Technology

YouTube Has the Right To Shut Down Rand Paul. That Doesn't Mean It Should.

Big tech platforms should encourage debate, not forbid it.

|

YouTube just froze Sen. Rand Paul's (R–Ky.) YouTube channel.

That's just wrong. Small-minded. Counterproductive.

YouTube says Paul violated their COVID-19 misinformation policy when he told an interviewer, "Most of the masks you get over the counter don't work…virus particles are too small and go right through."

Paul didn't make that up.

Properly worn N95 masks are effective, but two peer-reviewed studies suggest that simple masks might not work at all.

But the studies aren't perfect, so Paul shouldn't use phrases like "no value." But give him a break; that's how people talk! It's good if he tells people not to trust cloth masks.

Unfortunately, YouTube bans any video that contradicts pronouncements of the World Health Organization. The rule makes it impossible to criticize WHO policy, even though one WHO video says "wear a mask regardless of the distance from others."

WHO bureaucrats aren't perfect. They made many mistakes during COVID-19. Other health "experts" once rejected germ theory and told people with ulcers to drink milk.

Such mistakes got corrected through criticism and debate. But YouTube now forbids that!

Last month, Paul got into a heated debate with Anthony Fauci over money the National Institutes of Health gave to Chinese scientists. Paul asked if it was used to do "gain-of-function" research (science that makes diseases deadlier—to learn more about them).

Paul didn't suggest that the experiment the U.S. government funded created COVID-19. It didn't. We know that because of COVID-19's molecular structure.

But gain-of-function is still risky science that deserves public discussion. The NIH did fund pre-pandemic experiments at Wuhan that combined coronaviruses to see if they could infect humans.

"Does Fauci respond and explain to us in a reasonable fashion, why he thinks it's not gain-of-function? No! He calls me a liar," says Paul in my new video.

Fauci did once write that even if a pandemic did occur from such research, "benefits…outweigh the risks."

"Sounds like incredibly bad judgement," says Paul.

Yet the media attacked Paul's judgement instead, smirking at what they called his "conspiracy theories." Social media companies even banned suggesting that COVID-19 was man-made!

"Never before could a couple of companies just shut conversation off," I say to Paul.

"That's a real danger to scientific and journalistic inquiry," he replies. "The advancement of knowledge requires skepticism…debate on both sides. [But] these monolithic social media companies are determining what the truth is."

Well, what they say truth is.

Maybe they banned the Chinese lab leak idea because former President Donald Trump expressed it. But Trump lying a lot doesn't make everything he says false.

There was actual evidence of a lab leak. American diplomats warned of risky experiments at the Wuhan lab before the pandemic. Three workers there got COVID-19 symptoms before the disease appeared elsewhere.

Only when that became public did Fauci say, "It could have been a lab leak." Then President Joe Biden ordered an investigation.

Suddenly, Facebook unbanned the theory. Its previous censorship relied on its sloppy and biased "fact check" group, Science Feedback, which has smeared me twice in the past.

What other important truths does censorship conceal? We'll never know when Facebook/Twitter/YouTube only allow us to hear one side.

Paul says he's eager to "tell everybody how much they suck."

Unlike some in Congress, he doesn't want to regulate social media. He wants competition.

They "will ultimately destroy their platform," says Paul. "Somebody…is going to make a billion dollars when they develop the new Facebook."

Paul helped create a site called Liberty Tree, where libertarian-leaning politicians share ideas. He and I are both on YouTube competitor Rumble.

Those sites are good. The problem with them is that most participants are already knowledgeable about liberty.

"We lose something by not talking to the other side," I tell him.

Paul says he worries less about that because his Twitter feed is full of "idiots [and] imbeciles."

My newsfeeds aren't as crazy. At YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, I often learn things. There's some thoughtful discussion.

I'll stay on YouTube, Facebook, etc.

I hate the bias and censorship.

But more debate—is the only way we learn.

COPYRIGHT 2021 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

NEXT: If Class Outside Was Good Enough for Plato, It's Good Enough in a Pandemic

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.

  1. Government pressures private companies to censor their opponents with threats of regulation, taxes, etc

    Reason – Nothing to see here! Dur hur private companies dur hur!

    —–
    Reason: A bunch of useless cowards sucking the D**k of leftists so they get invited to all the best parties.

    Enjoy the gulag you useful idiots

    1. Hey esteve7, Government Almighty has NEVER pressured me in ANY way, about what I say on my web site… Which I ***PAY*** for! It is ALL mine!!! (Try it some time… OWNING what you PAY for! My comments do NOT get taken down, there!)

