Censorship

Dennis Prager, Who Boasts 1 Billion Video Views a Year, Decries YouTube 'Censorship'

The pundit made the claim at a Senate hearing on allegations of tech censorship against conservatives.

|

Dennis Prager, the right-leaning radio host and pundit who runs the widely successful nonprofit PragerU, testified Tuesday before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. His subject was Google's alleged censorship of conservatives.

"I promise you, one day you will say, first they came after conservatives, and I said nothing," opined Prager, invoking the famous post-Holocaust era poem by Martin Niemöller. "And then they came after me—and there was no one left to speak up for me."

YouTube—Google's video-sharing subsidiary—houses PragerU free of charge. The nonprofit has more than 2.2 million subscribers there, and its YouTube videos receive over a billion views a year, according to Prager, who concurrently says the tech giant is censoring him.

To back that up, he cites YouTube's decision to restrict approximately 20 percent of his online 5-minute video shorts on the grounds that they contain mature content—thus hiding those videos from the approximately 1.5 percent of users who elect for restricted control. Karan Bhatia, formerly a conservative political operative and now Google's vice president for government affairs and public policy, testified that the approach allows users and institutions to filter out content with adult themes.

Prager begs to differ. "Of course we know why," he said during Tuesday's hearing. "Because they come from a conservative perspective."

Unfortunately for this argument, Google records show that the Huffington Post, Vox, Buzzfeed, NowThis, and The Daily Show all have much larger swaths of content restricted under YouTube's policy. Seventy-one percent of videos from The Young Turks—a leftist channel—are blocked, dwarfing PragerU's share:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas), who chaired the hearing, pressed Bhatia on Prager's restricted videos. "Among those that are censored include a video on the Ten Commandments," Cruz said. "Another one censored includes a video on the history of the nation of Israel. The restrictions are purportedly for blocking things like pornography, but apparently in YouTube's world, talking about the Ten Commandments and the nation of Israel is comparable and should be blocked."

"Respectfully, senator, that's not right," replied Bhatia, explaining that those videos contained mature topics—murder, rape, etc. He reiterated that they are still visible to the "98.5 percent" of YouTube users who do not opt for restricted mode.

That falls far short of censorship. Would Cruz prefer that the choice to hide certain bits of content—an option provided by a private company—be taken away from free-thinking individuals and institutions?

Ironically, Cruz does support censorship—when it fits within his ideological wheelhouse. "If someone uses [Google or YouTube] to commit slander, or to transmit classified material, or to traffic guns or drugs, far too often Google is off the hook," he said in his opening statement. As such, he suggested amending Section 230 to make social media sites criminally and civilly liable for every post published on those platforms. Cruz is casting himself as a defender of free speech, but the actual policy change that he's proposing would give tech giants an incentive to suppress more speech.

Cruz also accused Google of heavily weighing its search results toward liberal perspectives. "Google's control over what people hear, read, watch, and say is unprecedented," the senator said. "When we search on Google, we see only the web pages Google decides we should see."

Google News may well skew left: A study by the media company AllSides found that approximately 65 percent of the company's search engine results come from left-leaning sources. (Full disclosure: I used to work at AllSides.) But that doesn't mean the platform is rigged against any one ideological standpoint. Its results can be explained by the company's popularity algorithm—which, true to its name, showcases the most popular results—as well as the fact that there are more liberal sources available for the parsing. What the government would do to rectify this remains unclear.

Further, Cruz and his conservative cohort fail to reckon with the fact that right-leaning media conglomerates are often masters of using online algorithms—the very ones they lament—to their advantage. Francesca Tripodi, a sociologist at James Madison University, gave an example of that when she testified that Fox News is 6.7 times more likely to use "AOC"—the moniker for socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.)—as a search engine optimization tag than the liberal outlet MSNBC, "thereby increasing the probability that searching for the phrase will link audiences to conservative news coverage of a liberal politician."

Tripodi adeptly unmasked the root of the problem among right-leaning lawmakers. "Privately-held corporations, like Facebook, Google, and Twitter, are not the new public square. They are sophisticated advertising firms designed to profit from the data we provide to them," she testified.

"Simply put, if content is readily available, it is not being suppressed," Tripodi continued. "What conservatives who are arguing censorship are frustrated with is not the constitutional right to free speech, but is actually a grievance against a free market economy."

NEXT: The New Conservative Nationalism Is About Subverting Individual Liberty

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

228 responses to “Dennis Prager, Who Boasts 1 Billion Video Views a Year, Decries YouTube 'Censorship'

  1. Didn’t Cruz also show a Google document, authored by a Google employee, that specifically stated that the company acts as a censor? I only heard about that briefly, but haven’t looked into yet.

    1. Tim Pool mentioned it, yes. They viewed themselves, YouTube, Twitter, et al as “good censors”. Then tried to claim “Well, it’s just a small team here”. As Pool said, there is not a Bob Google making all of the decisions. THIS IS YOUR COMPANY MAKING THESE CLAIMS.

      1. Yeah, if that small team was working on company time when they produced that document, and then used the document during the course of business, than we can reasonably say that Google views itself as a censor, at least internally.

        1. And what would be the problem with that? Youtube should make sure that innocent people are not subjected to videos dealing with inappropriate topics like rape or murder. Since “trigger warnings” are clearly ineffective, disturbing texts that discuss such things should also be banned from college classes, just the way the government takes action when inappropriate “parody” impinges (no matter how “truthfully”) on reputations and on the limits of polite academic conversation. See the documentation of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case at:

          https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

          1. Here is the list of videos:

            Are The Police Racist?
            Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?
            Why Did America Fight the Korean War?
            Who’s More Pro-Choice: Europe or America?
            What ISIS Wants
            Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?
            Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do
            Did Bush Lie About Iraq?
            Who NOT to Vote For
            Do Not Murder
            Is America Racist?
            Israel: The World’s Most Moral Army
            Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology
            The Most Important Question About Abortion
            Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?
            Don’t Judge Blacks Differently
            What is the University Diversity Scam?
            He Wants You
            Israel’s Legal Founding

            Google is well aware by putting its label of undesirable videos, they cannot be accessed in public libraries, etc. Yes they have other videos that are being watched, by Google has indeed censored these.

        2. than we can reasonably say that Google views itself as a censor, at least internally.

          :Likewise, if your employer forciblyrapoes a 7-year-old, then can we “reasonable assume” you’er a pedophile rapist?

          Or are you the only one permitted to make massively UNreasonable assumptions.

          1. That’s a weird example but lets run with it. If my employer does the crime on company time using company property in commission of the crime, the company can be held liable, yes, which might impact you if you lose your job due to the company being shuttered or sued out of existence. However, you, as an individual, would not be held liable so long as you were not personally involved in the crime.

            Are you familiar with the concept of lender liability? Today, in the USA, if I’m some lowly lender in a giant bank, and I quote you an interest rate of 4.50% for a transaction, but wont actually give you any rate lower than 5.10%, the entire bank can be held liable (why do you think your Banker has all that fine print language in every email they send to you?). The actions of the individual, working on company time using company property, are the actions of the bank.

            You’re thinking of this problem from the layman’s perspective. Legal reality could not be further from the layman’s perception of justice, responsibility, liability, etc.

