the same thing because Wal-Mart isn’t actively discriminating against someone’s freedom of speech.

          1. Again, another bad analogy. Google that uses a government-invention, regulated by the Commerce dept., and using public airwaves/lines (phone/cable/air) is hardly “someone else’s house”!!! Even when you enter someone else’s house, you still have rights even if that entry is not consensual. Give me a good comparison and we can talk.

            1. Google that uses a government-invention, regulated by the Commerce dept., and using public airwaves/lines (phone/cable/air) is hardly “someone else’s house”!!!

              Well then that’s just as true for AT’S Blog as it is for Google then, isn’t it. I’m using a government invention, regulated, and using public airwaves. Does that mean I have to put up with your crap on my blog?

              Nopeity nope nope nope.

              Even when you enter someone else’s house, you still have rights

              Yes. And you can either voluntarily surrender them, or not gain entry. Choose.

              1. You haven’t heard of burglars winning lawsuits because their civil rights were violated in process of stealing?

                First of all, there is a huge difference between AT’s blog and YouTube. With your blog, you are the creator, so you control what goes on your blog. With YouTube, they are only providing the platform for you to create! In one case, a creator (you) is inviting others to comment on his/her creation. And in Youtube’s case, they are inviting Creators. There is a big difference on how both are treated in the sight of the law. With regards to your home analogy, YouTube is like a developer that is selling you a home while your blog is the actual home that you purchased and allowing whoever you choose to come in and dine with you, etc…

                1. You haven’t heard of burglars winning lawsuits because their civil rights were violated in process of stealing?

                  What does that have to do with anything?

                  First of all, there is a huge difference between AT’s blog and YouTube.

                  Yea, but my blog is open for anyone to create content. Post an article, write a comment, share a photo or a video, sell some merch, whatevs.

                  Unless I don’t like their content. Then f*ck them – DELETE.

                  And I’m entirely within my right to do that. Because it’s MY blog. Not yours.

                  Youtube is no different. Just bigger.

                2. You’re still not getting it. There is a difference between a publisher like your blog or a company that provides a platform to publishers to start a blog. YouTube is not a publisher, but they are like a hosting provider providing a platform for publishers. So YouTube is like your hosting provider. Has your hosting provider ever tried to censor you or threaten to boot you? I’m guessing not, right? Because hosting companies generally are for free speech.

                  To that extent, in regards to private companies, the court held that it “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.”

                  Up until now, Google has been getting away with claiming that they, as a “publisher” are protected by the first amendment to edit/remove content as they please, but this is a falsity since they are NOT a publisher, but a platform. So in essence, the person that is truly protected by the first amendment is the publisher who in this case is YOU or Crowder.

                3. Yea yea yea, look I get it – come to AT’s Blog. Feel free to open a whole section there called Abe’s Blog. I’m offering a little slice of MY servers to you and anyone else freely if you want to use it.

                  But no swastikas. You put up swastikas, and you’re out. Same with cat videos. Oh, and recipes for tuna casserole. Not allowed. That might seem arbitrary – but hey, my website.

                  “does not disable the government from taking steps to ensure that private interests not restrict . . . the free flow of information and ideas.”

                  Yea, well, it doesn’t. There’s a whole world wide web out there for you to find places to put your tuna cat swastika stuff. AT’s Blog is not the gatekeeper of the internet. If I shut down AT’s Blog tomorrow – exactly what will I have deprived you of and how?

                4. You are mincing words. Is it your blog or are you providing space for blogs?

                  I am just wondering if your tune would change if there was only one hosting provider in the whole world and it just so happens that it bans anyone and anything “AT”. What you gonna do then? You didn’t answer my previous questions. Did you hosting provider ever try to censor your content?

                5. Is it your blog or are you providing space for blogs?

                  Both.

                  I am just wondering if your tune would change if there was only one hosting provider in the whole world and it just so happens that it bans anyone and anything “AT”.

                  Yea well there isn’t. If we ever get to that point, let me know.

                  You didn’t answer my previous questions. Did you hosting provider ever try to censor your content?

                  I don’t see what they have to do with anything. But, no.

                6. In regards to your blog, you can censor as you wish. Regarding to space you allow for blogs, it depends on what is it for. If it’s an open platform like youtube, then you should tread extremely lightly on censoring.

                  “Yea well there isn’t. If we ever get to that point, let me know.”

                  Let’s assume we’re already there. You have no place to host your blog, what’s your response. I am just curious on your frame of mind. Are you fight or flight type of person? Are you hiding behind “principles” as an excuse for being lazy and not wanting to resist tyranny?

                  I asked you if your hosting provider every censored your site because that’s exactly what YouTube is–a hosting provider! If your hosting provider like the rest of hosting providers do not censor, why should youtube?

                7. then you should tread extremely lightly on censoring.

                  Why? I’m within my rights to censor whatever the hell I want. See that banner at the top? It says “AT’s Blog.” You’re free to use it as you see fit for Abe’s Blog, but never forget that you are only here at my sufferance.

                  Let’s assume we’re already there. You have no place to host your blog, what’s your response.

                  Go old school I guess. Offline. The internet is a luxury that makes things easier – that’s it. I don’t have a right to it. How could I?

                  Are you hiding behind “principles” as an excuse for being lazy and not wanting to resist tyranny?

                  One doesn’t hide behind a principle, Abe. Not not laziness or a lack of desire to resist.

                  I don’t have a right to Youtube. It’s that simple.

                  I asked you if your hosting provider every censored your site because that’s exactly what YouTube is–a hosting provider! If your hosting provider like the rest of hosting providers do not censor, why should youtube?

                  Because they can?

                  If most restaurants are open on Sunday, but I close mine on Sunday, does that somehow wrong you? No. Not even if Sunday is literally the only day you can ever get away to go out to eat. It’s not fair, but then life isn’t. Tough luck pal.

                8. “I don’t have a right to Youtube. It’s that simple.”

                  There you go with the strawman again. We don’t have a right to tangible objects, but we have a right to God-given freedoms. That’s why we have the Bill of RIGHTS!! That’s what makes this country great and different than Canada or any other country that easily censors.

                9. God gave us the freedom to post whatever videos we want and make money off them on Youtube? What?

                  It’s not a strawman, Abe. You don’t have a right to Youtube. You don’t have a right to someone else’s creation. Someone else created Youtube. You don’t have a right to do with what you please with what’s theirs.

                  If someone else has to provide it to you, Abe, then by definition it is NOT a right. And that’s what Youtube is. It’s someone providing you something.

