Social Media

Why Did YouTube Remove This Reason Video?

Our coverage of biohackers working on a DIY vaccine last year was solid reporting on an important subject. If YouTube insists on banning journalism like this, what's next?


On Monday, YouTube sent Reason an automated takedown notification for a March 13, 2020, video titled "Biohackers Are on a Secret Hunt for the Coronavirus Vaccine." The message said our video violated the company's spam, deceptive practices, and scams policy.

YouTube denied Reason's appeal, informing us that the video violates the company's "medical misinformation policy."

Did this 16-month-old video really promote "medical misinformation"?

Speaking as the journalist who produced it: absolutely not. While YouTube, as a private company, is within its rights to decide what to carry, the decision to remove this video illustrates a disturbing, censorial trend that has accelerated in the age of COVID.

For years, I have covered biotechnology's potential to improve our well-being and to liberate us from the constraints of our own biology. My reports have explored everything from lab-grown meat that could profoundly improve the global food supply to mail-order CRISPR kits that hand the keys to the genome to any biohacker bold enough to grab them.

The latter project introduced me to the world of biohackers: a grassroots movement of professional scientists, students, and hobbyists who contend that cutting-edge biology can occur outside large government and corporate laboratories.

"Are people dying and suffering needlessly because of all these committees and all these rules?" Josiah Zayner, founder of the biotech company The Odin, explained to Reason in 2016. "And what if people just say, 'Fuck you, I'm going to do it anyway'? And what if people start getting cured?"

My interest in this defiant subculture led me to the story of a rogue biologist raising money to create a "knock-off" version of one of the various mRNA or DNA coronavirus vaccines in development in early March 2020. I contacted this individual, whose credentials and initial seed funding I was able to verify, and Reason agreed to his condition of anonymity because of his fear of retribution from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

"If someone is trying to develop and distribute an unapproved medicine, [the FDA] will come down hard, and they have," he told Reason in March 2020. "It's a severe risk to our livelihoods outside of this project if we were to be deanonymized."

The result was my video, which points out that synthetic DNA and mRNA vaccines were, at the time, brand new territory—technologies that most Americans had never heard of, much less considered a possible solution to a pandemic. As I reported, my biohacker source "acknowledges that most people won't be willing to inject a non-FDA-approved vaccine but believes that if the pandemic gets bad enough they could fill a gap between the time the government approved an official vaccine and the time that vaccine is shown in trials to be relatively safe and able to generate antibodies in the blood."

As it turned out, DIY vaccines haven't played a major role in conquering the pandemic, in large part because of the remarkable speed with which the official vaccines were developed and deployed. But the FDA's emergency authorization for those vaccines doesn't suddenly transform my video into "medical misinformation." It remains a snapshot of an early longshot effort to prepare for a frightening and uncertain pandemic, and it continues to raise questions about whether the future of science needs to be as centrally managed as it has been for the past century. It's a factual report, not misinformation.

Incidentally, Zayner has publicly demonstrated that it may indeed be possible to create a generic COVID-19 vaccine outside of a corporate laboratory, having published results showing an increased reading of COVID-19 antibodies after injecting himself with a DIY vaccine.

YouTube probably flagged Reason's video as part of its effort to combat misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines, which is indeed rampant. This exemplifies the problem with broad, automated content moderation: It creates a chilling effect, creating a de facto prohibition on the legitimate discussion of certain topics. Stanford technologist Daphne Keller has documented this chilling effect in other realms, such as the documentation of war atrocities, calling the imprecision of mass automated moderation the "dolphin in the net" effect.

Biohackers like Zayner have been complaining about the problem for a long time. He has seen his company's products removed from Facebook and his livestreams from YouTube. This is bad for free inquiry and for the future of science, as are efforts to suppress discussion of any COVID-19 prevention or treatment besides those explicitly authorized by the FDA.

Meanwhile, misinformation hasn't just emanated from dark corners of the internet. It has travelled from the top down, from politicians—starting with the president—and public health officials, such as Anthony Fauci, who has said that his early stance against face masks wasn't really about their efficacy but about preserving supply for health care workers. Major media outlets preemptively labeled the hypothesis—currently being investigated by the federal government—that COVID-19 escaped from a viral laboratory in Wuhan a debunked conspiracy theory. The World Health Organization initially denied the efficacy of masks, and it became clear early on that it might be privileging the leadership's relationship with the Chinese government over scientific concerns. Yet YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki told CNN in April 2020 that "anything that goes against [World Health Organization] recommendations would be a violation of our policy."

A major lesson of the pandemic should be that there's no guarantee political leaders and public health officials are going to deliver us accurate facts. We badly need skepticism and an unfettered marketplace of ideas to challenge conventional wisdom, now more than ever.

It remains essential to defend YouTube's right to make poorly reasoned and executed content moderation decisions; any government regulation of speech on social media is likely to backfire and hamper the free exchange of ideas. But it's also essential to recognize and critique censorious overreach if we want the market to respond to such errors. And a healthy market response is exactly what we need when the boundaries of acceptable discourse are being hemmed in by large companies susceptible to political pressure.

NEXT: Federal Science Funding Won’t Accomplish Anything the Private Sector Can’t Do Better

Social Media Deplatforming Censorship Coronavirus Vaccines

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

221 responses to “Why Did YouTube Remove This Reason Video?


    1. We have now heard an empty-headed comment from empty-head #1; Der JesseBahnFuhrer! It won’t be long now till we hear from empty-head #2; MammaryBahnFuhrer from Canuckistanistanistanistanistan!

      MammaryBahnFuhrer from Canuckistanistanistanistanistan can be counted on to bitch about never even bothering to say that these censorious bastards are ethically WRONG (ignoring the point that is about POLITICS primarily, and NOT so much about ethics or morality).

      Now here is clearly condemning YouTube from the standpoint of right and wrong! I wonder if MammaryBahnFuhrer from Canuckistanistanistanistanistan will lie as usual… Or maybe CHANGE HER BITCHING slightly this time, and complain that is sucking at her clit quite the right way this time, instead…

      1. Hey, did you know that SQRLSY One is a known and outed sockpuppet handle of sarcasmic? sarcasmic is a self-confessed drug addict, alcoholic, homeless welfare queen and lost custody of his kids when his wife wisely divorced him because he was raping his underage daughter.

        1. Hi Tulpa!

          “Dear Abby” is a personal friend of mine. She gets some VERY strange letters! For my amusement, she forwards some of them to me from time to time. Here is a relevant one:

          Dear Abby, Dear Abby,
          My life is a mess,
          Even Bill Clinton won’t stain my dress,
          I whinny seductively for the horses,
          They tell me my picnic is short a few courses,
          My real name is Mary Stack,
          NO ONE wants my hairy crack!
          On disability, I live all alone,
          Spend desperate nights by the phone,
          I found a man named Richard (Dick) Decker,
          But he won’t give me his hairy pecker!
          Dick Decker’s pecker is reserved for farm beasts,
          I am beastly, yes! But my crack’s full of yeasts!