            1. Trip, you’re replying to Hihn. Expect any response to be unHihnged.

      2. The basic premise of that graph and this discussion is censorship and that is a 1st Amendment court issue.

        But the grand paradigm assumption that there is Left vs. Right bias!
        That is dated and obsolete dichotomy that has been replaced by Centralized Globalism/ NWO vs. individual freedom/democracy, Constitutional govt. Globalists control both DNC and RNC so it is grossly misleading for us all to allow the dinosaur 2 party system to rig multi-national corporations like Google owners as arbiters of what news is admissible. Libertarians certainly agree that there is little difference between John Bolton the neocon Trump advisor and Hillary Clinton, the neoloberal puppet of neocon Victoria Nuland. They both believe in ‘foreign ádventurism’ and failing States; using military as form of welfare for mega-Corporations and Koch Bros. The two Parties only agrument is over the petty scale single mothers poor welfare. That graph is irrelevant! The censors need to be attacked for what they delete that relates to the Globalism vs, Freedom new dichotomy. Analyze for that and you will discern a crystal (Kristol) clear pattern of bias.

    2. There was a hearing yesterday that concluded that google swung anywhere from 2.6 to 10.4 million votes through deceptive algorithms.

      But that was nothing compared to 10 Russians making Hillary memes so the MSM will ignore it.

      1. What kind of a hearing? I’d be interested to see how they came to that conclusion.
        Funny (if this is true) how people who almost certainly think Citizens United was wrong are happy to have their corporation involved in electioneering through social engineering.

        1. Some seem to only object if a foreigner influences our elections remotely. They don’t seem to have an issue if that foreigner comes across the southern border and votes directly.

          1. They seemed to care a lot about US corporations influencing elections too for a while.

            1. Of course they only care when it favors the other team.

        2. Dr. Robert Epstein at the Senate Judiciary Hearing.

          Doesn’t even matter, Google leaks already revealed that they are using algorithms to swing elections. Facebook admitted it in 2012.

          I’m beginning to think “libertarians” don’t care because they think the sooner the republic falls the better. That or their lack of belief in democracy. Which is fine but stop lying that you believe in our system of governance.

          1. I’m mostly curious about how they arrived at the numbers.

            I don’t think it’s so much that libertarians don’t care as that they see conflicting rights and come to a different conclusion than you do. It’s possible to not like what Google does but believe they have the right to do so.
            It’s interesting to look at this debate next to Citizens United. I think it is clear that corporations have first amendment protections for their speech/press output, even if it’s political. It’s not entirely clear how what Google does fits into it. If they are somehow committing fraud, that’s another issue. But if that’s the case, they should be charged with fraud, or sued for breach of contract, not broken up or further regulated.

            1. If that’s not an illegal campaign contribution I don’t know what is

              1. There is that, I guess. Would be interesting to see the Justice department try to go after them.

              2. It is certainly an undeclared campaign contribution. How much would one have to pay to steer Google searches towards a certain product?

    3. To claim that only 1.5% of users are blocked from seeing the videos is disingenuous — akin to Planned Parenthood claiming that abortions only represent 3% of their services. The vast majority of those “1.5%” are institutional “users” who represent a vast swath of potential viewers. Among the “1.5%” are schools, corporations, public libraries and other locations that the public uses to access the internet.

      Collectively these “1.5%” of “users” represent millions of viewers who are being refused access to PragerU videos. As PragerU stated, those who are being refused access to the videos represent their target audience — the young.

  2. “Simply put, if content is readily available, it is not being suppressed,”

    I don’t know about PraegerU, but what about YouTube’s habit of demonetizing certain far-right bloggers? Suppression or not? The content’s readily available, but it does impact their revenue streams. I’d assume this has driven at least of few of them from YouTube.

    1. Don’t forget the not-far-right comedians who Google determined haven’t violated any of their rules, but who got demonetized because they were effective at pushing their ideology?

      1. I’m not trying to build a list here, just curious if anyone considers it suppression.

  3. Guess it’s attack the right week. Don’t recall Netroots getting this much coverage. But whatevs.

  4. One explanation for de-platforming I don’t see discussed, is the political ideology of people who report content for review.

    These platforms are mostly permission-less, so once an item of content get’s past an algorithm that might block it, whether it get’s blocked in the future depends on the number of people who report it for violating terms of service.

    It’s my speculation that people on the left, are more likely to report content they don’t like than on the right. Then it faces review, and if the reviewers are more left than right, they may be more likely to block the reported content.

    1. There actually is a tendency for lefties to report things more, since things they don’t like on the Internet are ‘literally violence’. But there are also the deliberate campaigns organized by Media Matters, and Vox (using Carlos Maza, an ex-employee of Media Matters). Their reporting of accounts, comments, posts, tweets, etc. is more than just a tendency. It’s what they do. It’s their mission.

  5. At this point, I just hope to see Reason’s content shuttered.

    1. Ah-men. And when a video surfaced of Google employees (higher ups) stating that it was their responsibility to make sure Trump was not re-elected, they removed that video under very dubious claims, and demonetized all videos discussing it. But nah. They’ve got an ‘explanation’ that Reasonoids will lap up.

      When I see Reason carrying water for monopolistic corporate entities, I haz a sad.

      1. It’s still up on Bitchute. I didn’t think I was missing much until I saw it. To say that these people live in a bubble is an understatement. It’s very revealing, and you can verify the claims of autocomplete manipulation yourself. Look up “Project Veritas Exposes Google” on Bitchute.

        Remember when YouTube banned all depictions of guns because violence, or ickyness, or something? Why is Reason defending the indefensible?

        1. Fuck, just type in “Trump emails” and “Hillary emails” in google search.

          1. Type in “Women can” and “Men can” and hilarity ensues

          2. Do you think that comparison proves anything?

            In case you hadn’t heard, there was a big scandal recently involving Hillary’s emails.

            By contrast, Trump DOESN’T EVEN USE EMAIL.

            Why would anyone think that comparing these two would show anything meaningful?

            1. It just shows what the algorithm will spit out. Don’t get mad at me that the results contradict your narrative.

            2. You’re being deliberately obtuse, right? A lot of people have been searching about Clinton’s emails. Almost nobody searches about Trump’s emails. Google intended to downplay the scandal by making it not autocomplete, to the direct benefit of Hillary Clinton. They only started doing the same to Trump when they were called out on it, so make it look even-steven. But the impact (election meddling) is the same.

              1. This is paranoid nonsense.
                The first result for “Hillary email” goes to the Wikipedia page on thw subject.
                What more do you want?
                Maybe Google should replace the search with LOCKHERUP

                1. You missed when he said “auto complete” – well, you ignored it.
                  Fuck off and literally die

                2. You’ve missed the point twice now. Don’t post again.

                3. Goddamn Pedo Jeffy, you are one annoying, obtuse kid.

    2. At this point, I just hope to see Reason’s content shuttered.

      Then what would you bitch about all day?

      1. Never having to see you being a spineless equivocator ever again?

        1. I’m sure that would be a blow to him.

  6. Jesus Christ Prager acts like he’s Jesus Christ … i kid i kinda like Dennis but I don’t know what youtube owes him if he’s not paying for the space … and Ted Cruz needs to go on vacation for like 12 years in hopes everyone forgets what happened to him

    1. He already took time off between being the zodiak killer and running for office

  7. Prayer is demonitized and not listed on main page searches for topics. Just because it isnt 100% blocking doesnt mean it isnt censorship. What a fucking stupid article.