                10. Not sure if you intentionally leave out facts just to be extreme for the sake of arguing or you just forget. I think I’ve listed multiple times the case against Google and you just completely ignore it every time and make a strawman argument. I’m really not gonna repeat everything over and over again–you just need to go back and look at what I wrote and go read about Microsoft and why they were charged with antitrust and compare that with what Google is doing. Also, read on the evidence of bias against Conservatism and how they unevenly apply the rules specifically with Crowder case where they ADMITTED he didn’t violate their rules, yet they demonetize him anyways while many fascist, violent leftist groups are allowed to not just stay on youtube, but are monetized. These things that Google is doing if it was done by the Baker, he would be thrown in jail. Yet because Google is a by lobbyist and have showered politicians with money and are neck high with lawyers, they get away with what the average company/person CAN NEVER get away with, but you go ahead and defend the indefensible and throw out straw man arguments because you can’t even begin to tackle the hard facts.

                11. Not sure if you’re intentionally pivoting your argument or if you’re just ignoring reality.

                  First you say you have a right to Youtube. Then when I point out how that’s patently absurd, you instead start babbling about Microsoft and antitrust.

                  I get it Abe. You don’t like what Youtube is doing.

                  But that doesn’t make what they’re doing wrong.

                  how they unevenly apply the rules specifically with Crowder case where they ADMITTED he didn’t violate their rules, yet they demonetize him anyways while many fascist, violent leftist groups are allowed to not just stay on youtube, but are monetized.

                  Yea, I get it Abe. Life’s not fair.

                  Get over it.

                12. Anyone ever tell you misrepresent people? I don’t think this is the first time you heard that. Just yesterday, I posted the following, but somehow that completely went past you.

                  But like I said before, if YouTube was applying their policy evenly across all the platforms, I wouldn’t have much of an issue with it, but since they have proven to be directly targeting Conservatives via internal documents/videos and as even some liberals on youtube argue, at minimum, they need to be investigated for unfair business practices. So considering all these facts, they are 1) violating the spirit of discrimination laws, 2) Engaged in unfair business practices 3) Engaged in monopolistic behavior even WORSE then when Microsoft was charged with similar actions decades ago. Google isn’t above the law so why do you think they should be treated any differently than other monopolies have been treated in the past?

                  You didn’t answer any of my points, but all you could respond to that was, ‘But it’s not an unfair business practice. It’s not a practice at all.”

                  And of course both those statements are demonstrably false. A company that makes over $100 billion/year is not a business? LOL Is it a charity organization? And with the mountains of evidence pointing to their unfair behavior both from internal memos/videos and via actual examples like Crowder and other Conservatives they target and even violating their own policy so that they side with the leftists is completely unfair and moving the goal posts. Go check out the Crowder video where he and his lawyer ran by Google’s lawyers the things they were planning to do and Google was perfectly fine with it UNTIL they got pressure from the left and now, they changed their mind and punished Crowder. That’s just unethical, bad business practice and probably violates Crowder’s rights.

                13. A company that makes over $100 billion/year is not a business?

                  I already addressed that. Free Hug Guy, remember? You’re trying to conflate the fact that they make money off their free service, with the notion that that somehow makes them a business that’s practicing unfairly. That doesn’t work and make no sense.

                  And with the mountains of evidence pointing to their unfair behavior

                  But that’s all it is, Abe. Unfair.

                  I 100% agree with you. What they’re doing is unfair.

                  But “unfair” doesn’t mean “wrong.” We’re allowed to be unfair. Especially when we’re dealing with MY property that YOU think you’re entitled to, and I stop you because I rightfully assert my dominion over it. Abe’s Blog riding under the banner of AT’s Blog.

                  That’s just unethical, bad business practice and probably violates Crowder’s rights.

                  How? How does it violate his rights? That’s the one big question you’ve been ducking for awhile now.

                14. “But “unfair” doesn’t mean “wrong.” We’re allowed to be unfair. Especially when we’re dealing with MY property that YOU think you’re entitled to, and I stop you because I rightfully assert my dominion over it. ”

                  Sorry AT, but that’s such a stupid comment. You make it look like Crowder is essentially trying to steal from YouTube. Your use of hyperbole is extremely annoying and dishonest and makes me not bother conversing with you further. There is something called contractual relationship–have you not made any agreements before and expected the other party to fulfill their part? So if assume you have a very profitable blog going and the hosting provider decides for whatever reason to suddenly pull the rug from under you, would you say, “oh well, they’re being unfair, but it’s their right!”?

                  Glad you agree YouTube is unfair, but to say it’s perfectly ok to be unfair begs a dismantling of civilized society and any contractual relationships. So if a large company like Google can be unfair, I imagine it should be perfectly fine for government to be unfair and completely shut them down on the basis they discriminate, censor and monopolize their services!? Why should we accept unfairness from big business, but not big government?

      2. Wal-Mart is not applicable here. This is much more analogous to laws requiring a property owner to allow another owner access to his property, water rights, prohibitions on private waterway restrictions, and how we block kingpins from owning all the media formats within an area.

        Abandoning the platforms is politically naive . Whether we like it or not, this is where a plurality or majority of people get their news and interact. No conservatives means no balance and viewers/readers get a warped world view. Eventually we reach a tipping point and we are so marginalized as to lose any voice in our government.

        The goal of the left is to drive us away. Volunteering to leave only helps them just like taking refugees enables and empowers those committing genocide.

        1. This is much more analogous to laws requiring a property owner to allow another owner access to his property, water rights, prohibitions on private waterway restrictions

          Except that you don’t have to go through Youtube to get access to conservative property, water rights, etc. Your example seems much more like you claiming you have the right to set up a water tower on my land, even though we both abut the river.

          Whether we like it or not, this is where a plurality or majority of people get their news and interact. No conservatives means no balance and viewers/readers get a warped world view.

          One could say the same for any echo chamber that gets high-volume traffic. Do I have a right to go start publishing whatever article I want on HuffPo too? Or some airtime on CNN?

    2. There are alternatives, One4Life gives some examples above.
      Email – use Protonmail, very secure and private
      Search – use duckduckgo
      Video – use UGEtube.com or there are specialty venues like full30.com for firearms

      The nature of social media though is people go where there are people. That’s why you won’t see a successful competitor to YT, FB, or Twitter.

      Worse, if we leave those platforms, we’re marginalizing ourselves and our point of view. It’s like refugees leaving a genocide — it’s exactly what the aggressors want.

  10. stop playing God

    But… they’re kind of allowed to.

    I mean, it’s their world. They created it. We don’t have a right to it (and certainly not on our own terms) simply because it exists and is available to us for use. If I create a blog and it’s open to anyone to post their material, I can go through those postings and delete whatever I want. If you try to make money off of my blog, I can shut that down too. My blog. I’m the god of that blog. Not you, and not anybody else.