          So Dear Abby, that’s just a poetic summary… You can read about the Love of my Life, Richard Decker, here:

          Farmers kept refusing to let him have sex with their animals. So he sought revenge, authorities say.
          Decker the hairy pecker told me a summary of his story as below:
          Decker: “Can I have sex with your horse?”
          Farmer: “Lemme go ask the horse.”
          Farmer: “My horse says ‘neigh’!”
          And THAT was straight from the horse’s mouth! I’m not horsin’ around, here, no mare!

          So Richard Decker the hairy pecker told me that, apparently never even realizing just HOW DEEPLY it hurt me, that he was all interested in farm beasts, while totally ignoring MEEE!!

          So I thought maybe I could at least liven up my lonely-heart social life, by refining my common interests that I share with Richard Decker… I, too, like to have sex with horses!

          But Dear Abby, the horses ALL keep on saying “neigh” to my whinnying sexual advances!
          Some tell me that my whinnying is too whiny… Abby, I don’t know how to fix it!

          Dear Abby, please don’t tell me “get therapy”… I can’t afford it on my disability check!

          Now, along with my crack full of yeasts… I am developing anorexia! Some are calling me a “quarter pounder with cheese”, but they are NOT interested at ALL, in eating me!!! They will NOT snack on my crack!

          What will I DO, Dear Abby?!?!?

          -Desperately Seeking Horses, Men, or ANYTHING, in Fort Worth,
          Yours Truly,
          Mary Stack / Tulpa / Mary’s Period / “.” / Satan

          1. USA Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little DS child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
            on this page…..VISIT HERE

          2. Non-libertarians could easily browse this site. You make libertarians look bad.

            1. Non-libertarians who want to nationalize privately owned web sites, while pretending to be libertarians, make libertarians look bad. So do ones who initiate humorless, hateful, moron-level-insults-filled posts. And finally, so do ones that attack those who DEFEND private property!

              To understand WHY the ethically-wrong people constantly attack the ethically-correct people, read this!


        2. I thought we all knew that at this point.

      2. the property owners (the web site owners) should decide!

        “Website owners = property owners” – SQRLSY One

      3. Non-libertarians could easily browse this site. You make libertarians look bad.

    2. If Reason doesn’t want its videos cancelled, it can build its own internet because muh free markets make all things possible.

      1. Hey whining crybaby… I pay (PAY! With MY money! I OWN!) for my own web site at Go-Daddy. I say some VERY sarcastic and un-politically-correct, intolerant things about cults like Scientology there (and Government Almighty as well). I am QUITE sure that a LOT of “tolerant” liberal-type folks at Google etc. would NOT be happy with the types of things I wrote! Yet, if you do a search-string “Scienfoology”, Google will take you STRAIGHT to MY web site, top hit! #1!

        Your whining and crying is (just about ) UTTERLY without basis!

        You or Reason or anyone else can set up a web site by themselves, or pay Go-Daddy to do it for you!

        1. One more spaz flag

        2. the property owners (the web site owners) should decide!

          “Website owners = property owners” – SQRLSY One

      2. Yeah it’s not like they have their own website where they can post their videos instead.

      3. What’s “muh”? What’s a “muh” free market as opposed to a regular free market?

      4. Yeah but…they did post their own video here in this article. They are already practicing what they preach.

        I do have some concerns regarding large companies that emerged on the back of government funding and regulation. I think there is a nuanced conversation to be had about ‘governmentalities.’ That said, suggesting that private companies should be forced to host content won’t solve those problems and is ALMOST EXACTLY the same argument as ‘bake the cake.’

        1. I’m not sure there is any private business anywhere that hasn’t benefited in some way from the government. Both costs and benefits of government are highly distributed, which is what makes libertarian class analysis so fraught and uncertain. Those who attempt it usually end up just copying and pasting from the culture war.

          I don’t think Big Tech is dependent enough on taxpayer money to count as a government entity, so I don’t accept there is a libertarian case for greater government oversight of Big Tech on those grounds.

          1. I don’t think Big Tech is dependent enough on taxpayer money to count as a government entity, so I don’t accept there is a libertarian case for greater government oversight of Big Tech on those grounds.

            Money isn’t the only thing that blurs the lines between GovCo and Big Tech.

      5. This is what conservatives have been saying for the last 5 years and libertarians on ignored it and said conservatives were overreacting…

    3. “…banning journalism like this…”

      Hey look guys, little Zachy got up on his high horsey all by himself!

  2. Now you know what thousands of others have experienced from our tech overlords. Funny that.

  3. Why Did YouTube Remove This Reason Video?

    *checks official narrative*

    Oh, that’s why.

    1. The censorship surrounding the lab leak theory was gov sanctioned. The cabal that created/enforced the censorship of that topic was:

      NIH, Lancet, Nature, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter

      So just like public accommodation was relaxed during Jim Crowe because the local/state Gov’s were in on the discrimination, then Gov involvement in this type of censorship should be a decent excuse to force FB, YT, and Twitter to stop the current round of censorship.



        Is that like a chimpanzee?

  4. Excellent article – and it seems like we keep having to remind people:

    ‘Censorship’ can be accomplished by anyone – a government, a church, a corporate monopoly, etc. Freedom of speech / Freedom of expression is a basic cultural principle of western civilization.
    It’s only a First Amendment violation when the government does it. It’s still censorship when anyone else does it. And it’s still anathema to our democratic values when anyone tries it.

    1. How do we know the government *wasn’t* involved?

      Congresscritters have sent threatening letters to social media companies for hosting incorrect content. Who knows what government officials are telling these companies in private. “Nice little company you got there, pity if you were to ruin things by publicizing misinformation.”

      1. Fauci was directly involved in issuing the CDC guidance that Facebook used in their rules banning discussion of the lab leak. So saying government wasn’t involved is inaccurate to its core.


        The link has been established. Perhaps not for this particular case, but at the very least for others.

      3. I do not think it matters if govt was involved. What I do not understand is that youtube is clearly benefiting financially from “an entities” posted videos (the ‘get’ side of the equation) but is allowed to never define or defend their changing rules for kicking you off (the ‘give’ side of the equation).

        Reason entered into this agreement (give their videos royalty free to the platform conforming to the rules at the time) but youtube changes the rules all the time, and, actually really never defines them.

        I think of youtube similar to consignment. When can we start holding them up to their side of the contractual agreement?

    2. And it’s still anathema to our small-Government-Almighty (freedom) libertarian values when anyone tries to (right-wing-Marxist OR left-wing-Marxist-style) take over the decision-making powers that belong to private property owners, even when private property = web sites.

      Long live freedom and private property! Long live Section 230!

      1. Long live sockpuppets! Long live special exemptions from generally applicable laws for oligopolies who received all of their seed funding from government grants, In-Q-Tel and pentagon-affiliated angel investors! Long live Mean Girls, Jon Steward and Beavis and Butthead!

        1. “…special exemptions from generally applicable laws…”

          Hey KittyBahnFuhrer… No matter HOW many times you tell your “Big Lie”, it is NOT true! You’re part of the mob, aren’t you, gangster? For a small fee, you tell small businesses that you will “protect” them… From you and your mob! Refute the below, ye greedy authoritarian who wants to shit all over the concept of private property!