    1. So censorship equals one extra click now?

      1. $park¥ is the Worst
        July.18.2019 at 10:02 am
        The fund is for first responders, not everyone who breathed some bad air.

      2. I don’t know, Sparky, does particulates of heavy metal elements, burning cement, insulation, glass, rubber and plastic = “some bad air”?

        1. does particulates of heavy metal elements, burning cement, insulation, glass, rubber and plastic = “some bad air”?

          Yes. Not sure what that has to do with censorship though.

          1. At least you’re owning your own idiocy. I suppose you still hold the position that the 9/11 fund is only for first responders? Keep living your own truth, Sparky.

            1. Are you saying you believe all that shit floating around is good air?

              1. Are you deliberately acting like you didn’t post some really dumb shit this morning?

                1. Oh I see, you’re whining because I said bad air was bad air but didn’t make it sound big enough. Got it.

                  1. $park¥ is the Worst
                    July.18.2019 at 10:02 am
                    The fund is for first responders, not everyone who breathed some bad air.

                    Just not letting you ignore the fact that you belittle people suffering from terrorist attacks. Oh, and your blatant disregard for the truth.

                    1. How original, using fake Tulpa’s schtick. If you’re just going to be fake Tulpa Jr then it will be easy enough to ignore you too.

                    2. HEy! I suffered too! There was bad air up to hundreds of miles away!

                      I am traumatized. Where’s my free money?

                    3. You can call me Tulpa all you want, SparkY, everyone can still see the stupid comment you posted this morning. Nothing changes that fact.

      3. That’s pretty dishonest, Sparky.
        It’s not one extra click and they’re deliberately hiding content, and hiding content really is censorship.

        1. Google’s actions means that the videos can’t be seen and millions of schools and libraries. What’s the word for that??? Oh, yeah. Censorship.

      4. Censorship is anything done to make it harder to access a certain viewpoint dumbfuck.

        You think the audio dubs are not censorship on movies for language?

        Stop being a Jeff.

        1. Censorship is anything done to make it harder to access a certain viewpoint

          Yeah, I already knew you weren’t too bright.

          1. Quoting something correct and then adding an incredulous ad-hom is not an argument. He’s absolutely correct, this article is trash, and you are a moron.

            1. Binion’s articles generally are not impressive.

        2. Jesse, SparkY is pro-censorship, so this is all just complements to him.

          1. I’m so pro-censorship you can see all the posts I’m putting up begging Reason to either ban you or delete your posts so everyone else doesn’t need to be subjected to your stupidity.

            1. And there it is. A very angry man.

              1. Quite possibly true, though I didn’t see him join the Brandybuck-chemjeff call for censorship.
                It’s possible he just missed roundup that day

      5. Sparky, the vast majority of users go to a link on the first page of Google search results. The other day I heard it was 95 percent. There is a joke that the best place to hide a dead body is on the second page of Google results.

    2. Don’t know why I had to go this far down the comments section to see this. Should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

  8. And why has none of the pro corporate censorship authors at reason mentioned the meagan Murphy lawsuit? 230 is blocking way more than reason claims it does. She argued the bulk of her case under contract law but was dismissed under 230 grounds. Dishonesty is abundant.

    1. Because, according to Reason, since Ron Wyden didn’t mean for Section 230 to afford extra protections to crony capitalists, its not a crony capitalist protection at all!

      Kind of like how Democrats that authored the Affordable Care Act didn’t mean to separate people from the doctors that they liked, so absolutely no one lost their doctor as a result of the law.

      1. The authors of Title IX said it could never be used for things like quotas in sports.

        I guess Reason also buys into the whole “unexpected” consequences literally everybody saw coming.

      2. How does it afford extra protections to crony capitalists? Does it not provide the same protections to any company or person who runs an internet content platform?
        I’m really asking. Am I missing something? How does 230 give any special advantage to Google or any other company?
        Competition is the answer, I think. Like half of Google’s user base is probably politically right of center. If they are being as awful as people claim, people can and should use other services.

        1. These platforms compete with both print and online newspapers, neither of which are afforded 230 advantages.

          1. Are online newspapers liable for user generated content (e.g. comment sections)?

            I like the idea of online platforms being able to allow users to freely post things without fear of being sued. If anything, I think it should be made broader. If there are things that are unreasonably excluded from protections, I’d get behind changing that. But I’d like to see it done in a way that promotes more free online communication and not broader screening and censorship by companies that are now also worried about getting sued. And if there are laws and regulations that could be changed that would foster more competition in tech, I’d be for that too.

            1. I don’t know, comment sections probably can’t get an online newspaper sued. The real question has nothing to do with comment sections. The real question is why is 230 being used to allow Twitter to change its ToS after the fact, then turn around and ban people for posting things that were within the rules before the ToS were changed. That’s what JesseAz is referring to, so I think you might be confused with the people that want to be able to sue based on user generated content posted to Facebook, twitter, etc. This is a contract issue. 230 is providing social media companies the freedom to change ToS after the fact and then use that as a justification to refuse service to people.

              The real question is: Are newspapers also allowed to breach contracts with impunity? Are online newspapers able to unilaterally change contracts and then punish the other party for something they did before the contract was unilaterally changed?

              1. Twitter’s TOS says they can ban anyone for any reason, “hate speech” or not.

                So what Twitter chooses to re-classify as “hate speech” is ultimately irrelevant.

                That is why Meghan’s lawsuit failed.

                1. Hmm, that’s factually inaccurate, however a lot of articles have mentioned the “anything” part of the TOS, which would be laughable for any other type of business to include and try to enforce in their contracts. But we give these particular types of businesses special protections, so it is what it is I suppose.

                    1. Lulz. Techdirt. The vox of technical articles. How about an actual legal analysis.

                    2. Jeff, I appreciate you bringing up this article to support what I was saying (I actually read this exact same article before posting these comments today, since I knew you would try to use it as a source – I figured you’d just use the first thing that came up on google). From the article:

                      Twitter responded with an anti-SLAPP motion and a recitation of Section 230. The court finds the anti-SLAPP law does not apply because Murphy’s complaint is fashioned as a class-action lawsuit seeking relief for her and others like her, rather than seeking to prevent Twitter from engaging in public interest speech of its own.

                      But Section 230 bars everything else.

                      The article you referenced confirms that the “anything” clause is not what was used to dismiss the lawsuit. Section 230 was. Also from the article:

                      Not included in this recitation of redresses is the fact that Twitter reserves the right to remove accounts for “any or no reason,” which may be bullshit, but it’s bullshit Murphy agreed to when she created her now-banned account.

                      This is the only thing that the article states about the “anything” clause, and the article makes no claims whatsoever about this clause being the justification used to dismiss the lawsuit. The article only mentions this as an aside, so it doesn’t even come close to proving that you want it to prove. In fact, this article confirms everything I’ve said in this thread.

                    3. The article you referenced confirms that the “anything” clause is not what was used to dismiss the lawsuit. Section 230 was.

                      Yes – because Section 230 permits Twitter the license to engage in moderation in the first place. And actually you are right – it doesn’t seem to matter at all what the TOS says.

                    4. actually you are right – it doesn’t seem to matter at all what the TOS says.