    Ben’s objection that it’s a heckler’s veto is a much better argument. But note that it just points out that it’s a crappy thing for them to do. Not a wrongful thing for them to do.

    1. That was a well thought out comment….it’s also a prelude argument for a monopoly anti-trust enforcement…so that those who suffered this platform can have a competitive platform to turn to.

    2. You live in a utopian libertarian bubble. Given, that’s not reality, your argument fails miserably.

      It’s my gun/body/etc, the government cant have a say on it….

      1. Explain to me your right to Youtube on your terms. Explain to me how you’re entitled to that. I’m all ears.

        1. “Explain to me your right to Youtube on your terms.”

          That’s a strawman fallacy since I never made such an argument. I merely say that YouTube has no right to unevenly apply its policies and discriminate against a person’s freedom of speech. Like I said to someone else, if they applied their policy fairly and evenly, I wouldn’t object so much. The main reason the SCOTUS case was ruled in baker’s favor is because he didn’t single out a specific group. He was merely protecting his religious beliefs that are against Satanism, homosexuality, etc…! What basis is Google using to discriminate other than their dislike for Conservatism? Which by the way is proven overwhelmingly via internal documents and videos. You are defending the indefensible here.

          1. I merely say that YouTube has no right to unevenly apply its policies and discriminate against a person’s freedom of speech.

            Except that they do. They do have that right. Their policies can be as arbitrary and capricious as they want them to be. What makes you think they don’t have that right?

            Meaning, what makes you think you get to exercise your rights at the expense of theirs? Meaning, what makes you think you’re entitled to Youtube on your terms?

            1. It’s not my terms–it’s the terms of the US Constitution and bill of rights and regulations for which Congress passed and consistently applied by DOJ against companies that have engaged in similar action in the past (ie: Microsoft)

              1. So the US Constitution tells you that you can use another persons product, at their expense, however you want – regardless of whether they object to how you’re using it.

                That’s your argument here? Because I think you’d better re-read the Constitution if it is.

                1. I see your still sticking to the “this is my house” argument which I refuted in another post–I suggest you go read that first. If you argument is true then you are arguing that no company can be convicted of discrimination. Is that your argument? Or are you just applying your libertarian utopian arguments only against Conservatives and not the other way around?

                2. If you argument is true then you are arguing that no company can be convicted of discrimination. Is that your argument?

                  Only of that discrimination is based on protected class. If they discriminate against me because they don’t like my conservative rhetoric, that’s their prerogative.

                  Why do you think you’re entitled to these platforms to use as you please? If you don’t think that, then what DO you think you have the right to with regard to them?

                3. Good. We are getting closer to an agreement. While I agree that political view isn’t currently a “protected class”, I think it should be because in this day and age where people take their politics more seriously–even more than any religion, it makes no sense that it’s not even considered. But like I said before, if YouTube was applying their policy evenly across all the platforms, I wouldn’t have much of an issue with it, but since they have proven to be directly targeting Conservatives via internal documents/videos and as even some liberals on youtube argue, at minimum, they need to be investigated for unfair business practices. So considering all these facts, they are 1) violating the spirit of discrimination laws, 2) Engaged in unfair business practices 3) Engaged in monopolistic behavior even WORSE then when Microsoft was charged with similar actions decades ago. Google isn’t above the law so why do you think they should be treated any differently than other monopolies have been treated in the past?

                4. I think it should be because in this day and age where people take their politics more seriously–even more than any religion, it makes no sense that it’s not even considered.

                  Well that’s a different issue than what we’re discussion. Right now it’s not a protected class (and I’m going to disagree that it should be). If I’m a business owner, I want the right to be able to fire the guy from the nazi party when he starts putting up swastikas in his cubicle. That’s pushing the envelope of “I have a right to a job, you HAVE to employ me no matter what.”

                  But like I said before, if YouTube was applying their policy evenly across all the platforms, I wouldn’t have much of an issue with it, but since they have proven to be directly targeting Conservatives via internal documents/videos and as even some liberals on youtube argue, at minimum, they need to be investigated for unfair business practices.

                  But it’s not an unfair business practice. It’s not a practice at all. They’re offering a free service, but conditioning its use.

                  Come on down to AT’s Blog and post whatever you want. Except swastikas. You do that, and you’re out. How/Why is Youtube any different? You keep saying that they’re “above the law” – but there’s no laws even at issue here.

                5. “I want the right to be able to fire the guy from the nazi party when he starts putting up swastikas in his cubicle.”

                  So a swastika is a line too far, but hey, putting a satan sculpture or the gay flag is perfectly ok. Very libertarian of you to decide what speech is acceptable!

                  “It’s not a practice at all. They’re offering a free service, but conditioning its use. ”

                  So how do you explain their $30 billion in quarterly revenue? Donations? Heck ya it’s a BIG business. They get a huge chuck of every single ad placed on platforms and on search engines. Like I posted another reply to you, YouTube claims to be a publisher, but they are NOT. They are a platform! They haven’t published JACK! The people that have platforms on there ARE THE PUBLISHERS! They are being deceptive with the terminology and you are going along with them. In essence, you are siding with big business over the liberty of the individual.

                6. So a swastika is a line too far, but hey, putting a satan sculpture or the gay flag is perfectly ok.

                  Depends on who owns the building, doesn’t it. Or the cyberspace.

                  So how do you explain their $30 billion in quarterly revenue? Donations? Heck ya it’s a BIG business.

                  Not in the way you’re trying to frame it.

                  Go back to Free Hug Guy. He offers free hugs. Every time he gives one, an advertiser gives him a dollar. He refuses to hug me because he doesn’t like what’s written on my shirt. So what? Am I entitled to hugs just because he gave them to everyone else?

                  The fact that Free Hug Guy makes money is irrelevant to the point of whether I’m entitled to a hug from him simply because he offers them freely.

                  They haven’t published JACK! The people that have platforms on there ARE THE PUBLISHERS!

                  Yes, same thing you’re doing on AT’s Blog when you put up everything for your Abe’s Blog page there. But the minute you put a tuna cat swastika up, you’re out.

                  So what?

                  In essence, you are siding with big business over the liberty of the individual.

                  Actually, I’m siding with the liberty of the business, over the entitlement mentality of the consumer.

                7. “Actually, I’m siding with the liberty of the business, over the entitlement mentality of the consumer.”