      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!

      https://www.google.com/search?q=scienfoology&nfpr=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjPzZqf0dXsAhUCT6wKHez9DNwQvgUoAXoECDEQKg&biw=1920&bih=941

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

      WHERE is your respect for property rights?! I learned to respect the property rights of others, before I was in the 1st grade! Didn’t your Momma raise you right?

      PS, why not support Section 230 as written? It favors NO one specific party or corporation, but it DOES support private property!

      1. Making extra salary every month from home more than $15k just by doing simple copy and paste like online job. I have received $18635 from this easy home job and now I am a good online earner like others.HUm This job is super easy and its earnings are great. Everybody can now makes extra cash online easily by just follow

        The given website………. VISIT HERE

        1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online.SDf this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily. simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

          Try now……………… VISIT HERE

        2. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month.BGd I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

          You can check it out here……… VISIT HERE

        3. Since I started with my online business, I earn $25 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you won’t forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

          Learn more about it here……. VISIT HERE

      2. are you a real person? what is wrong with you?

        1. What is “wrong with me” is that I believe that MANY-MANY-MANY-MANY people and corporations make bad decisions ALL of the time, but giving Government Almighty the POWER to fix All Things for All People, All of the Time, is NOT going to work! Because guess what?!?! Government Almighty being All Things to All Folks, is NOT going to work, ’cause Government Almighty is made of fallible humanoids, who have to poop and pee, just like you and me!

          (So let YouTube be stupid, and do NOT tear down a perfectly GOOD law, like Section 230, just because you get your panties in a twist, over the Stupid of YouTube).

          1. I can’t take you seriously with your frequent use of all caps

            1. i can’t take you seriously with your refusal to address my points.

              (hey i didn’t use too many caps this time for yer small brains, did i? if so, please accept my apologies).

              1. Reread what you just posted, troll. You don’t have any points.
                Not one.

                1. Arguing with MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer is pointless! It is like arguing with a vacuum! THAT is my newest point. There is NO way that it can be refuted, ever.

                  1. You’re not arguing with anyone. You’re calling names, flinging poo and being generally retarded.
                    You never make a point, present actual evidence or answer a statement. You just troll, troll, troll.

                    1. Hey EvilBahnFuhrer, AKA MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer…

                      You are udderly, cow-breastedly incapable of refuting the below… Because it is TRUE, and therefor, can NOT be refuted, right, Right-Wing Wrong-Nut? I DARE You to refute TIT, Cow-Breasted Wonder Child!!!

                      … 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!

                    2. Again, nothing but spastic name-calling and flinging poo. The only difference between you and an angry toddler, is that you drag out your hissy fit over five long paragraphs that nobody will ever bother to read.

                    3. So you refute what I have written, by not reading it! Got it! Wow!

                    4. After leaving my previous job 12 months ago, i’ve had some good luck to learn about this website which was a life-saver for me… They offer jobs for which people can work online from their house. My latest paycheck after working for them for 4 months was for $4500… Amazing thing about is that the only thing required is simple typing skills and access to internet…Read all about it here… READ MORE

                    5. Eating poo, also.

                2. I just keep that shot eating retard muted. I don’t even mute Tony or AmSoc. Although please let me know if it ends up killing itself.

        2. Lol. The only appropriate response.

          1. Yes! Yes, R Mac & THE Cheesiest & Sleaziest of the Mac & Cheeses ARE rolling & trolling their cheese wheels as we speak!

            So then YES, Mac & Cheeses, I DO LOL at THEE, ass the ONLY appropriate response!!!

            1. Goddamn I started calling him Mac and cheese. Now people are going to accuse me of being you…

              I’ll call him “R Macdonald had a farm.”

              I called it.

                1. R Macdonald had a farm ya got me!

                  I’ve been sarc this whole time. I don’t really hate Mormons. It’s all been a big charade. However now it’s over.

                  All thanks to R Macdonald had a farm

                  1. You’re not clever. Don’t try.

          2. Lol. The only appropriate response.

            The only appropriate response to SQRLSY One is sort of like the movie War Games – the only winning move is not to play.

        3. Welcome to the party pal.

      3. @Sqrlsy: now do Parler, operation chokepoint, the recent pressure on onlyfans, the backpage shit show… there are more…

        Seems you missed the articles point and esteve7’s point – willfully.

        /OT: ever think to edit your responses –

    2. companies that help rig elections should be allowed to continue to rig elections! Freedom!

      Can’t believe they got stossel

      1. Internet trolls and fulminaters that lust after taking over the private properties of web-site owners should be allowed to continue our nation’s drift towards Marxism, where Government Almighty controls the means of production, to include web sites! Freedom! Very progressive, Cumrade! All Hail 666cc2d28!!!