                      Precisely. Contracts with customers and suppliers are supposed to mean something, but because of the way Section 230 is being interpreted by the courts, contracts don’t mean anything at all for a select group of companies. This is crony capitalism.

                  1. I know it’s not how things work now, so it’s complicated, but shouldn’t a business be allowed to say “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason”?
                    I’m no expert on contracts, so excuse me if I’m off base here. But it seems that online TOSes are sort of like that. “If you want to use this service, here are the terms. If you don’t like it, you are free to go elsewhere” seems reasonable from someone who is providing a free platform for you to use so they can sell ads for you to see.
                    Seems like the situation is different when a person has a financial arrangement with a company. Then arbitrarily changing the rules does real harm.

                    1. You can actually put anything you want into a contract. Absolutely anything. I work with contracts for a living, which means that I deal with lawyers on a constant basis. One thing I’m constantly told – you can put anything into a contract, but the courts can also toss out anything you put into a contract. So they can put in “we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason” and when they get sued, the judge can say “this part of the contract is unreasonable for _______ reason and I am rendering that clause null and void.”

                      Have you read some of the shit that banks put in contracts? They know at least 25% of that shit is unenforceable, but they put it in because they know most of their customers can’t afford to fight the contract in court. Huge corporations that run online businesses know the same thing – even if they put shit in their contract that would be tossed out in court, almost no one will have the resources to challenge them (even if they could get past the wide-ranging protections that 230 offers).

                      Contract are also unenforceable if consideration (something of value) is not provided to both parties in return for agreeing to execute the contract. Social media companies are not running free services. You are selling your data to the social media company in exchange for access to the platform. Value is exchanged and both parties come out ahead. That’s why the ToS change after the fact matters – if you have possession of my data and then breach the contract, I ought to at least order you to purge my data from your servers.

                    2. I have seen some of the shit in bank contracts. I resisted getting a credit card for a long time because I actually read the agreement and wasn’t wild about the part where they could change the terms at any time. Why bother with the rest of it if you are going to say that. I guess because it is likely unenforceable if anyone took it to court.

                2. Jeff… if you weren’t fucking retarded you would know contracts that allow one party claim to be able to change terms at any time are not enforceable provisions and ignored by courts. Stop being so ignorant.

                  1. Pedo Jeffy obviously never took a business law class.

              2. Well, I’ll have to think about that. Of course, breach of contract is a tort and it should be possible to hold the companies accountable for that.
                But I’m not sure what I think about a company being able to change the TOS on existing users. It seems like it would be unreasonable to require a company to keep the same TOS for existing users forever. Circumstances change, as do company goals and as a company grows, things that worked when they were small may be unworkable if they become very large.
                I don’t claim to know the right answer, but until I’m well convinced otherwise, I’ll stick to my default that government should stay out of it.

                1. It’d be more excusable if they deleted the post. Instead they banned her for a rule they applied retroactively. We should all be thinking about this, a lot.

                  1. Maybe that’s where the line should be drawn for what counts as a platform. Banning users outright or moderating all content means you aren’t. But deleting posts after they have been posted because they violate some standard is OK.

                    1. Maybe, I don’t know. I’ve gone from extremely pissed about this issue to fairly concerned about it because of a lot of reasonable posts and arguments on this website.

                      All I know is, these companies have a lot of power, power that is unprecedented in our world. They’ve acknowledged such power behind closed doors, deny it in public and continuously contradict the way they describe their own businesses in court depending on which argument suits the situation. Even if they are dethroned by the market, how much damage will they do if they successfully shape the narrative for average Americans for the next 5 years?

                      Doing nothing seems like the sucker’s answer, but so does creating a regulatory body. Maybe some new laws about contracts is the more appropriate route, and that’s what I’d like to explore.

                    2. These kinds of contracts are just asking for massive class action suits.

                2. “things that worked when they were small may be unworkable if they become very large.”

                  Interesting if applied to Big Tech and the competition solution

            2. It would be more like realclear where they post a shit ton of third party and independent viewpoints. Because they choose what articles to put up, they can indeed be prosecuted if an article is defamatory.

              1. So a library can be sued for carrying a defamatory book? Is that your standard?

                1. If the library printed that book, yes.

                  But of course you engage in the typical straw man.

                  1. Engaging Pedo Jeffy is a waste of energy. He’s, stupid, annoying, and massively disingenuous.

                    He also is a big booster of bringing illegals here who want to rape children.

            3. “But I’d like to see it done in a way that promotes more free online communication and not broader screening and censorship by companies that are now also worried about getting sued”

              But they’re screening NOW with no risk of being sued due to Section 230. Take away their protections and force them to choose.

              1. Choose between what?

                I don’t really think that a platform needs to be content neutral. I don’t think that’s desirable. If I want to run a site that allows people to post anything they want as long as it’s about kittens, I shouldn’t be sued for a user’s defamatory kitten post because I delete posts about puppies.
                If there is something in the law protecting Google from being sued by people who are legitimately harmed by their shenanigans, I’d support changing that. Or limiting retroactive changes in TOS. But I don’t think that insisting that platforms must be completely neutral to be considered such is desirable.

                1. The point is that lack of content neutrality as expressed through who/what is posted vs who/what is erased or prevented from posting clearly shows that the platform is picking and choosing what to publish.
                  If they’re able to choose what to publish based on their personal tastes/bias/policy, they should be made to accept the responsibility of those choices.
                  Is accountability for an entity’s decisions too much to ask for?

                  1. If their decision harm someone, sure. And I think there is room for action when they change the terms on people they are paying for content.
                    But unless they are choosing what to publish in a positive sense, rather than selectively choosing not to publish certain things as is the case now as far as I can see, I don’t really think they should be liable for everything any user posts unless they refuse to remove it when there is a legal reason they have to.

                    1. Google certainly chooses what to post through the order search results return.
                      That is arguably fraud, but I don’t know.
                      However, if Google’s search team delists/censors defamatory result A, but does not delist/censor defamatory result B, Google – provided they have been made aware of each and have taken action against one but not the other – has clearly chosen to publish defamatory result B and not to publish defamatory result A.
                      This is where the lack of neutrality shows both capability and intent, thus culpability.
                      The same is true of posts on Facebook or Twitter or YouTube.
                      The lack of neutrality is not in and of itself the problem, but is evidence they are endorsing some content while denying other content.
                      If there is endorsed content that is defamatory, I fail to see how the host should escape their share of responsibility after demonstrating that they do selectively publish.
                      As I understand it, 230 shields them from the responsibility and consequences of those choices based on the notion that they are not making choices.
                      Therein lies cronyism

                    2. The search return order is determined by algorithms.
                      “However, if Google’s search team delists/censors defamatory result A, but does not delist/censor defamatory result B, Google – provided they have been made aware of each and have taken action against one but not the other – has clearly chosen to publish defamatory result B and not to publish defamatory result A.”
                      If it worked that way then Google who have 2 choices.
                      1. NEVER remove defamatory materiual.
                      2. Remove ANYTHING that is reported to them, as defamatory unless their absolutely 100% that it’s so far from counting as defamation, that if they get sued, then the lawsuit will be considered frivolous enough to not survive a motion to dismiss.

                  2. Nope. Their picking and choosing what to remove and who to ban.
                    Anything that was removed was still on their site for a while.

                2. “I don’t really think that a platform needs to be content neutral.”