                  That kind of thinking is what gives Republicans a bad name and actually why Trump is so popular. Do you even realize the amount of lobbying Google does? These guys are in government’s pockets–you don’t need to worry about their “liberty”. In anycase, big businesses should have rights. I supported Hobby Lobby with their case against Obamacare and refusing to fund abortions. But they did that on religious grounds and treated all their employees equally. Google isn’t fair, is targeting Conservatives, has no special protection. There has to be a balance of common good with rights of a business. Google has no rights to declare here, but the common good is clearly getting trampled on. It’s not an “entitlement” to want fairness! No other business can do this. If you go into Walmart with a MAGA hat, Walmart can’t decide to charge you double.

                8. Do you even realize the amount of lobbying Google does?

                  Irrelevant. The NRA does a bunch of lobbying too – but they don’t have to accept me as a member and user of their services/brand if they don’t want to.

                  In anycase, big businesses should have rights.

                  You’re literally arguing that they shouldn’t! You’re literally arguing that big business shouldn’t have the right to exclude people they don’t support. Why don’t you just tell them to bake the cake already?

                  There has to be a balance of common good

                  “Common good” is progressive claptrap. Now you’re going full Collectivism on this.

                  It’s not an “entitlement” to want fairness!

                  YES IT IS!

                  I’m a Seahawk. Come to my bar in a Seahawks jersey, get $1 off your beer. Come in a Niners jersey, your beer costs $1 more. Come in anything else, regular price.

                  Not fair. BUT I AM TOTALLY FREE TO DO THAT, ABE. Because I love Seahawks and f*ck the Niners fans. I am totally within my right to do that.

                9. I’m not gonna repeat myself, but look at my other post I just posted and let’s argue the facts instead of strawman. Your strawman arguments is perfectly legitimate if we are talking about ABC company that is functioning properly fairly and within the confines of current regulations and civil liberty laws. But Google is far from that and they only get away with it because of their power, dominance and money and that’s exactly the kind of scenario that requires anti-trust action.

                10. It’s like you’re intentionally ignoring the principle behind all this.

                  You don’t like Google. I get it. I don’t much care for them either. But they’re not committing any crimes, they’re not depriving anyone’s rights, and they are exercising their property rights as they see fit.

                  You might find that unfair. So what.

    3. The Supreme Court thinks otherwise. From Munn vs Illinois, 1876:

      Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.

      1. I’d argue that Youtube doesn’t have as much public consequence and community affect as we might pretend it does. Nobody is dependent on Youtube, there are alternatives (and plenty of space for more alternatives), and if Youtube disappeared tomorrow public society would get along just fine.

        If Walmart and Mom’s General Store exist, but everybody goes to Walmart (despite bitching about how unfair Walmart is) – that doesn’t mean the public gets and interest and thus we get to control Walmart.

        I don’t know if we can rely on Munn as much as we think we can.

        1. It’s not a 100 percent fit against YouTube, but it hits Facebook and Twitter dead between the eyes– and if it gets successfully applied to them, YouTube will be next in line.

          1. I’d argue that Facebook and Twitter are just the same. Ask the same question. If they disappeared from the internet tomorrow, how badly would the “public interest” really be effected? We can still all communicate with each other. We all still have the same access to the marketplace of ideas. We all still have the ability to market our products and enter into contracts with each other. Nobody is dependent on Facebook/Twitter, and there are alternatives.

            I think we over-estimate the “public consequence and community affect” because of how much we’ve chosen to rely on them rather than some other platforms. But if they were gone tomorrow, we’d still have plenty of options to do exactly what we’re doing now.

            1. By your logic, gasoline isn’t very important to our economy because there are diesel cars and the cars that run on gasoline can theoretically run on alcohol instead.

              The fact that hundreds if not thousands of governmental groups use Facebook and Twitter puts the lie to your logic. When Facebook and/or Twitter expel someone, they are eliminating access to those governmental groups. Until they stop using Facebook and Twitter, they are very much in the public interest.

              1. By your logic, gasoline isn’t very important to our economy because there are diesel cars and the cars that run on gasoline can theoretically run on alcohol instead.

                I don’t think there’s enough diesels for everyone to go around. Whereas there’s PLENTY of internet.

                The fact that hundreds if not thousands of governmental groups use Facebook and Twitter puts the lie to your logic. When Facebook and/or Twitter expel someone, they are eliminating access to those governmental groups.

                No they aren’t. I can still dig out the yellow pages, go to the government services section, find their address and phone number, and mosey on down there. They haven’t eliminated anything – except a convenience, which they didn’t have to offer in the first place AND to which I have no inherent right.

                1. When your local government expects you to contact them through Facebook or Twitter, then no, you are wrong. It’s NOT just a “convenience” then.

                2. I don’t know of a single government entity that only allows contact through Facebook.

                  I don’t use it. By choice. Does that mean I’ve excluded myself from the government? Or, worse, does it mean I’m COMPELLED to join Facebook to get government access?

                3. There’s plenty of Internet, but there’s not plenty of internet services. If Twitter fell over dead tomorrow and people tried migrating to Gab, Gab’s servers would fall over and die. Same with the Facebook alternatives.

                4. So what?

                  If the local Walmart shuts down, everyone’s going to come to AT’s general store. And I can only fit so much milk in my cooler!

                  I guess that’s my incentive to start expanding, now that I’ve got a much bigger consumer pool.

  11. “When in the course of human events…” Thomas Jefferson, 1776

    IT’S THAT TIME, FOLKS!

        1. I don’t know. You seem to think that it’s here and now. I’m curious as to your reasoning for this.

          If we’re still a ways away from that, then it’s not “that time, folks” is it.

          1. Are we the proverbial frogs in water boiling one degree at a time? Why wait until the water is in a rolling boil?

            1. These are red flags. Not rights deprivations.

              Call me when we get to the rights deprivations, when we actually have legal standing to file a complaint.

      1. You are fine just posting this nonsense on The Right Scoop forums – the pot of boiling water is still tolerable for you little frog.

        1. You are fine just posting this nonsense on The Right Scoop forums

          Yes. Think about that. Exactly how censored can I be when I’m here freely discussing my thoughts and ideas in the public marketplace.

          1. As much as I like The Right Scoop, it’s only a very tiny corner of the “public marketplace”. Your attitude is very similar to the “I’m alright, Jack” attitude from the UK.

            1. Well not just here. There’s a vast, near-infinite pool of possibilities where I can participate in the marketplace of ideas anytime I want.

              Internet’s a real big place.

              1. You are not banned but don’t turn a blind eye to the other who have been silenced. Their silence is my silence too

                1. It is not. You don’t need youtube to watch LWC. And youtube isn’t the only place Steven can share LWC videos. In fact, you can still watch them ON youtube.

                  Nobody has been silenced.