          Look, I’ll make it pretty simple for simpletons. A prime argument of enemies of Section 230 is, since the government does such a HUGE favor for owners of web sites, by PROTECTING web site owners from being sued (in the courts of Government Almighty) as a “publisher”, then this is an unfair treatment of web site owners! Who SHOULD (lacking “unfair” section 230 provisions) be able to get SUED for the writings of OTHER PEOPLE! And punished by Government Almighty, for disobeying any and all decrees from Government Almighty’s courts, after getting sued!

          In a nutshell: Government Almighty should be able to boss around your uses of your web site, because, after all, Government Almighty is “protecting” you… From Government Almighty!!!

          Wow, just THINK of what we could do with this logic! Government Almighty is “protecting” you from getting sued in matters concerning who you chose to date or marry… In matters concerning what line of work you chose… What you eat and drink… What you read… What you think… Therefore, Government Almighty should be able to boss you around on ALL of these matters, and more! The only limits are the imaginations and power-lusts of politicians!

          1. Long live copypasta! Long live blogspot! Long live Jack Daniels! Long live treating Hearst Communications differently than Google Inc when they publish things that other people wrote!

            1. Long live EVIL people and their priapism of their perpetual punishment boners!

              Sooo… Your “fix” to all of this is to punish “publishers” (web sites) for the content generated by OTHER people? Those who post?

              SOME people here have argued that, since there has been at least one (several?) case(s) of hardcopy rags (newspapers) sued FOR THE WRITINGS OF OTHERS, namely letter-to-the-editor writers (it was all well and good to authoritarians that SOME people got punished for the writings of OTHER people), then the proper fix MUST be to perpetrate / perpetuate this obvious injustice right on over to the internet domain!

              This is like arguing that the “fix” for a cop strangling to death, a black man (Eric Garner) on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies” is, not to STOP the injustice, but rather, to go and find some White and Hispanic and Asian men as well, and strangle them, as well, on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies”! THAT will make it all “fair”!

              NY Times can be punished for what someone ELSE wrote in a letter-to-the-editor in their hardcopy rag! An injustice, to be “fixed” by punishing Facebook for the same kind of offenses!

              In 1850, I imagine that perhaps some people in the USA were saying it isn’t fair that white folks hold black folks as slaves. Let’s “fix” it by having a bunch of black folks hold white slaves, too!

              What kind of EVIL person fixes injustice by widening the spread of more injustice of the same kind? HOW does this “fix” ANYTHING?!?!

              1. Nobody read this.

                1. You’re commanding us all to not read it? Or what? Or else R Mac will have a hissy fit and hold R Mac’s putrid breath till R Mac turns blue? Wow, come to think of it, the air would smell MUCH better around here!

                  Be my guest! I’m reading it, I’m reading it NOW!

                  1. Not an order. Past tense dumbfuck.

                    1. There’s no way to know that, short of magical powers, delusional maniac! What number am I thinking of right now, Oh All-Powerful All-Being, All-Seeing, And All-Knowing One?

                2. “Nobody read this.”

                  I wonder if he knows this. When I see these long incoherent strings of text I imagine it has spittle on it’s chin as it types. This is like looking inside Joe Biden’s skull, a stupid and crazy mess of nonsense, misplaced anger and lots of excited punctuation.

                  1. Before the mute feature, I used to scroll past the walls of incomprehensible gibbering it copied & pasted. Mute is a nice feature to excise the trollings of a few loud and persistent know-littles.

              2. It’s a punishment for everyone to be treated the same before the law?

      2. the property owners (the web site owners) should decide!

        “Website owners = property owners” – SQRLSY One

    3. It’s still censorship when anyone else does it. And it’s still anathema to our democratic values when anyone tries it.

      So when I slam the door on a Jehovah’s witness, I’m undermining democracy?

      1. No. But if you tried to prevent them from going to anyone else’s door, you would be.

        1. Refusing them an audience with me isn’t censorship? Are those goalposts heavy?

          1. Doesn’t censorship require a third party? I’m not sure what the generally accepted definition is, but to me that would seem to be an ingredient.

            1. Yes. Common sense says it would require publication in some form. Maybe when Unicorn slams the door on a solicitor he puts a ball gag in their mouth followed by a piece of duct tape over it, before the act of door slamming. That could be why he thinks that is censorship.

          2. It’s not. If I mute a spambot here in the comments, it’s not censorship, because everyone else can see them still. If Reason bans them, I guess that could be considered censorship, since they are preventing others from seeing the communication. But since they aren’t quashing political or philosophical discourse, but rather annoying off-topic advertising, I wouldn’t exactly consider that a threat to western democratic values.

            I’m sorry if I didn’t provide you with the full definition of censorship or precisely where it should apply.

            1. So if there’s someone else in the house with me, is it censorship?

              1. What is your problem? Are you at the door to an apartment complex or something?

                Is it a jail house door you’re slamming, shutting them in?

                You aren’t normally this dense.

                1. Minadin, maybe you could write clearly about what you do and do not think. Despite you CLAIMING to be a “minarchist” of some sort, I recall you posting about your thinking that Government Almighty needs to punish the likes of Facebook! (Rough take). Do you, or do you not, think that Government Almighty should countermand or over-ride freedom of association on private property? If you think that you should retain the right to kick OUT of your private house party, a loud-mouth, obnoxious asshole guest, then WHY shouldn’t Facebook, etc., have those same rights? Or, once I have set foot (at your invitation) into your house, could I yell and scream like an asshole all day, and you’d let me stay?

                  1. I don’t recall saying anything about the government punishing Facebook or Twitter or anyone else for how they moderate their platforms. I think that we as individuals and / or users of those services should be free to criticize them for how they censor people. But there is a big difference between thinking someone is wrong for doing something, and thinking that what they are doing should be illegal.

                    1. Sounds good to me! I may have confused you with another poster. Sorry! It’s hard to keep track!

                    2. I do appear to have gone off the rails on this one. Rather than pulling a white knight, I concede defeat.

                    3. Unicorn Abattoir can apologize and-or “concede defeat”! Kudos to Unicorn Abattoir!!!

                      Now and then I have to apologize or admit that I said something stupid, or picked a rotten analogy. I will do that from time to time! I wish more people could do the same!

                      (Good job Unicorn Abattoir!)

                    4. Be sure to invite the JW next time, Unicorn!

            2. Disagree. Reason bans commenters or removes comments for violations of accepted communal norms. Read the notes in italics above re removal of comments, there’s nothing about having a reason for removal, but so far, there seems always to have been a rational explanation, unlike a social media platform. Some, generally whiny ignorant trolls, portray their banning as censorship.

      2. Simping for government adjacent oligarchs now?

    4. Free speech is an inalienable right. That by definition means that the right cannot be given away by or taken away from the possessor by anyone, anywhere.

      It has nothing to do with the government.

      1. As is stupidity, a right you exercise frequently.

    5. I read on that only gubmint censors

  5. Fuck you, Reason.

  6. Lol. Yeah, what next! Next thing you know YouTube will be removing videos from accredited medical professionals discussing medical issues or taking down animated cartoons about capitalism. This is an outrage!