                  And I vehemently disagree. A platform should be absolutely neutral on content/viewpoint. Don’t want heat because something bad is on your service — then don’t willingly remove it unless it obviously violates laws or a court requires it. Doing it by choice makes you a platform.

                  If we wouldn’t accept a cell phone carrier doing it, we shouldn’t accept an internet “platform” doing so either.

                  “If I want to run a site that allows people to post anything they want as long as it’s about kittens, I shouldn’t be sued for a user’s defamatory kitten post because I delete posts about puppies.”

                  And you wouldn’t be. If you cut off EVERY post that discusses puppies, even simple comparisons, then you are 100% neutral.

                  “But I don’t think that insisting that platforms must be completely neutral to be considered such is desirable.”

                  But it is what THEY have always claimed to be. And they were given protections above what any other group gets due to it. If they want the protections, then they have to abide by the rules. I don’t see a benefit in providing platform benefits to a publisher.

                  1. I don’t know. I think that if YouTube wasn’t so dominant, it wouldn’t be a problem. And I’m optimistic that other similar services will gain in the market.
                    But this is all new stuff, really, I don’t know the answer and I don’t think anyone really knows.

                    1. Youtube’s business model is actually an interesting look at monopoly creation. They ran operations at a loss for YEARS, and then determined to go deeper in the red by offering to pay users directly for creating content on their platform. Eventually it killed off competition because nobody else could afford to bleed money like Alphabet and Google.

                      Once they obtained market share and finally started turning a profit, they ran into some issues. The first was copyright infringement-people illegally uploading movies or whatever that were robbing companies from selling their product. Then there was the more creepy stuff, like pornography, and that is a constant battle to keep from showing up. Then came the outrage mobs-the first big thing they hit were the gun hobbyists. And it’s trickling on down.

                      In short, having market share isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. It’s impossible to be accomodating to everyone. Eventually, and I’m talking within a few years, they’re going to cater under the pressure of the outrage mobs and will be back to losing money with no way to recover.

                  2. Section 230 has NOTHING TO DO WITH ‘NEUTRALITY’.

                    1. No, it has everything to do with special government protections against defamation. This has been explained to you repeatedly so you’re simply being mendacious at this point.

                    2. Maybe I should start referring to Pedo Jeffy as ‘The Mendacious Molester’.

        2. 230 doesn’t apply to all internet companies, for example the New York times.

          1. I’d like to see that change, then, if it is treating similarly situated entities differently.

            I worry about losing the relative openness of user-content based platforms. Having places where you can go post or discuss whatever the hell you want is one of the great things about the internet.

            1. Yes, this is definitely a drawback.
              Mass murder, targeting Big Tech, might be the best option.

            2. “I worry about losing the relative openness of user-content based platforms. Having places where you can go post or discuss whatever the hell you want is one of the great things about the internet.”

              …and as these platforms stop allowing that? Then what is lost if they are forced to deal with the liabilities for their decisions?

              Twitter is already saying they will ban you for “misgendering”. Which means I can be BANNED for factually stating “Bruce Jenner is a male” because he WANTS to be a female.

              1. But a shortsighted overreaction now could have bad results down the road.
                I think there is room to change the rules. It is after all a law that creates a legal privilege, not a core principle. I just thing it needs to be done very carefully.

              2. “Equal Time for Nazis”

                1. You’re a Nazi

                2. You misspelled “Punch a Nazi.”

                  But then you’ve always been comfortable with banning hate speech.

      3. As long as intentions are pure, all consequences are good, intended or not.

  9. […] the likes of Steven Crowder and Dennis Prager, perhaps the threat of YouTube censorship really is the most serious tyranny they face. Many other […]

  10. “”Unfortunately for this argument, Google records show that the Huffington Post, Vox, Buzzfeed, NowThis, and The Daily Show all have much larger swaths of content restricted under YouTube’s policy. Seventy-one percent of videos from The Young Turks—a leftist channel—are blocked, dwarfing PragerU’s share:””

    But what content is being blocked? They like to repost conservatives posts to rant about them. They like to do that a lot. So if you ban conservative topics, it’s also going to affect the liberal sites that like to talk about them. The banning isn’t so much about what site, but what content.

    Who propagates Trump’s tweets more, liberals or conservatives?

    I have a liberal friend that just got out facebook jail for reposting a Trump tweet. Does that count as censoring a liberal, or a conservative?

    1. >>I have a liberal friend that just got out facebook jail

      fail on the choice of friend?

      1. I don’t judge friends by their political affiliation or their ideology. I respect their right to have a different opinion of things even if I think it’s batshit crazy.

        1. yeah i don’t care what people think … i *would* be concerned if i had a friend tell me he was in facebook jail that’s intervention-time

          1. I am seeing the “I just got out of Facebook jail” more often lately. Perhaps someday people will get tired of it and drop Facebook.

            1. I never joined in the first place. And all the happier for it.

    2. I think the fact that we have anyone sitting in “facebook jail” for posting a tweet on their facebook wall should raise some red flags. Are we not allowed to discuss what our politicians say at all? Or are we only allowed to discuss it in one particular way (like how Twitter requires its users to speak positively about trans people or keep their opinions to themselves).

      1. That’s right, Lindsay Shepherd got banned from Twatter for “misgendering” a transwoman in an argument for pointing out the fact that he doesn’t have a uterus, or something.

        The patriarchy is back, baby. And it wears a wig.

        1. Another feminist was just banned for telling a tranny attacking her, including physical threats, that the tranny was just mad because hed never have a kid.

        2. “The patriarchy is back, baby. And it wears a wig.”

          Great line

          Also… name checks out?
          I can’t keep track of what’s micro vs macro in terms of aggression these days.
          I usually try to err on the side of macro

    3. Billy does not explain why the Young Turks are getting blocked. Dennis Prager says it is because of their language, not their viewpoint, and that Prager U gets blocked because of viewpoint. Billy, is this true? Research and update your article.

      From what I have heard, Prager U is also blocked at public libraries. I have no idea how many people are searching for Prager U videos at a library. Billy, can you check on this and update your article?

      Billy, was Prager U demonitized by Google? Please check and let us know.

      BTW, I did a Google search a few days ago on “Prager U is” and almost all of the auto-fill responses were negative, unlike the same search on Bing and duckduckgo.

      Billy, I look forward to your updated article in which you provide us with a more complete picture of the situation.

  11. What a fucking tool! For the longest time, only a few months ago, I couldn’t watch a YouTube video without having to watch five seconds of a PragerU commercial first. And to date PragerU commercials have been the ONLY commercials of a political or ideological nature I have ever seen on YouTube.

    No, I don’t seen his feed appearing as suggested videos. That’s because my YouTube bubble does not consist of anything political, not even Reason videos. Gosh.

    He’s not being oppressed and its pathetic watching him act like a damaged college student victim of life.

    1. Thanks for giving us the “prog sockpuppet” take.

      1. And he/she/it was flat out lying too.

        1. The New York times article about the fake alt right guy even proves hes lying.

    2. And to date PragerU commercials have been the ONLY commercials of a political or ideological nature I have ever seen on YouTube.

      If you’re getting these ads, you probably have google’s settings set to customized advertising based on your preferences – I’m guessing that its going to use data from everything you do, especially if you use the chrome browser. It probably doesn’t matter if you don’t watch political content on youtube – if you’re searching for it elsewhere, google knows.