  12. The Obama’s production company struck a multi-year deal with Spotify.

    Spotify bans PragerU from advertising.

    You know what you have to do.

  13. For those who think this battle will be won by using alternatives or petitioning some billionaire to create a free speech version of YouTube, it won’t work, we HAVE to fight on this battleground NOW, and here’s why:

    1. An alternative to YouTube or any social media site will require the following supporting services: cloud-based hosting, analytical system to help track users and data for advertisers, an ad network, and most importantly a financial service to accept payments and distribute funds to creators. Sure, you could just create the video sharing/social media website, but if just one of those other links in the chain is controlled by big tech and they shut off that service the site is dead. So, to ensure the site’s operation no matter what the content, you would need to develop the entire infrastructure from the ground up. That is quite an undertaking.

    2. Simply moving to an alternative isn’t a long term solution as this mentality is more like a virus, spreading through the entire system, and if you move from one infected platform to another eventually the virus will spread to your new location and this all starts over again. However, since you’ve already ceded the previous platform the virus only grows stronger. We have to look at this like the CDC does in battling infectious diseases, don’t simply walk away from a hot zone and allow the infected to take it over, fight the infection at its source, and contain the spread as best you can.

    1. Good point. Also, keep in mind that Google has a monopoly on backbone network as well, so they can choose to stifle competition by charging excessive access fees if they get too big. As much as I hate using government regulation, it is the best solution thus far in regards to Google, social media. Also, when the government went after Microsoft years back, it was very similar monopolistic practices in forcing smaller business shops to abide by their policy! In MS case, it was selling MS OS, so it only affected the pocket book of these smaller shops. In regards to Google, they are forcing all independent creators to sell their policy which not only goes against the pocket book (like in case of MS), but also goes against the individual creators freedom of speech and expression!

      1. Yes Google and Amazon do own or partner with much of the backbone infrastructure, but any system taking on YouTube or the Social Networks will need to build their own data centers to be independent. Now, if ICANN, which thanks to Obama is no longer under US government control, goes after domains based on this nebulous definition of “hate speech” then there is nothing we can do or spend any amount of money to free the internet.

        1. Not necessarily. It will be harder, yes, but the internet is just a network. There is nothing that stops someone from using an overlay network.

  14. What’s being lost in the discussion is that Google WANTS government regulation. They can buy off enough politicians, still get what they want but pass the blame to politicians. It’s the same reason they support net neutrality. The politicians want to pass the buck to the businesses and the business want to pass the buck to the politicians and since both of those will drift toward the left.

    The free market will take a while, but unfortunately it’s the best option.

    1. “The free market will take a while”

      Ya, that’s how we start on a path to socialism right there! We demand free market now!!!

  15. While noting that YouTube, as a subsidiary of a private company, retains broad discretion over the terms of its service in seeking to generate profits, strengthen its brand, and pursue its mission, among other purposes, it should also be noted that all company decisions entail market-related consequences. If the pendulum swings too far from a market standpoint–meaning a customer segment of sufficient scale, willingness, and ability to pay for desired products/services so as to generate profits is excluded–that outcome will open an entrepreneurial opportunity to others. Prospective entrepreneurs can even find market niches sufficiently attractive to launch new ventures and develop new products/services, some of which can become disruptive innovations over time.

    Such opportunities can, with the passage of time, overturn existing business models and remake the competitive landscape. Creative destruction is an inherent feature of the marketplace. No industry or company is immune to its consequences.

  16. Disclaimer to YouTube’s Hate Speech Policy: We reserve the right to add or omit from this list as we see fit and without notice. Further, we reserve the right to enforce to the letter or not enforce these policies depending on whether we like or don’t like you.

  17. Sen. Cruz is right……….”this won’t end well”. Not in favor of gov’t regulation but am in favor of breaking up monopolies and most of the techie sites are just that.

    1. But they themselves have said that’s what they want. Why do they want government regulation? I think it’s because they hope Trump loses and then with a loon in power, we will look like China and they will get even more government subsidies. We are caught between a rock and a hard place on this one and being that there are so many haters on the R side as well, the government regs that we want will never happen and if they do, they will be reversed…

        1. I know that but when we had all the branches, they didn’t stop and in fact we’re able to use that time to get to where they are. I know we have to keep fighting and appreciate Teds effort however he appears once again to be pretty much alone up there.

          1. @new-west Most importantly we have to continue to pray. Sometimes, it’s darkest before the dawn. Right now everyone’s eyes are being opened to what we’ve known. Maybe people will finally see and Congress will have to do something about it. You can’t stop free speech especially when it’s on a public platform. Though these companies claim to be “private” they’ve opened themselves to this by their own actions. Methinks this will have to go through the courts. The DOJ is opening an investigation into Google. I don’t think they’ll be alone.

            1. I agree and want to tell you I love the dialogue we have. It would be nice if we could all discuss issues in this way! 🙂

  18. As for disability not all of You Tube’s videos have captioning.

    Do you see me whining to YouTube about the meanies who don’t accommodate me?

  19. Immigration status?

    I won’t have a problem with immigrants.

    I have an issue with illegal alien status.

    Whew. Looks like I’m good to go.

  20. The more this media creates arbitrary standards to “get conservatives”, the more the other side will have to abide by them as well. Bye, bye crude and raging “progressives”.

  21. Look on the bright side – all those complaining about Private Bone Spurs now go in the Youtube garbage can – can’t attack veteran status.

  22. Whether some stiff Conservatives like it or not, this needs to be addressed using existing leftist frameworks. We must fight the left with THEIR own rules–not ours! You can’t use a knife in a gun battle!
    1) Antitrust laws to break up giant media (youtube/twitter…) so that the small competitions can thrive.
    2) Make political views/speech a protected class. No longer should an LGBTQ argue that they are entitled to more protection because of their sexual preference over a Conservative’s own political views.

      1. Thanks for the link. Very nice piece. I like this quote:

        “Conservative objections to this is a peace time event and we’re not at peace”

    1. Actually, it will end well. MSM and social media tyranny will finally lose their grip on too many lives.

  23. I’m not a big fan of trying to use the government to go after the media giants. Sure, we might have some victories here or there. Sure, if the courts see YT as a publisher and they law suit floodgates open up against them, it might give us some satisfaction.

    But the real solution from a Liberty perspective is for us to go elsewhere.

    Look for alternatives. Use them!

    https://officialproudboys.com/columns/free-speech-alternatives-youtube-facebook-twitter/

    Edit: And much to my chagrin, even that article is out of date because vid.me is no longer. Whatever, keep looking. A new competitor will spring up and gain marketshare surprisingly quickly if there’s a grass roots push to support alternatives.