  7. > YouTube denied Reason’s appeal, informing us that the video violates the company’s “medical misinformation policy.”

    This from a company that routinely refuses to take down anti-vaxx and dangerous alternative medicine videos because the clicks drive ad revenue. Hell, there are videos that show cooking hacks that HAVE injured viewers who have followed them, and YouTube directly refuses to take them down. Videos of melted sugar and superheated water exploding. Unfortunately, clicks from Russian clickbait video farms make YouTube more money than the debunking videos.

    So Zach, I think your problem is threefold: First, I think some idiot reported your video and it got the automatic takedown treatment. Second, YouTube is refusing to admit they did anything wrong. And finally, you’re just not generating enough clicks to make them care.

    p.s. I haven’t actually watched your video. If it actually encourages the use of altnerative home grown vaccines, then yeah, you deserve the take down. You’re on the level of those videos telling everyone to inject bleach to cure COVID.

    1. you deserve the take down. You’re on the level of those videos telling everyone to inject bleach to cure COVID.

      You deserve to get throaty fucked with a 8″ kitchen knife you fascist piece of shit.

      Btw, nobody anywhere ever told anyone to inject bleach to cure COVID. That was something you lapped up and regurgitated from one of the many radical left wing Marxist websites you frequent. It was a lie. Just like everything else you say. Because you’re a liar and a piece of shit.

      1. I support this message.

        1. Any decent person should.

    2. You’re on the level of those videos telling everyone to inject bleach to cure COVID.

      Only lying leftists actually did this. Oh wait… that covers your beliefs.

      But I can give you a dozen peer reviewed studies that show various drugs that helped mitigate harm from Covid. You’ll reject it since it wasn’t blessed by your betters, but doesn’t change the study.

      1. Simile and metaphor are not in Brandy’s wheelhouse.

    3. I think you’re bipolar because you sometimes say something intelligent, but most of the time its like you’re copy pasting headlines from Tony’s angelfire blog.

  8. Where’s the link to ENB’s vapid 230 defense?

  9. Isn’t reason always saying if you don’t like the company then go somewhere else?

    1. Yup, and the author of the above blog post did not disagree with that stance.

  10. I want to see it more than ever now. Where else did you post it?

    1. Where else did you post it?

      They didn’t post it anywhere else because they were under the impression that the billions of dollars their benefactor spent frauding a senile old pedophile into America’s highest federal office would exempt them from the kind of treatment that plebs get.

    2. Isn’t it embedded above? Or is that only partial?

    3. It is embedded in the article about 3 paragraphs down.

  11. These salty ham tears are delectable.

    1. I am surprised they didn’t try to both sides this.

      1. If Trump hadn’t been such a dick, none of these moderation measures would have been necessary.

        1. Why are they necessary in the first place?

          1. IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN

            1. Does Potus sniff or fondle the children? It’s okay to be pederast, since he doesn’t imply that he can grab women by the pussy, and (D).

          2. And just let Trump tweet whatever he wants? No thanks.

      2. Robby didn’t write this.

      3. I am surprised they didn’t try to both sides this.

        It remains essential to defend YouTube’s right to make poorly reasoned and executed content moderation decisions; any government regulation of speech on social media is likely to backfire and hamper the free exchange of ideas. But it’s also essential to recognize and critique censorious overreach if we want the market to respond to such errors. And a healthy market response is exactly what we need when the boundaries of acceptable discourse are being hemmed in by large companies susceptible to political pressure.

  12. Oh just so you know, yes, Reason, your video was Censored.

  13. Zach sure does seem understanding about the blackballing of his work.

  14. Does Reason take lots of money from Google as Cato does? This private company line is getting old. What’s next, phone companies banning people who say things they don’t like?

    1. Phone company is classified as a utility and cannot manage content. If the social media companies were classified as utilities, as some politicians want to do, then they would be prevented from managing content they way they are now.

    2. A phone company doesn’t host your calls and make them publicly available on their website under their logo. Why would they give a shit what you say on the phone? It has no impact on them.

      1. Yes, this! Basic, simple difference that some folks do not WANT to see!

        Reason’s hardcopy magazine buyers AND their advertisers (online and hardcopy both) just MIGHT boycott Reason for lack of moderation if the comments turn into yet MORE filth than they are already! So Reason reserves the right to take down your post…

        NONE of this applies to the phone company, private emails, or snail-mail letter carriers! “DUH” to stupid people and their stupid analogies!

        1. the property owners (the web site owners) should decide!

          “Website owners = property owners” – SQRLSY One

          1. One’s website is one’s property.

      2. Ah, but who IS listening in?

      3. Phone companies did not claim that their business was that, either.

        1. Hey damikesc! How is your “libertarian” scheme of FORCING people to buy Reason magazine coming along?

      4. You might be plotting sone White Nationalism

  15. I thought Reason was posting bannable material on PornHub instead of YouTube. I was 100% behind that idea.

    1. “Gozer the Traveller! He will come in one of the pre-chosen forms. During the rectification of the Vuldronaii, the Traveller came as a large and moving Torb! Then, during the third reconciliation of the last of the Meketrex Supplicants they chose a new form for him–that of a Giant Sloar! Many Shubs and Zulls knew what it was to be roasted in the depths of the Sloar that day, I can tell you.”

      So Gozer… Have you turned your (above) script into a good porn flick yet? I would like to see it!

      Oooops! I mean, asking for a fiendish friend, ya know!

      1. Jesus. You write stuff like this and still think people should take you remotely seriously?

        1. Some people, unlike YOU apparently, can tell the difference between a joke and a serious post! Got any neurons that work, in your cranium?

          1. Dude, I get that it’s a joke. But it’s still a psychotic written joke that begs the question, “is this person okay?”

            My god, you are insane.

            1. I am a God. Are you a God?

    2. Crowds out the sex workers with infomercials.

  16. >>the decision to remove this video illustrates a disturbing, censorious trend that has accelerated in the age of

    purposefully miseducated youth … and womyn who can’t take care of themselves.

    1. It is also exactly the type of censorous decision that this publication has given full throated approval to so long as it targeted people they didn’t like.

  17. Imagine being so entitled that you think a private company has any duty to host your content that you uploaded for free if they don’t want to, lmao

    Anyone else remember when actual libertarians that believed in things like Freedom of Association posted here?

    1. ^

    2. Anyone else remember when actual libertarians that believed in things like Freedom of Association posted here?

      No. That’s why I don’t waste as much time here as I used to.

    3. “Bring out yer dead! Bring out yer dead!”

      I’m not dead yet, I’m just sleeping! Now PLEASE don’t whack me on the head, to cart me away, just yet! Or the 2 or 10 other freedom-loving people that SOMETIMES still post here!

    4. I see no claim that YouTube’s conduct ought to be illegal. This article appears to be providing information that can be useful for consumers deciding whether to continue associating with YouTube.

    5. Imagine being such a little leftist bitch that you use the idiotic leftist trope starting a statement with “imagine…” because you’re too much of a pussy and so reflexively passive-aggressive that you can’t make a direct argument without implicit appeal to authority.