      I turned off custom advertising and now everything I get is for random shit that is completely unrelated to my interests or is localized based on where I live, my gender and my age group.

    3. Brandybuck is at least consistent in pimping censorship

      1. I am swamped with fucking Tom Steyer ads on YT. And God knows if they look at what I look for, it would not fit.

        1. It’s a microaggression

  12. So, with regards to Youtube it’s still censorship. As JonTron brought up recently, all those factors that can get you a maturity rating are pretty vague as to what constitutes a trigger, and controversial current events (so, anything current in this environment) are also included. If you’re a youtuber, a mature rating will get the video demonetized, which means it’s gonna have an effect on what Youtubers will be willing to talk about. It doesn’t help that the algorithm is utter shit and will strike at random.

    I honestly don’t see why we couldn’t have a platform like Youtube that was funded completely through donations like Wikipedia, it would prevent companies from pressuring Youtube into going after little guys due to FYTW.

    1. Wikipedia, sadly, is borderline useless on any topic that has even the tiniest bit of controversy to it. The editors there have few qualms silencing dissent.

  13. […] the likes of Steven Crowder and Dennis Prager, perhaps the threat of YouTube censorship really is the most serious tyranny they face. Many other […]

  14. The Prager U Ten Commandments video was restricted for using the word “murder” as in “Thou Shalt Not Murder”? That’s ridiculous. It was blocked because Prager discussed how the Communist and Nazi parties were (are) both responsible for the brutal murder of millions. 99.99% of us can agree that the Nazi’s are evil bastards, but in the world of the leftists it’s probably not okay to say the same about Communists. I mean, what would that say about Bernie?

    1. That’s the whole game.

      That’s why the above infographics are so dishonest. The Daily Show puts out videos naming the leftover fluids after anal sex after a US Senator, and Prager U puts out one saying “Thou shalt not murder”, and they are treated equally. It’s like Pinterest classifying anti-abortion posts as “porn”.

      1. But if the filter is there for people who don’t want to see anything gross about murder and deadly political ideologies, I don’t see a problem with that. The fact that it is a serious topic and not a gross joke isn’t really relevant if it’s just a disturbing content filter.
        Of course, if they are only blocking stuff about murder and war from conservative sources, that’s a problem and the filter isn’t doing what is claimed. I have no idea if that is the case or not.

        1. So you’re saying the commandment “Thou shalt not murder” should be removed by a filter that removes “anything gross about murder”, even though you recognize that the commandment is not gross? (BTW, I have heard that the “filter” is people making the decision to block, not an algorithm.)

          Yeah, I suppose you could use a filter to remove any mention of murder, including the commandment “Thou shall not murder”, but it seems like casting too wide a net and prejudging every mention of the topic as “gross” even when some aren’t, as you note. With all due respect, that doesn’t seem like a satisfactory solution.

    2. This was a incredibly dishonest article that deliberately failed to mention most of the topics and content of the Prager videos that were banned versus Vox, Young Turks, etc.
      Binion is deliberately making a false equivalency here. Definitely earning his Georgetown cocktail party invites.

    3. We rightly consider Nazis to be dreadful. The Nazis murdered around 11 million in the Holocaust; about 6 million Jews and 5 million others.

      University of Hawaii: How many did communist regimes murder? About 110 million!

      Quote:
      In sum the communists probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself is shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century’s international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone–one communist country– well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it.

      1. Exactly, KevinP. They restrict the video on YouTube so libraries and educational systems can’t access it. The children aren’t supposed to know that communism is evil.

  15. The Big Tech fascist pigs have a rite to censor their sites because its their property, just like I have a right to call these all out these assholes the fascist pigs they truly are.

    1. Not if their pretending to be a public service and using that argument as legal cover.

      1. Are thei pretending to be a public service? Seems to me that they are pretty open about being there to sell ads and target them based on data collected from users.

        1. Google both claims to be a platform and a publisher, depending on the moment.

          1. But neither platforms nor publishers are public services in general. They are in it to make money, for the most part.

            1. But they are given benefits for being a platform. Again, if I plan a murder on my cell phone, Verizon cannot be charged because Verizon, the platform, has no voice. It simply transmits others.

              I’m saying treat YouTube like you treat FNC, unless they wish to act more like CSPAN.

      2. Not if their pretending to be a public service and using that argument as legal cover.

        Why would they need any cover at all? For anything? Legal or otherwise?

        Do you understand … liberty?

        Is it hysterical that BOTH left and right are now fighting over whose jackboots should forcibly censor any and all disagreement? Hysterical, or freaking scary

        We now see BOTH left and right attacking the satanic ebils of Big Business. While their puppet masters gloat with gleeful abandon.

        1. Fuck off, hihn

  16. “Google News may well skew left” wow! Great way to provide cover for a progressive propaganda pump.

  17. He reiterated that they are still visible to the “98.5 percent” of YouTube users who do not opt for restricted mode.

    Well-known to educated users, and exposes the crazed conspiracy theories of the authoritarian right … who reject facts as ordered. Prager’s videos are among the very worst the-spewing bigotry on the ‘Net, like Prager himself

    Anyone wacky enough to swallow a War on Christianity is as hopeless as the authoritarian left … both trembling in fear at monsters under their bed. (lol)

    When will the white hoods

    1. If you were a libertarian, you might appreciate PragerU’s videos on the subject of economics.

      1. If you were libertarian, you’d know his contempt for individual liberty. And that we’ve been fiscally conservative and socially liberal for over 50 years!!

        And you would not have made such a fool of yourself, publicly.
        Prager is a primary leader of the Christian Taliban.

        And, since you claim to be smugly PROUD of the aggression you just invoked, you’re also ignorant of the Non-Aggression Principle.

        Anything else?

        1. “”Christian Taliban.””

          A smart person knows the difference between a religious group that will literally cut your head off for not being one of them, and a religious group that would not.

          1. whoooooooooooooooosh
            Both seek a theocracy …

            1. “”Both seek a theocracy …”‘

              But not through violence like beheadings.

              Whoooooooooosh

              1. The BOTH violate individual liberty. So now we have TWO who are clueless on libertarians, with contempt for individual liberty.
                Typical of the Christian Taliban.

                1. And he’s a liar, trafficking in hysteria.
                  Also typical.

                  1. Leash – rain = cupcake!

                2. If you are such a libertarian why do you use such a leftist phrase as the Christian Taliban.

                  When was the last time Christians stormed a town by force, and beheaded anyone who did not accept their religion?

                  “”And he’s a liar, trafficking in hysteria.””
                  That sums up using the phrase Christian Taliban.

                  Some people may oppose your liberty verbally, some may oppose it by force. Just because they share the dislike for liberty doesn’t mean they are equal.

                  1. What are you babbling about now?
                    He already explained Taliban, as seeking a theocracy.

                    1. Why do you bother changing handles? We all know which ones are you. Seriously.

                3. BTW, I am aware that they both would LOVE to REDUCE my liberty. I’ve never been a fan of the religious right, nor most politicians for this reason. But your ARROGANCE interferes with your ability to comprehend that.

                  1. Your STUPIDITY and BULLSHIT about both being a THEOCRACY … in severe violation of the American Constitution and values .. is a disgrace … but all too typical of your alt-right.