    1. “But the real solution from a Liberty perspective is for us to go elsewhere.”

      Can you image if the great Abraham Lincoln though that way about slavery?

      1. Sorry, Abe, but the two issues aren’t the same. Slavery was a government-supported removal of liberty for people of a certain race.

        Youtube doesn’t own you. They don’t own the Internet. They don’t own free speech. They are a private company that thinks that their efforts are best spent by fostering a specific type of community that people left-of-center will enjoy. The sooner we stop crying about it, the better.

        What’s next, are we supposed to send Trump’s DOJ after Hollywood movie studies to force them to produce more right-leaning movies?

        1. They aren’t the same, but the point is about the type of reaction–fight or flight. We aren’t in a battle of ideas, but a battle of survival. If you wanna be like Europe, then your ideas will get us there pretty quickly. If you want the country Abraham Lincoln fought for, you gotta be ready to fight in an untraditional way and that’s exactly what Abraham Lincoln did in his time. If he was around today, I’m sure he would be doing the same thing–he shut down newspapers and had enemy soldiers killed all for advancing the cause of freedom and liberty. Liberty isn’t achieved by being passive.

          The internet was created and is regulated by the US government. To use that in a purpose that discriminates against a group of people is unconstitutional and goes against the idea of liberty.

          1. Lincoln was battling government enforced evil. And Lincoln used evil methods to get there. I’m not one of those who hates Lincoln. I’m not one of those who thinks that Lincoln was “right”. I think that Lincoln ultimately used horrible methods to battle the original sin of slavery that was allowed to exist at the Founding. He was in a no-win situation.

            Are we really at that kind of an impasse with Youtube monetization? Is going to war using new notions of “private company free speech” our only option at the moment? The Internet is still a free place where conservatives have opportunities to create new content platforms. If there’s an antitrust nature in what Youtube has done, I’m all for breaking them up or restricting their dominance. But I’m having a hard time seeing that their dickishness really calls for us to throw away our bedrock principle of Liberty and the free markets.

            1. “He was in a no-win situation. Are we really at that kind of an impasse with Youtube monetization?”

              Yes. Monetization is how these small groups make money. Thankfully, Crowder is big enough to survive without it, but I’m seeing many that are saying that this would be the final nail in their small business.

              “But I’m having a hard time seeing that their dickishness really calls for us to throw away our bedrock principle of Liberty and the free markets.”

              Well, I don’t think anyone is calling for getting rid of “liberty and the free markets”. In fact, what I’m advocating for is quite the opposite!!! Is it more free market/liberty when you have a few large corporation controlling who does business or is it more liberty and free market when no corporation or government entity for that matter controls who can do business??

              1. free market when no corporation or government entity for that matter controls who can do business??

                A corporation is not the government. Corporations do not have the power to put you in jail or point guns at you. Sure, a corporation can make it difficult for your business. Walmart can move into your town and make it difficult for the local grocer. Starbucks can move into your city and make it difficult for the independent coffee shop. But as Liberty-minded conservatives, haven’t we always defended those difficulties as being surmountable and ultimately good for society?

                What you’re looking for is going to create a lot of unintended consequences.

                Should Facebook be allowed to shut down spammers who are trying to do business on their platform?

                Should Apple be forced to allow apps on their IOS platform that they don’t think is healthy for their business, like apps that submarine ads to get off the iPhone and switch to Android or help users to hack around Apple’s security features?

                How about talk radio? Should the networks of stations that have built up the whole conservative talk radio phenomenon be broken up or forced to give more air time to leftists? The same arguments you’re making can be made to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”.

                1. Look, I admit, you make some good points which is obviously why great minds can disagree on this, but you are stuck on the fine print of Conservatism and forgetting about the top view of the whole issue.

                  First of all, the examples you use of “Walmart” and “Starbucks” aren’t really good examples since the consequences of these is not a direct effect on smaller businesses, but a side effect. There is a huge difference. It’s like saying I was denied a great business opportunity because a bank didn’t give me a loan because of my credit vs. a bank refusing a loan to me because of my views. There is no doubt that smaller shops close down because Walmart moves in, but Walmart isn’t **ENGAGED** in a practice to make it difficult on smaller business like maybe price fixing/dumping which larger gas station chains engaged in years back, driving out smaller gas stations. In regards to your example of “Facebook” against spammers, again, it’s not the same thing. Spammers are not content creators–they are like the equivalent of DOS (Denial of Service) attacks for social media. Their purpose is to obstruct and hijack. That’s not a legitimate purpose. Now, of course, it’s important to define what a spammer is to keep these companies from using that as an excuse to silence Conservatives. I define a spammer as someone who posts the exact same comment on a platform more than say a half dozen times. If the intent of the spammer to do business, they should sign up with Facebook in the normal channels to do so instead of entering from the back door to avoid any fees. With regards to Apple, yet again, not a good example. It’s one thing to discriminate against someone for their point of view and yet another keep those that undermine their service off. Now, if these social media companies were even handed in who they demonetize and ban, I wouldn’t make a big deal about it, but the fact they specifically target Conservatives is neither a controversy anymore and gives the greater ammo to after them! In regards to talk radio, there is no keeping leftists from going on their–in fact they tried and many failed not because Conservatives did something to keep them off, but ONLY BECAUSE OF THE MARKET!! And that’s the bottom line isn’t it!? Let the market work instead of some big corporate bosses deciding which creators should be able to survive!

        2. I watched a documentary video on Google and Facebook and censorship and control. Google may not own the internet… but it’s close. One person (David Horowitz I believe) ran afoul of Google by publishing an article about their abuses. Basically, his internet access was shut down the next day — literally locked out of the internet. They have that much power.

    2. I don’t know. I’m not opposed to the government breaking them up into smaller entities like they did with Rockefeller back in the day. It would probably be better for everyone.

      1. I agree – if there’s a reasonable anti-trust argument to be made, I’m fine with that. But just reading through the twitter comments and looking around on the internet, I’m seeing an awful lot of support for any kind of government action possible in order to stick a finger in Youtube’s eye. I’m seeing people give up on the free market because this situation is difficult and it’s been going against us. I’m seeing a lot of leftists pointing the finger at our hypocrisy and laughing. And they’re right to laugh.

        The moment it got hard on some conservatives, they gave up on a really important principle.

        1. I’ve only seen two government solutions advocated: break them up as the monopolies they are and remove their protection as a neutral platform because they are publishers.

          I’m fine with both approaches, simultaneously. The only caveat is there are legal hurdles to proving anti-trust. The fact they are effectively a trust is undeniable, but I favor the rule of law.