      But the gadlighting moron tries to invoke “much freedom of association” to ignore explicit government interference in first amendment rights (via sec 230 giving special protection to some publishers) and Big Tech’s intimate personnel connections with The Party.

      1. “…special protection to some publishers…”

        Authoritarian NAZI tells authoritarian NAZI lies! What a surprise! Big Lie repeated billions of times does NOT make it true!

        I already posted a firm refutation of the Big Lie here, above… To reduce clutter, use below as search-string…

        SQRLSY One
        June.16.2021 at 3:19 pm

        Also see if you care about actual FACTS…

      2. For real dude, when you are getting politically triggered by how someone structures their sentences it is time to take a break. I feel bad for anyone that has to put up with people like you in real life

        1. Nobody is buying your false flag operation.

        2. Yea, pointing out your bullshit is totes being “triggered”.
          Hilariously, you’ve misused the term in the exact same way all leftists do.
          Hivemind gonna hivemind.

          1. But, seriously, dude, what obligation does any website have to publish anyone’s material?

    6. Imagine being so entitled that you think a private company has a duty to let you eat in their restaurant, stay in their hotel, rent an apartment in their building, be seriously considered for a job….

      1. Homple, they can already do that. They can refuse service. There’s nothing unlibertarian about refusing service, even if it is illegal under various anti-discrimination laws. It’s not an initiation force.

        1. of force.

    7. Well many of these companies receive public funding. And they rely on the same public infrastructure and right of ways as utility and telecom companies. Add onto that their clear intent to ban, modify, censor, or EDITorialize user content outside of speech already deemed unprotected by the 1st amendment and I think a strong section 230 case can be made that they are publishers, not platforms.

      I don’t understand why it’s so hard for people who claim to be libertarian to not get the publisher vs platform angle when there’s massive evidence that these companies are changing user content.

      My point is basically anyone should be able to say anything anywhere on the internet (or at least sites headquartered or hosted in America) that’s covered under the 1a case law because of my above points (public funding/infrastructure use) . If a site like Facebook doesn’t like that then they should either not allow user posting/commenting or admit that they want the power to edit user content, ban whatever, and steer narratives then they must become a publisher and give up their 230 protections and be open to litigation just like other publishers.

    8. The thing to remember here is Both Sides are to blame. Therebhave been troubling instances in the past of Reason censoring YouTube, probably

  18. trillion dollar multi national corporations run by amoral billionaires are just as terrible as governments. Too bad but that game was already lost.

    1. Certain abused-by-the-rich-people nations got tired of being abused, so they elected communists to fix it for them! Ha! Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss!

      Now conservaturds want to do this kind of thing AGAIN! Just ’cause someone took down their FREE post(s)! Poor babies! Welcome to right-wing Marxism!

      1. Are you okay? I’m thinking there’s some medication that you haven’t been taking today.

        1. Wow, what literary talent and rapier wit! Let’s see if I can match or exceed it, with some OTHER brilliantly smart comments that I have created just now!

          Fuck off, spaz!
          You eat shit, you said so yourself!
          You’re a racist Hitler-lover!
          Take your meds!
          That’s so retarded!
          You’re a Marxist!
          Your feet stink and you don’t love Trump!
          Your source is leftist, so it must be false!
          Trump rules and leftists drool!
          You are SOOO icky-poo!
          But Goo-Goo-Gah-Gah!

          Wow, I am now 11 times as smart and original as you are!

          1. Jesus, take your meds you psychotic fool.

        2. Squirrel is a sarcasmic sock, who’s frequently shit faced by noon.

          1. Goddamn, he’s fucking insane.

      2. Just ’cause someone took down their FREE post(s)! Poor babies!

        Crybabyism. Crybaby conservatism. Crybaby libertarianism is not libertarian.

  19. …part of its effort to combat misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines, which is indeed rampant.

    Hard to know since publicly vetting it is increasingly not an option.

    1. If you would just shut up and listen to your betters you would see that there is no need for public vetting of anything.

  20. Should have read the fine print in the contract you agreed to with YouTube – you agreed to follow their rules and the first rule is that the rules are whatever they say they are. Disagree with them all you want, it’s not like you can sue them for breach of contract when they’re “giving” you a “free” platform. (Never mind that they’re not “giving” you “free” anything, you’re agreeing to a trade of your viewers personal information which they sell for a good chunk of change in return for the hosting services.)

    1. Nevermind they change their TOS on a whim when it suits them, say to protect themselves from court cases by retroactively amending parts of TOS or remove viewpoints they don’t like. You’re such a tiresome and stupid fucker that you don’t you either don’t know this or don’t care.

      1. Jerryskids is what sarcasmic claims to, or wishes, he could be.
        That is, consistently sarcastic.

      2. Crybaby.

  21. Zach, you guys should create a PeerTube server for all your videos and run it out of the Reason office. I agree social media companies should be allowed to moderate their content, but they also all suck, so we should abandon ship for freer alternatives like PeerTube and Mastodon.

    1. /\ This!

  22. Reap what you sow, Reason.

    1. Damned right, crybaby. The video is still available on this site. Youtube has a right to dispense its user base as it sees fit. It’s their user base that they built. Reason can show it to their user base at It’s just a different URL.

  23. I haven’t a single shit to give.

    1. You haven’t a single neuron to actually, honestly THINK with, either!

      1. Fuck off sarc.

  24. I am so fed up with people saying massive tech companies that control the media are ‘free’ to cancel any speech they dislike. They should not be free to do so. You lose the ‘right’ to editorialize when your corporation chooses to be in the news business.

    I am 100% behind the vast majority of businesses being able to choose their content, but certainly not media companies. Do Real Estate companies get to tell people to get lost because of the neighborhood they want to buy in, or health insurers get to tell the sick to get out because they don’t like the looks of the insurance cards? The media’s control of content is just as important. Stop saying they are private corporations that get to choose their own content! It is idiotic and incredibly destructive to our democracy. I am cancelling this stupid argument!

    1. “You lose the ‘right’ to editorialize when your corporation chooses to be in the news business.”

      You lose the ‘right’ to own pets when you eat meat!

      If you want to love animals, pamper your pets. If you love to eat meat, eat meat. Pick one, ONLY one!

      You either love animals, or you eat meat… You can NOT do both! All pet owners who eat meat? Their pets will be slaughtered and their pet-meat distributed to the poor! Because I and 51% of the voters said so! And because we are power pigs, and LOOOOOVE to punish people!

      1. Go back to your mother’s c#$%.

    2. I am so fed up with people saying massive tech companies that control the media are ‘free’ to cancel any speech they dislike. They should not be free to do so. You lose the ‘right’ to editorialize when your corporation chooses to be in the news business.

      I’m so fed up with crybabyism. Those big tech companies give you free webspace or comment space on their sites. They built their user base, not you. If they don’t want you their, they can delete your free space that they gave you.

      You’re equal of them. Get your own domain name and built your own site.

      1. there, not “their”

  25. As Reason has pointed out over and over, Facebook is private company and can ban anything they want. You made that claim when others complained, so at this point you need to sit quietly and let them ban you too. Or maybe you think the rules shouldn’t apply to you?