                    You keep LOSING, then RUNNING like a COWARD from the FACTS of what he SAID.

                    Get a life.

                    1. I see your meds are wearing off. As expected.

        2. Primary leader of the Christian Taliban? Quite an accomplishment for an Orthodox Jew.

          1. Do you also believe that all residents of Israel are Jewish?
            Atheists are among the fascists supporting the Christian Taliban.
            Even some Muslims and Buddhists!

            1. Fuck off, hihn

        3. Prager is a Jew, you inept imbecile

          1. Relevance????

            Read the thread. Your DUMBASS has ALREADY been ridiculed.

        4. Huh? Prager, who is Jewish, is leader of the Christian Taliban?

  18. This article is disingenuous. Everything that occurs on the free market isn’t necessarily ethical. And comparing people’s who’s videos are blocked ethically vs unethically is like comparing apples and oranges.

    Even the graph in the tweet labels Fox news as “right-wing” when it takes mainstream Republican opinions and regularly airs the views of the other side. Who is determing what is extreme and what isn’t?

    Also how free is the free market if people are being fed daily propaganda? Do we need a new tech bill of rights?

    1. This article is disingenuous.Umm, why?

      Everything that occurs on the free market isn’t necessarily ethical

      “The moral is the freely chosen.”
      Who in FUCK are you to deny so obvious a truth?

      Do we need a new tech bill of rights?

      Your obvious contempt for rights belies your claims.

      As does your truly laughable ignorance of diverse views at Fox (other than the actual news). Even MSNBC is infinitely more balanced … on every show … which also exposes your own propaganda. Shameful.

      Deny MY choice and you’d better be armed.
      Or have a will prepared.

      1. Fuck – disingenuous = zebra!

  19. “A study by the media company AllSides found that approximately 65 percent of the company’s search engine results come from left-leaning sources. (Full disclosure: I used to work at AllSides.) But that doesn’t mean the platform is rigged against any one ideological standpoint. Its results can be explained by the company’s popularity algorithm—which, true to its name, showcases the most popular results—as well as the fact that there are more liberal sources available for the parsing.” “Can be explained” isn’t documented support. Is it so by the numbers or not. What Tim Pool, Dave Pakman, and others have shown with their math is that they have been moved “below the fold” without regard for their ability to bring in views and ad revenue.

    1. Yes, they are blaming everyone else for their own failures. Trump is a master at fostering conspiracies for his uninformed base.

      1. Hihn – failure = 0

          1. point

  20. F-Droid, basically the biggest free “store” of Android apps decided they were going to censor stuff that they didn’t agree with politically.

    1. Umm, only governments can censor. And Trump, who IS government, is infinitely more censorious.

      Does F-Droid order people out of the country for disagreeing?
      Did F-Droid lie about who initiated the violence in Charlottesville?
      Does F-Droid share Trump’s and your’s contempt for individual rights?

      1. Fuck you.
        Whoever has power over the authorized distribution of the material can censor.

        You are almost as stupid as the “Only Whites can be racist” folks.

        1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censor

          Definition of censor

          1 : a person who supervises conduct and morals: such as
          a : an official who examines materials (such as publications or
          films) for objectionable matter
          Government censors deleted all references to the protest.
          b : an official (as in time of war) who reads communications
          (such as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or
          harmful

          2 : one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
          Cato the Censor accused Africanus and his senior officers of running an army riddled with moral laxity

          This is how they’re so eager to be “brain”washed by a Trump … or a Hitler … or a Stalin …or a Marx … or a Warren … or a Sanders … or …. a Prager.

          It’s their raging hatred.
          AND THEY VOTE. (shudder)

      2. Who has President Trump ordered out of the country for disagreeing?

  21. Given the left’s penchant for endorsing violence and dangerous rhetoric, isn’t it more plausible that incendiary sites like Young Turks have more of their content blocked because it more plainly violates the YT TOS? One of the guys at Young Trurks wished rape upon Sarah Palin, if I recall correctly.

    Buzzfeed is a mainstream click bait site that plays journalism, so their content could blocked for copyright or privacy concerns.

    A proper investigation would involve watching videos that were actually banned or demonetized for an apples to apples, but obviously that’s not always feasible given thousands of hours of materials.

    What puzzles me is, why does Reason give big tech the benefit of the doubt? FB recently admitted that they blocked pro life ads in Ireland. There are allegations that Google employees discussed targeting conservative material, and it was discussed by the likes of Tim Pool. Twitter won’t take down antifa accounts but will censor “learn to code” at the behest of a few journalists.

    Sure, private companies can be “biased” to a certain point. They obviously can’t block content because the creator is non white, for example. But if they’re biased then we can call them out, especially when they pretend to arbiters of freedom.

    1. Given the left’s penchant for endorsing violence and dangerous rhetoric,

      Like Charlottesville? (lol)

      But if they’re biased then we can call them out, especially when they pretend to arbiters of freedom.

      Just as I am calling out your own self-righteous bigotry, as you brag of being “an arbiter for freedom.”

      Fir libertarians, this is amusing, since we’ve long predicted the collapse of both right and left … and a growing majority of Americans now agrees.

      Also amusing how this title sailed over so many “heads” — a billion views per year = CENSORSHIP to Trumpsters!!!

      Left – Right = Zero
      Two obsolete tribes of whiners.

      1. Why do you try to change the subject when someone mentions violence and danger rhetoric on the Left? It certainly exists. Quit pretending it doesn’t.

    2. What puzzles me is, why does Reason give big tech the benefit of the doubt?

      What puzzles me is your ignorance (and contempt?) for individual liberty

      To libertarians (and anyone with moral values) EVERYONE deserves benefit of doubt and presumption of innocence … unless and until proven guilty. This REALLY pisses off the worst of today’s left and right.

      In other words, not everyone is so driven by tribal hatred!

      1. Not if they’re a SCOTUS nominee. Then you just have to slap the word “credible” in front of anything you want and it magically makes it true.

        And don’t forget about #Russia.

        1. If that made any sense, I’d consider responding.

    3. ” FB recently admitted that they blocked pro life ads in Ireland. ”

      They blocked outside ads, those originating outside Ireland. Show where they supposedly targeted pro life ads to block.

      1. So they blocked ads from outside groups in special state elections, right?

      2. Who are you going to believe, the Guardian and Jeffy or you own lying ears.

        “During that election, leading up to that referendum, a bunch of pro-life American groups advertised in this Irish, leading up to this Irish election, to try to influence public opinion there,” Zuckerberg said. “And we went to the Irish, and asked folks there, ‘how do you want us to handle this? You have no laws on the books that are relevant for whether we should be allowing this kind of speech in your election, and really this doesn’t feel like the kind of thing that a private company should be making a decision on.’”

        He says Irish officials told them at the time that “we don’t currently have a law, so you need to make whatever decision you want to make.” However, despite the fact that the Irish government themselves didn’t consider American pro-life ads to be impermissible “election interference,” Zuckerberg revealed that “we ended up not allowing the ads.”

        Huh.

        1. But it’s okay when Russia does it?

          1. Again, you try to change the subject. I’m noticing a pattern.

    4. “why does Reason give big tech the benefit of the doubt?”
      Progress uber alles

      Antifa urged “direct action” in a post lauding the guy who attacked, with rifles and IEDs, the ICE facility in Oregon as a martyr.
      As of at least 48 hours later, the post remained untouched by Facebook.