    3. I liked vid.me before they were taken down. I use duckduckgo for searches. I prefer full30.com for firearms videos and I’ve used UGEtube.com (https://videos.utahgunexchange.com/) which is more general.

      …that isn’t how social media works. People go where people are. So, in Asia, Line is huge. Almost nobody in the US uses Line, they use WhatsApp.

      In their respective formats, Google, YouTube, Facebook, and twitter are monopolies. That’s bad enough, but they’re also information controllers. As a society, we don’t allow one entity to control the newspaper, radio, and TV in a town because it’s fundamentally unhealthy for representative government.

      Now, the new public square is online and there are three players dominating the information space. That is way too much power in too few hands.

    4. But the real solution from a Liberty perspective is for us to go elsewhere.

      You know who could REALLY help facilitate that? It would cost him nothing, he 100% free to do it, nobody could stop him in any way shape or form, and everyone would follow him in doing it.

      Hint: he’s orange and has very small hands.

  24. When Senator Cruz says “This will not end well” I wonder if there are already plans in the making for Congress to get involved. I’ve never know Cruz to make empty threats.

  25. If you’ve been around long enough you’ve seen this before. The TOS grows and grows until it is nearly a mile long and there is no expression in any meaningful way, much less free expression. if YT didn’t have institutional weight, nobody would be interested in signing up for it. However, this institutional weight can crumble, too. Just look at the big three networks. YT is entering its death spiral.

  26. Control the media…..control the masses! Since it seems to be happening more and more, the more I become afraid for America’s future.

  27. They want people to self-censor so they can remain on the “platforms.” I hope there is an exodus of people of all stripes.

  28. As we all know Trump loves to access Twitter daily and I think it’s time he take to Twitter and call out CEO Jack Dorsey for their censorship.
    Followed up with a Press Conference to give a stern warning to Twitter, YouTube, Face Book, etc. to cease their bias and censorship or face an investigation.

  29. By their broad definition of “hate”, any criticism of any kind is considered hate. But without dissent, there is no freedom. It’s impossible to police speech without becoming a dictator. Our Founding Fathers knew this when they gave us the First Amendment.

    1. “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson

  30. My D-Life group at church always brings up “pray for revival in this country.” I always sit there and think “It’s never going to happen.” Reading these articles about this, abortions, and how such a small minority in this country has a large voice, we are on our way to destruction.

    Amazing how they want to remove the electoral college because it’s not fair yet if we were in a true democracy most the things they’re screaming about would probably be voted down by the majority to which they need representation versus democracy.

      1. Agreed but there’s that book at the end called Revelation that’s going to happen. Revival is only go to go so far. I doubt we’ll least 1,000 or 100, or maybe even 20 years.

  31. Conservatives and Libertarians kicked off Facebook.
    Kicked off Twitter.
    Demonetized and banned from YouTube.
    Back-paged on Google searches.

    And yet, still, there is not a viable alternative to these providers? Where are our conservative/libertarian programmers? There has to be a better system than Gab or Minds. And there’s for sure money in it.

    1. @texas-chris Full30 has been hosting many of the gun channels getting screwed by YT.

      1. Hey, Doc. Thanks for posting about Full30. I just shared a link to them with my husband. I don’t know if he knew about it already or not (I texted him), but he was really unhappy when YT started banning those videos.

    2. @texas-chris there are alternatives, but they are miniscule compared to the monopoly of Twitter, YouTube, etc… Break up the monopoly and that will allow the small fish to thrive.

  32. Since the Constitution is in the Left’s way, they just circumvent it where they can. Truly pathetic people. Being a fat wussy shouldn’t get rewarded. Geez

  33. For all of those who favor litigation, remember the fable about the two farmers who were caught up in a lawsuit over property lines. It became so expensive for each that the lawyers wound up with the deeds to both farms, and the farmers had to file for Chapter Seven.

  34. Crowder is just one in a series of channels that have been demonitized because YT just doesn’t approve of the content. Many responsible, educational firearms channels have already had the treatment.

    1. I am convinced these tech giants are doing this on purpose. They’re aiming for government regulation, and they’re planning on writing that regulation in order to keep new, less-than-left-leaning platforms from being able to compete.

  35. stop playing God

    But… they’re kind of allowed to.

    I mean, it’s their world. They created it. We don’t have a right to it (and certainly not on our own terms) simply because it exists and is available to us for use. If I create a blog and it’s open to anyone to post their material, I can go through those postings and delete whatever I want. If you try to make money off of my blog, I can shut that down too. My blog. I’m the god of that blog. Not you, and not anybody else.

    Ben’s objection that it’s a heckler’s veto is a much better argument. But note that it just points out that it’s a crappy thing for them to do. Not a wrongful thing for them to do.

    1. The Supreme Court thinks otherwise. From Munn vs Illinois, 1876:

      Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.

      1. I’d argue that Youtube doesn’t have as much public consequence and community affect as we might pretend it does. Nobody is dependent on Youtube, there are alternatives (and plenty of space for more alternatives), and if Youtube disappeared tomorrow public society would get along just fine.

        If Walmart and Mom’s General Store exist, but everybody goes to Walmart (despite bitching about how unfair Walmart is) – that doesn’t mean the public gets and interest and thus we get to control Walmart.

        I don’t know if we can rely on Munn as much as we think we can.

  36. For those who think this battle will be won by using alternatives or petitioning some billionaire to create a free speech version of YouTube, it won’t work, we HAVE to fight on this battleground NOW, and here’s why:

    1. An alternative to YouTube or any social media site will require the following supporting services: cloud-based hosting, analytical system to help track users and data for advertisers, an ad network, and most importantly a financial service to accept payments and distribute funds to creators. Sure, you could just create the video sharing/social media website, but if just one of those other links in the chain is controlled by big tech and they shut off that service the site is dead. So, to ensure the site’s operation no matter what the content, you would need to develop the entire infrastructure from the ground up. That is quite an undertaking.

    2. Simply moving to an alternative isn’t a long term solution as this mentality is more like a virus, spreading through the entire system, and if you move from one infected platform to another eventually the virus will spread to your new location and this all starts over again. However, since you’ve already ceded the previous platform the virus only grows stronger. We have to look at this like the CDC does in battling infectious diseases, don’t simply walk away from a hot zone and allow the infected to take it over, fight the infection at its source, and contain the spread as best you can.

    1. Good point. Also, keep in mind that Google has a monopoly on backbone network as well, so they can choose to stifle competition by charging excessive access fees if they get too big. As much as I hate using government regulation, it is the best solution thus far in regards to Google, social media. Also, when the government went after Microsoft years back, it was very similar monopolistic practices in forcing smaller business shops to abide by their policy! In MS case, it was selling MS OS, so it only affected the pocket book of these smaller shops. In regards to Google, they are forcing all independent creators to sell their policy which not only goes against the pocket book (like in case of MS), but also goes against the individual creators freedom of speech and expression!