    1. Reason is a bastion of solid journalism, unlike one of the oldest newspapers in the country. They seem to have actually thought the Great Alphabet Censor Algorithm would see their sincerity and purity.

      1. I’m thinking they though being on Journolist 2.0 would keep them safe.

    2. I think the editors at Reason are willing to respect the right of Youtube to run its site as it wishes.

  26. YouTube is ultimately run by robots, both meat and electronic.

    For a long time they were issuing take downs of recital videos for including music. It took them a while to realize their autistic employees were doing this, and then to craft a policy that would explain to the meat robots how to distinguish between a bootleg video and someone’s dance recital.

    1. No one has ever explained to me why any social media company takes down anything (and in particular, potentially copyrighted material) posted unless law enforcement or a court has ordered them to do so. If section 230 grants them immunity from the activity of their users, who gives a fuck if xx_Exeter420_xx posted a song from KMFDM. That’s between KMFDM and xx_Exeter420_xx. If KMFDM gets a court order, then KMFDM can present that to Youtube who can then in turn, remove the video.

      1. “No one has ever explained to me why any social media company takes down anything…”

        Well, maybe because they don’t want to be boycotted by their fan base, and by their advertisers, because most of their posts are racist, smut, or otherwise offensive?

        Are you going to take the stance of Damikesc? See below…

        Hey Damiksec, damiskec, and damikesc, and ALL of your other socks…
        How is your totalitarian scheme to FORCE people to buy Reason magazines coming along?

        Free speech (freedom from “Cancel Culture”) comes from Facebook, Twitter, Tik-Tok, and Google, right? THAT is why we need to pass laws to prohibit these DANGEROUS companies (which, ugh!, the BASTARDS, put profits above people!)!!! We must pass new laws to retract “Section 230” and FORCE the evil corporations to provide us all (EXCEPT for my political enemies, of course!) with a “UBIFS”, a Universal Basic Income of Free Speech!

        So leftist “false flag” commenters will inundate Reason-dot-com with shitloads of PROTECTED racist comments, and then pissed-off readers and advertisers and buyers (of Reason magazine) will all BOYCOTT Reason! And right-wing idiots like Damikesc will then FORCE people to support Reason, so as to nullify the attempts at boycotts! THAT is your ultimate authoritarian “fix” here!!!

        “Now, to “protect” Reason from this meddling here, are we going to REQUIRE readers and advertisers to support Reason, to protect Reason from boycotts?”
        Yup. Basically. Sounds rough. (Quote damikesc)



        1. Well, maybe because they don’t want to be boycotted by their fan base, and by their advertisers, because most of their posts are racist, smut, or otherwise offensive?

          Did you just drive by the core of my question: Copyright infringements?

          1. Some people like to obey the laws, to save themselves trouble. Copyrights are way over-done in my opinion, but if I want to obey the laws to play it safe… Or to preserve my reputation among straight-laced folks with a law-obedience fetish, what is it to you?

            Or are you assuming that NO ONE HARDLY EVER obeys the laws unless they see a gun, right now or nearly immediately, to their heads? That’s a false assumption!

          2. Reread your question, and you’ll see that wasn’t the core of it. You asked what other reasons they might have besides copyright infringement, and you got the answer. However, I do think that in the present case, the big customer YouTube is afraid of losing is government.

        2. 16 SPAZ FLAGS!
          Ya know, it’s possible that buried in that pile of keyboard-diarrhea, there’s something worthwhile.
          But this narcissistic piece of shit seems to believe the hopes of finding those gems will make it worthwhile for intelligent people to wade through the bullshit 99%.
          It’s not. Simply making your assholic posts disappear makes reading the thread far more interesting.
          Spaz? Fuck you with a running chainsaw, asshole.

          1. If you had some neurons that were working… You could try to REFUTE WHAT I WRITE!

            Endless stupid insults don’t help anyone, worthless trouble-making empty-headed troll!

            1. Two more flagged, you raging asshole.
              Fuck off and die.

              1. Make me, punk! You and whose army?

                1. One more for the assholic spaz!
                  Make your family proud and give your dog a place to shit: Fuck off and die.

      2. The DMCA *requires* them to take down such material from xx_Exeter420_xx when they receive a communication from KMFDM claiming copyright. Not a court order, just a letter or perhaps even just an email. xx_Exeter420_xx can then respond to youtube with a counter-claim letter. At that point youtube can put the material back, and KMFDM’s next option is to sue xx_Exeter420_xx in court.

        However, all this churn just costs youtube time and money, with no return. The simplest *and* safest thing is to simply take down the material and that’s the end of it. They are under no legal obligation to restore it when they receive the counter-claim letter. And, if this happens to xx_Exeter420_xx more than once or maybe twice they’ll just delete the account of xx_Exeter420_xx.

  27. A government official probably told them to delete it, so they did. Private company and all that so they can obey the governments dictates if they so wish.

    Everyone was cheering when it was Alex Jones (formerly known as “conspiracy theorist Alex Jones”) being deleted. Only when it’s their ox being gored do they get upset.

    1. Well, based on what we’re discovering, it’s entirely possible that Susan Wojcicki personally emailed Dr. Anthony Fauci (referring to him as ‘Tony’ in the chummy correspondence) and asked him if it should be taken down.

      1. I kid you not, Susan Wojcicki won some kind of free speech award from a non-profit started by the founder of USA Today. It appears the organization has gone woke and thus is of course supporting censorship online.

  28. They’ve been busy scratching off each article in the Bill of Rights in reverse order. Seems like they are almost done.

    1. All the best talking heads tell me we should just accept the cancellation of our rights because the Constitution is an ever-changing documents that means what-ever they say it does.

      We should be grateful for their condescension and bow down to our overloads. At least we do not have to deal with the damn mean tweets.

    2. It’s a private website giving free space. They can delete what they like from their site. It’s the provider’s freedom of association and speech that rules. 1st Amendment applies to Congress not private parties requiring them to to provide others with free stuff.

  29. The channel should definitely be on Odysee.
    It’s a shame this video is now gone!

  30. “Misinformation” is not information that is untrue or implausible, it is Wrongthink.

    It is frustrating, after the Reason staff has thrown so many others under the platforms’ censorship bus, that when it happens to a Reason production they begin to contemplate that maybe this sort of suppression might just be a danger to a culture of free speech. Way to think only of yourselves, bravo.

    1. Way to think only of yourselves, bravo.

      Not even only think of themselves but only think of themselves *right now*. For years, dozens of commenters repeatedly pointed out that fascism is all fun and games until you get put up against the wall and Reason’s reply was “That’s future Reason’s problem.” So, in that very same vein, why should any of us care about the problems of a would-be 3rd tier media corpse?