  22. Only here on Reason is defamation considered free speech (unless it’s uttered by some evil right winger, then it deserves to be snuffed out). Removing special 230 protections which ONLY exist for online entities and allow them to skirt their responsibilities when they choose to be publishers is quite the narrative that Reason is struggling to carry here.

    Then again after their #Russia hyperventilation and Kavanaugh smear it’s unsurprising.

  23. YOU DENY RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN OUR 2016 ELECTION!!!!

  24. What is the point of this article? To demonstrate that the author is guided by emotion and not reason? What a childish argument: Prager can’t call out YouTube’s clear and dangerous censorship because he is popular? What? That is idiotic. And that is a red herring. Censorship is bad regardless. Doesn’t matter if it is called out by a popular figure or a hypocrite politician or even The Donald, it’s still censorship. Remember Billy, the name of this site is “Reason.” This article belongs over at “Irrational Yenta.”

    1. Good points! Ditto!!!

    2. Prager can’t call out YouTube’s clear and dangerous censorship because he is popular? What? That is idiotic

      Yes, are idiotic, an understatement.

  25. This article is disingenuous. There is no total “free market” when it comes to the power that Google, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube (owned by Google), and Instagram (owned by Facebook) wield and the power that the federal government has given to them. They have a stranglehold on social media and online search engines, as Dr. Epstein also testified at the hearing. Also, HuffPost is a “news outlet” that produces a lot more material than Prager’s outfit. HuffPost also has billions more visitors overall. The author is thus comparing apples and oranges, making a categorical fallacy, which is irrational, and not a sign of “reason.” The Young Turks is a two- to three-hour weekday show and has twice the number of YouTube subscribers. So, again, not comparable. Also, Prager U doesn’t contain foul language and probably no extremely graphic sexual content or violence, while I’m willing to bet the Young Turks has the typical foul language and lewd content one finds on left-leaning outlets. Again, not comparable. As Dr. Robert Epstein said at the hearing about Google’s ability to secretly manipulate votes, “No private company should have either the right or the power to manipulate large populations without their knowledge.”

    1. Indeed. Corporations are established and enforced by the state and as such are extensions of government. There is nothing “free market” about them.

  26. Left – Right = Zero

  27. […] I’m with Billy Binion: despite Dennis Prager’s petitioning, the government has no busine…. […]

  28. […] Dennis Prager, Who Boasts 1 Billion Video Views a Year, Decries YouTube ‘Censorship’ […]

  29. […] given that 98.5% of YouTube users don’t use restricted mode, a Reason magazine account of hearing points out. And despite YouTube’s alleged strategy of suppression, PragerU still has more than two million […]

  30. […] given that 98.5% of YouTube users don’t use restricted mode, a Reason magazine account of hearing points out. And despite YouTube’s alleged strategy of suppression, PragerU still has more than two million […]

  31. […] given that 98.5% of YouTube users don’t use restricted mode, a Reason magazine account of hearing points out. And despite YouTube’s alleged strategy of suppression, PragerU still has more than two million […]

  32. […] given that 98.5% of YouTube users don’t use restricted mode, a Reason magazine account of hearing points out. And despite YouTube’s alleged strategy of suppression, PragerU still has more than two million […]

  33. Google and Youtube have no case in preventing any of Prager’s minute educational videos from being seen.
    On censorship. I searched this morning for “Mueller”. Every return on Google on page one was from a liberal outlet. The only mention of fox news was on top news and was negative about republicans.
    A search for “Boris Johnson”, only shows one non-liberal news outlet: Sky news. All others are liberal.

  34. A search of Omar shows nothing on the first page about her false marriages, fraudulent divorce, & tax fraud.

  35. Michael Huke a senior manager at Lloyds Bank HQ Bristol, a record of his nefarious activities, each reported to Lloyds Bank and Avon and Somerset police where applicable, NO action has been taken by either party.
    Please view ‘Michael Huke’ on YouTube and witness his disgraceful conduct.
    1. CCTV of Michael Huke shouting abuse and videoing his neighbours within their premises.
    2. Assaulting neighbours physically and verbally, captured on CCTV and audio.
    3. Offensive and unlawful TEXTs sent by Michael Huke……..
    a) TEXT ‘My secretary gives me a blow job when I’m allocating bonuses
    b) TEXT ‘Kompany and Fernandinho (Manchester City footballers) are Northern black c*nts’.
    c) TEXT ‘Antonio Horta Osario (Lloyds Bank CEO) has no balls because he was off sick at the priory for 6 months’ suffering from a nervous breakdown.
    d) TEXT claiming ‘He would wind up 2 neighbours (he was hostile towards) so much, he would let them Twat him and get them done’. Plus more TEXTs of a similar grossly offensive nature.
    4. When asked by friends the wealth of a landlord neighbour (that he was in conflict with), he answered ‘neither the landlord or his wife bank with Lloyds Banking Group and never have had accounts with us’. Within his ‘position of trust’ how did he determine that information, had they banked with Lloyds he would surely have probed their accounts?
    5. He was prosecuted, when caught on covert CCTV, watching his dog defecate outside a neighbour’s property and not clear it up.
    6. He signed an ABC (Acceptable Behaviour Contract) issued to him by South Gloucestershire Council ASBO team.
    7. Attacked a 71 year old man because he’d parked briefly on the road outside his house; captured on CCTV, video/audio recorded and independently witnessed (view on YouTube).
    8. The 71 year old victim of the attack and one of the witness’s (who’d videoed the attack) were arrested and held in custody (several months after the video of the attack had been uploaded onto YouTube, (by persons unknown), charged with uploading the video, (which was factual and not menacing in character) as it discredited Michael Huke in front of his staff and jeopardised his job at Lloyds Bank HQ Bristol. No charge was pursued. This arrest was almost certainly influenced by Lloyds Banking Group, Freemasons, a police sergeant friend who lives nearby or corrupt members of Avon and Somerset Police, possibly a combination of them all.
    Since the above he works from home one or two days each week spending time at the sports centre and maintaining his property and garden!
    These incidents plus many more have taken place over a 3 year period; all reported to Lloyds Banking Group, yet Michael Huke is still an employee of Lloyds Bank?
    You’re views, opinions, advice would be greatly appreciated.

  36. […] contentions were most recently placed under the spotlight during a Senate hearing last week on Google censorship. Dennis Prager, the conservative radio host and the hearing’s star witness, lamented […]

  37. […] last week there was a Senate hearing  on Google censorship and Reason Magazine reported Google News may well skew left: A study by the media company AllSides […]

  38. Ugh. This is just a SMALL slice of all the times/ways big tech has been caught red handed censoring non leftist views. Don’t be an idiot here people.

  39. […] For all the talk about social media platforms and their supposed anti-conservative bias, it seems like plenty of conservatives are doing just fine. Once you eliminate a short list of fringe grifters and Nazi fans, you’re left with plenty of big name conservatives who still enjoy the use of multiple platforms. Even Dennis Prager of PragerU is struggling to make a federal case of YouTube’s moderation of a small percentage of his videos; asking the court to ignore the forest of views for a few pruned trees. […]

  40. […] Channel videos, 28% of Vox videos and 54% of Daily Show videos. James Pethokoukis at AEI and Billy Binion at Reason have […]

Comments are closed.