      1. Yes Google and Amazon do own or partner with much of the backbone infrastructure, but any system taking on YouTube or the Social Networks will need to build their own data centers to be independent. Now, if ICANN, which thanks to Obama is no longer under US government control, goes after domains based on this nebulous definition of “hate speech” then there is nothing we can do or spend any amount of money to free the internet.

  37. What’s being lost in the discussion is that Google WANTS government regulation. They can buy off enough politicians, still get what they want but pass the blame to politicians. It’s the same reason they support net neutrality. The politicians want to pass the buck to the businesses and the business want to pass the buck to the politicians and since both of those will drift toward the left.

    The free market will take a while, but unfortunately it’s the best option.

    1. “The free market will take a while”

      Ya, that’s how we start on a path to socialism right there! We demand free market now!!!

  38. While noting that YouTube, as a subsidiary of a private company, retains broad discretion over the terms of its service in seeking to generate profits, strengthen its brand, and pursue its mission, among other purposes, it should also be noted that all company decisions entail market-related consequences. If the pendulum swings too far from a market standpoint–meaning a customer segment of sufficient scale, willingness, and ability to pay for desired products/services so as to generate profits is excluded–that outcome will open an entrepreneurial opportunity to others. Prospective entrepreneurs can even find market niches sufficiently attractive to launch new ventures and develop new products/services, some of which can become disruptive innovations over time.

    Such opportunities can, with the passage of time, overturn existing business models and remake the competitive landscape. Creative destruction is an inherent feature of the marketplace. No industry or company is immune to its consequences.

  39. Disclaimer to YouTube’s Hate Speech Policy: We reserve the right to add or omit from this list as we see fit and without notice. Further, we reserve the right to enforce to the letter or not enforce these policies depending on whether we like or don’t like you.

  40. Sen. Cruz is right……….”this won’t end well”. Not in favor of gov’t regulation but am in favor of breaking up monopolies and most of the techie sites are just that.

    1. But they themselves have said that’s what they want. Why do they want government regulation? I think it’s because they hope Trump loses and then with a loon in power, we will look like China and they will get even more government subsidies. We are caught between a rock and a hard place on this one and being that there are so many haters on the R side as well, the government regs that we want will never happen and if they do, they will be reversed…

        1. I know that but when we had all the branches, they didn’t stop and in fact we’re able to use that time to get to where they are. I know we have to keep fighting and appreciate Teds effort however he appears once again to be pretty much alone up there.

  41. As for disability not all of You Tube’s videos have captioning.

    Do you see me whining to YouTube about the meanies who don’t accommodate me?

  42. Immigration status?

    I won’t have a problem with immigrants.

    I have an issue with illegal alien status.

    Whew. Looks like I’m good to go.

  43. The more this media creates arbitrary standards to “get conservatives”, the more the other side will have to abide by them as well. Bye, bye crude and raging “progressives”.

  44. Look on the bright side – all those complaining about Private Bone Spurs now go in the Youtube garbage can – can’t attack veteran status.

  45. Whether some stiff Conservatives like it or not, this needs to be addressed using existing leftist frameworks. We must fight the left with THEIR own rules–not ours! You can’t use a knife in a gun battle!
    1) Antitrust laws to break up giant media (youtube/twitter…) so that the small competitions can thrive.
    2) Make political views/speech a protected class. No longer should an LGBTQ argue that they are entitled to more protection because of their sexual preference over a Conservative’s own political views.

    1. Actually, it will end well. MSM and social media tyranny will finally lose their grip on too many lives.

  46. I’m not a big fan of trying to use the government to go after the media giants. Sure, we might have some victories here or there. Sure, if the courts see YT as a publisher and they law suit floodgates open up against them, it might give us some satisfaction.

    But the real solution from a Liberty perspective is for us to go elsewhere.

    Look for alternatives. Use them!

    https://officialproudboys.com/columns/free-speech-alternatives-youtube-facebook-twitter/

    Edit: And much to my chagrin, even that article is out of date because vid.me is no longer. Whatever, keep looking. A new competitor will spring up and gain marketshare surprisingly quickly if there’s a grass roots push to support alternatives.

    1. “But the real solution from a Liberty perspective is for us to go elsewhere.”

      Can you image if the great Abraham Lincoln though that way about slavery?

    2. I don’t know. I’m not opposed to the government breaking them up into smaller entities like they did with Rockefeller back in the day. It would probably be better for everyone.

    3. I liked vid.me before they were taken down. I use duckduckgo for searches. I prefer full30.com for firearms videos and I’ve used UGEtube.com (https://videos.utahgunexchange.com/) which is more general.

      …that isn’t how social media works. People go where people are. So, in Asia, Line is huge. Almost nobody in the US uses Line, they use WhatsApp.

      In their respective formats, Google, YouTube, Facebook, and twitter are monopolies. That’s bad enough, but they’re also information controllers. As a society, we don’t allow one entity to control the newspaper, radio, and TV in a town because it’s fundamentally unhealthy for representative government.

      Now, the new public square is online and there are three players dominating the information space. That is way too much power in too few hands.

  47. When Senator Cruz says “This will not end well” I wonder if there are already plans in the making for Congress to get involved. I’ve never know Cruz to make empty threats.

  48. If you’ve been around long enough you’ve seen this before. The TOS grows and grows until it is nearly a mile long and there is no expression in any meaningful way, much less free expression. if YT didn’t have institutional weight, nobody would be interested in signing up for it. However, this institutional weight can crumble, too. Just look at the big three networks. YT is entering its death spiral.

  49. Control the media…..control the masses! Since it seems to be happening more and more, the more I become afraid for America’s future.

  50. They want people to self-censor so they can remain on the “platforms.” I hope there is an exodus of people of all stripes.

  51. As we all know Trump loves to access Twitter daily and I think it’s time he take to Twitter and call out CEO Jack Dorsey for their censorship.
    Followed up with a Press Conference to give a stern warning to Twitter, YouTube, Face Book, etc. to cease their bias and censorship or face an investigation.

  52. By their broad definition of “hate”, any criticism of any kind is considered hate. But without dissent, there is no freedom. It’s impossible to police speech without becoming a dictator. Our Founding Fathers knew this when they gave us the First Amendment.

  53. Crowder is just one in a series of channels that have been demonitized because YT just doesn’t approve of the content. Many responsible, educational firearms channels have already had the treatment.

Comments are closed.