      1. 3rd tier media corpse

        I think you are giving ENB way too much credit

      2. Reason dealt with the problem by putting the video on their own website. Where’s the fascism?

  31. ha ha ha..where is ENB on this one? As I have said again and again..Big Tech is just an extension of the marxist gang that runs the mainstream media and academia Pretty much the same NYC Ivy League “liberal art” folks who get the gigs at Hedge Funds, DNC, Media and Big Tech…what is needed is real diversity at say Youtube…maybe put some Catholics/Libertarians in charge of content and making content decisions and taking the over represented groups out of the decision matrix….it reminds me of the Yenta who moved to my neighborhood in a small town who started pushing for the kids to raise money for the UN at Halloween…these folks love large centralized orgs like WHO who take power and put the “Italians, Irish, Germans, French, English, and Poles” in their place..

  32. Why do you bother asking “why did youtube take down my vid, which isn’t misinformation” if your position is (1) Youtube is private company AND (2) any attempt to protect content on big tech is by default government meddling that violates 1A? Just shrug your shoulder and post the vid on Rumble, because you’re at a standstill and won’t advance the debate.

    You’re upset because you put time, effort and money into making that video, hoping to provide an honest alternative point of view and to inform the public, and it was erased by an arbitrary algorithm with no clear explanation. This doesn’t just discredit the video, it discredits YOU, because YT is basically calling you a liar who spreads misinformation. Same thing happened to Stossel.

    YT is publisher. They let everyone publish, and will then deploy algorithm to edit or censor content. Publishers don’t enjoy blanket liability protection. And if Hallmark publisher reject all of my zombie apocalypse manuscripts, my 1A right isn’t slighted in the least.

    Does Reason see no distinction between Disqus and Twitter? Twitter “blue checks” individuals and distinguishes information as coming as official channels. Because a government account really does represent an official position, it could defame someone. No one cares about that “Donald Trump” says in a random disqus thread.

    If Youtube removed a video that didn’t violate TOS, you should be able to sue. If that encourages the company to not accept any content from the center right, that’s fine. That’s their perogative.

    1. Seems pretty clear that the video was removed as “misinformation” when it wasn’t actually misinformation, falls under defamation.

      Companies shouldn’t be able to just claim everyone is lying without proving first it is a lie. They also should be held liable if they have a robot that is stamping things as untruths.

      Even in Libertarian circles, making rampant false claims about someone is frowned upon. I

    2. Unless you meant YT is platform you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

      Also, there have been court cases establishing individual privacy rights supercede business ones. I forget the name but there was a Supreme Court case long ago that established workers at some kind of plant that built its own town for workers to live in had private property and privacy rights applied to the workers in their homes, even if the homes were owned by the company and on company property. So a case could possibly be made individual user rights supercede a social media companies. And especially if that company is actually taking something from you in exchange for access to their platform, like personal info, search histories, biometric data, location data, contact lists, etc. And double especially if they are in turn selling that to another party for a profit.

    3. Section 230 of the Constitution is a Superprecedent thst renders ypur cries moot

      1. Justices Dorsey, Zuckerberg, Pichai, and Bezos agree unanimously. We’ll have to wait for them to die (aka offend the Clintons)

  33. I understand the difference and never claimed it was a perfect comparison. It’s strange so many “libertarian” want to defend these “private” companies that are so in bed with the government and determined to manipulate our lives and society. Do the big tech companies have the “right” to do what they do? Technically, although they should lose protection from lawsuits, since they are publishers now. And we should also call them out on their bull, especially when they illegally conspire to shut down competition.

  34. Alternatives to youtube include:
    Etc, etc, and of course etc.

    1. ^This^

      I’m tired of crybaby “libertarians” and conservatives. Register your own domain. Build your own platform. No one’s stopping you. The tech compnies built their own platforms and accumulated their own user base. They own it. Stop complaining and build your own.

  35. I am OK if they block stuff as long as they say explicitly why it was blocked and they are truthful about it.

    The second they labled something that is true as “Misinformation” There should be hellish fines to pay.

    A company can refuse to host or share content all day long if they say, we believe this content does not align with our corporate values or some such nonsense. But when you start labelling the truth as a lie and you are one of the most widely used method for fostering and facilitating communication of information you are a danger to society.

    This also goes for stuff you didn’t know was the truth (aka maybe Google really did believe the Drs saying that the lab leak was a hoax), but it sure as hell was never disproven. Hence it was never a lie or misinformation. Just unverified information.

    1. “The second they labled something that is true as “Misinformation” There should be hellish fines to pay.”

      What is true and what is false? And who decides?


      The day after tomorrow, you get a jury summons. You will be asked to rule in the following case: A poster posted the following to social media: “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know!”

      This attracted protests from liberals, who thought that they may have detected hints of sarcasm, which was hurtful, and invalidated the personhoods of a few Sensitive Souls. It ALSO attracted protests from conservatives, who were miffed that this was a PARTIAL truth only (thereby being at least partially a lie), with the REAL, full TRUTH AND ONLY THE TRUTH being, “Government Almighty of Der TrumpfenFuhrer ONLY, LOVES US ALL, FAR more than we can EVER know! Thou shalt have NO Government Almighty without Der TrumpfenFuhrer, for Our TrumpfenFuhrer is a jealous Government Almighty!”

      Ministry of Truth, and Ministry of Hurt Baby Feelings, officials were consulted. Now there are charges!


      “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?

      “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, hurtful sarcasm or not?

      Will you be utterly delighted to serve on this jury? Keep in mind that OJ Simpson got an 11-month criminal trial! And a 4-month civil trial!

      1. the property owners (the web site owners) should decide!

        “Website owners = property owners” – SQRLSY One

        1. “Government Almighty LOVES US ALL”, true or false?

          Mad Marxist Casually Mad says “TRUE”! Bring ON the Ministry of Truth, says THE Mad Marxist! Government Almighty will PROTECT us all, from… OMG! The HORRORS of it all! Our posts getting TAKEN DOWN!!!!

          1. the property owners (the web site owners) should decide!

            “Website owners = property owners” – SQRLSY One

            1. Build your own website. No one’s stopping you.

      2. “What is true and what is false?”

        Truth is truth, a falsehood is falsehood. Gary areas fall within subjective opinion or unsettle issues.

        “And who decides?”

        For a publisher – any editorial team or possibly legal counsel.

        For platforms and non publisher private businesses – that’s not their problem. A sandwhich shop can’t be sued for whatever things customers say inside their store. Someone named “Donald Trump” commenting nonsense at a disqus thread or message board cannot be sued. Disqus can’t be sued for that either.

        “The government loves us all” is a nebulous position, not grounds for defamation or any legal action, and will be rejected as a thesis for a high school English essay topic. Its the same thing as “the sky is blue”, it’s not an arguable statement.

        Reason put up a video about an private interests developing their own vaccine without FDA approval. They support that, obviously. That’s not misinformation. “We found a doctor who created a miracle vaccine, and the government is now coming after him!” is misinformation. Rumors and innuendos stated as fact.

        Let’s put it this way – YT can say they won’t tolerate bigotry on their site and removes all hip hop songs with homophobic lyrics. Some people might argue vulgarity can be used as artistry or social statement, but YT doesn’t have to recognize nuance when the intend to offend clear to see. If they remove my video of me playing a xylophone because a history book on my shelf had a swatstika on the cover, no, either they shouldn’t do that or I should be allowed recourse if they remove it.

        1. Gary areas fall within subjective opinion or unsettle issues.

          “And who decides?”

          For a publisher – any editorial team or possibly legal counsel.

          Since before the days of King Solomon we’ve had ways to resolve “unsettled issues”. A central tenet of every significant revision since has been an iteration of the notion that defaulting to ‘might makes right’ is either morally wrong or unjust.

      3. YouTube is taking it upon themselves to decide truth an falsehood and they have no expertise to do so , and no reason to have such expertise on all subjects YouTube creators expound upon.

  36. Free speech is an inalienable right. That by definition means that the right cannot be given away by or taken away from the possessor by anyone, anywhere.

    It has nothing to do with the government.

    When people are invited onto private property for the purpose of speech, all their inalienable rights, including free speech must be respected.

    1. If the property owner does not like what the speaker says, the property owner can eject the speaker from the property. It’s called property rights. The speaker still has freedom of speech. Forcing property owners to provide space for speakers with whom they disagree is not free speech.

      1. No one is stopping the speaker from speaking elsewhere.

  37. I’ve been telling you this would happen. For at least a couple years now.

    1. Let it happen! Bitch about it, sure, OK! But, go all Marxist on private property? Ha! “Team R” Marxism is still Marxism! Meet the new boss, WORSE than the old boss, if we get rid of Section 230!

  38. This is too rich.

    YouTube doesn’t have to give you any reason as to why they removed your video; you need to accept that they are a private company. You have no right nor expectation to use YouTube or for YouTube to treat you “fairly”. If you don’t like their rules, build your own video sharing site.

    …or do these “rules” no longer apply because you’re now the ones receiving the proverbial shaft?

    1. ^This^

      No more “libertarian” crybabyism.

  39. You’re absolutely right, what YouTube did here is, as usual, absolutely ridiculous. BUT……….

    You fake, phony, fraudulent, fugazi libertarians of Reason are such a total bunch of lying, dishonest, selfish yet non self aware dickheads that you truly must be insane if you were expecting to get much sympathy here given your usual takes. Everyone here knows you wouldn’t give a flying fuck if this happened to many others. “Pathetic” doesn’t even begin to describe the level of unmitigated gall on display here, it’s more like whatever pathetic times a thousand is.

    So I really don’t know how you could have possibly expected to get any other response besides


  40. I am making 7 to 6 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 40 dollar Easily YFG .. This is enough for me to happy my ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…Visit Here

  41. If YouTube insists on banning journalism like this, what’s next?

    Before the Internet age nobody could propagate his or her ideas to a mass audience without the agreement of some national newspaper, magazine, radio, etc. Now, Facebook and Twitter allow us to propagate our ideas but with certain limited exceptions. That still leaves us way ahead of where we were for all of human history up to about 1990. I also don’t approve of all of Facebook’s decisions, but people tend to exaggerate the negative impact on freedom and truth. As people come to realize that they’re not getting the full story on Facebook they’ll search for alternative sources of information, including forms of social media that let user’s turn off types of information they don’t want to be exposed to (such as results at odds with those generally accepted in the scientific community) and search engines that don’t censor or hide disfavored sources.

    What’s the downside of Facebook allowing unfiltered communication? People will make dangerous medical decisions based on misinformation? Couldn’t those sources just be labeled as differing from standard science? Maybe the best approach is for the public to realize after a while that they need to take what they read with a grain of salt. With respect to hate mongers or those with a “false view of reality” can’t people figure out for themselves what is true?

    1. Good post!

      As usual, “free speech for me, but not for thee” is at the root of most of the belly-aching and whining, MeThinks… The desire to shut up and punish one’s supposed “enemies”, that is, where an “enemy” is anyone who disagrees with the all-important MEEEEE!!!!

    2. Knowledge is power. What’s the downside of having no control over who has the power?

      If only democrats get to exercise free speech, that’s better than nothing eh? Not if you’re a republican, then it’s much, much worse.

      We just watched a sitting PRESIDENT get canceled erased censored and deplatfomed along with everyone else who was concerned about evidence of election fraud.

      Is THAT better than before?

  42. This is the problem with trying to regulate the Internet. First who decides
    what solid medical science is? My example is the almost 60 years of
    low fat diet propaganda supported by the Federal government turned out to
    be based on a lie told by scientist who were bribed by the Sugar Trade Association. Even now this misinformation will not be flagged by Youtube even
    though it’s bad science.

    Last year when Ebay was trying to regulate trade during a pandemic I was told
    by Ebay that window cleaner was a disinfectant! I had purchase a pallet of returns that happened to have several boxes of single use window cleaner cloths. My listing was removed at first claiming I was price gouging. Again who decides what that is? If I buy it from a local store for $5.00 and sell it for $6.00 I’m not gouging, but the overall price could be higher than others. However in my case I was selling it for less than

    When they choked on that one, they decided that window cleaner could also be used as a disinfectant! Now who’s pushing incorrect medical info? They suggested that I donate it to my local hospital so they could use it to disinfect for COVID!!!!

    I know there’s a down side to treating the Internet and platforms like Youtube as the old West. However, there’s no other choice. The US doesn’t own the Internet, regulations don’t actually apply to most of the world, and anyone trying to violate those regulations can and do. Let the “people” decide, even if those people are morons. It’s your right as a US citizen to be a moron. 😛

  43. “This is the problem with trying to regulate the Internet. First who decides”

    Exactly, but if elected government doesn’t regulate it, people we don’t want to, will.

    I’d rather an elected official try to tell me that I don’t have the inalienable right to free speech because I pay his wages.

  44. The WHO is a culpable party to the 2014 H1n1 PANDEMIC that never happened yet they colluded with the drug companies who were set to profit handsomely with vaccine doses ready to roll out. Changing circumstances left millions of doses in warehouses that never saw the light of day . It is the WHO which works with bigpharma when it suits their standing or impacts their funding. They would be calling for an independent audit of all U.S. bio-weapon labs if they truly served the public interest . This has never happened. Susan whatsherface of YOUTUBE reveals her total ignorance of how these agencies work and remains clueless while giving a pass to Bill Gates and the harm he has done on children with experimental vaccines he endorsed in the past. The World Economic Forum meeting shortly before the outbreak in Wuhan actually knew this was going to happen as they went through a checklist of what to prepare for and what to expect. Youtube should be divested from Google ownership as they never should be approved for this acquisition. The very threat of demonetizing a channel that is popular is a direct threat to free speech. Same goes for FB that acquired Messenger and Instagram . This should never have been allowed to go through .Congress has failed miserably in protecting user freedom and privacy and remains a dinosaur in updating legal issues over data mining and surveillance capitalism , of which robocalling is but one aspect of it .

  45. Why Did YouTube Remove This Reason Video?

    That’s easy, YouTube was simply performing “good samaritan” screening of “offensive” materials.

  46. I hope Reason will re-post the video to other sites such as Bitchute, Rumble, LBRY/Odysee, Gab, Dailymotion, and Brighteon, all of which will likely permit it. Or simply set up video hosting on Reason’s own web site. There is no need to depend on third party hosting providers who haven’t agreed to leave your material up.

Comments are closed.