        (Where do I sign up for my bar-coded forehead and hands, to signal my PROPER 666cc2d28 Progressive Tribal Allegiance?)

        1. You should know. You obviously swore allegiance to the Democratic Party years ago.

          1. Just like you swore allegiance to the Christian Heritage party of BC

            1. That’s a joke just in case you’re too old/boring to get it.

              1. I don’t even know what that is, so I googled it and wikipedia says “The majority of its members are Dutch Canadians who attend Dutch Reformed Churches.”

                I’ve noticed you seem to have a real hate for Christians too. Are Dutch Canadian Christians a particular bug-bear?Maybe not as much as Jews and Mormons, but you still hate them a lot?

                1. Please cite me posting anti-Semitic things or stop claiming I do.

                  Calvin seemed like a bit of a fascist, but I have nothing against most Christians.

                  1. I should be more clear. I have nothing against reformed Churches. There’s assholes in every denomination. There’s good ones too.

                2. I don’t mind you saying I hate Mormons. I do.

                  You’re a horrible human being for defending them. Not to mention your lying and love of authoritarianism.

                  1. “Calvin seemed like a bit of a fascist, but I have nothing against most Christians.”

                    What about Hobbes?

                    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2021/07/the-origins-of-climateball-in-works-of.html

                    If facebook were less censorious, more people might try it and boycott Zuckerberg

    3. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/top-google-engineer-abandons-company-reveals-big-tech-rewrote-algos-target-trump

      A Big Tech whistleblower said Google altered its algorithm in order to ensure that negative stories from the establishment media about former Present Donald Trump were what people saw when using the highest-trafficked website on the internet.

      Zach Vorhies, who previously worked for Google, said in an interview with The Epoch Times that the tech titan specifically tailored its news algorithm to harm the former president.

    4. Rand Paul is the closest thing to a real libertarian in Congress, and Reason hates him as much as they hate Trump.

  2. I like Stossel. Did I ever tell anyone that?

    1. Give me a break!

      1. Ok, take a break. Don’t worry about ever coming back.

  3. When you have an entity that present itself as an open forum for people to express themselves to suppress a sitting Senator who is also a medical professional for saving something that is not untrue, just controversial as to what it means for setting policy during a crisis.

    This is not something YouTube should do as has no expertise for being an arbiter of what “misinformation” is. It certainly is not good for it to consider the CDC to be the Word of God as it were. YouTube is failing at its intended purpose.

    1. Especially when they’re relying on the WHO, which might have certain political reasons for not implicating certain countries in unleashing a worldwide pandemic.

      1. The WHO doesn’t recognize tiwan as a country. If they can’t find an island on a map how can anyone trust what they say

    2. Uh, they got their list from the DNC and the White House. What more expertise do you want??

    3. Oh stop the “medical professional” nonsense like it’s some sort of Get Out of Jail Free card. He’s an *ophthalmologist*. Would you see an ophthalmologist if you’re having problems with your knee or your foot or your lung? No. Being a specialist doesn’t mean you know squat about any other body part than the one which you studied.

      1. Also, having an MD does not mean a person has any training in statistics and epidemiology. It bugs me that anyone feels like a medical degree or license of any kind stamps their intuitive ideas authoritative without any real empirical analysis. TL,DR, I agree with you.

        1. Except he cites actual peer reviewed studies…

          Before the current kerfuffle, the consensus in the west was that masks don’t really help in the wild, despite the obvious nature of the solution.

          Even far left skeptic sites had content on the topic..

          So, Paul explicitly does not argue from authority, but from data and scientific studies. He is answered with argument from authority and censorship.

          There actually are arguments available. Studies have been done, however poorly. But nobody does that anymore. Not when they can claim “the science is settled” and look to a fact check org to certify that their side must be protected by censorship.

          1. The Science is settled… now that the WHO has changed the definition of herd immunity and the American association of pediatrics has scrubbed its website of all references to the importance of facial expressions to child development

          2. Scientific facts are now what that State Party (democrats) decide them to be. Period.

            We need to reduce the number of democrats. Then these problems will go away.

      2. Except I would trust an ophthalmologist to know basic infection control. This isn’t exactly a difficult or obscure topic.

        To compare, I can’t do heat shield calculations on the Space Shuttle, but as an engineer, I can talk about the airflow around the vehicle

  4. Private companies are diverting ‘water’ (free speech) from conservative farmlands. Stop making this argument to be ‘no shirts no service’ or a ‘gray’ area where there are no Constitutional rights being violated but there is no remedy available. We went through all this with Civil rights, Jim Crow and women (whom the S. Ct. routinely said they had no cause of action against private discrimination because they were black or women). All of that has been rejected. A band aid was constructed i.e. while the Constitution recognizes that blacks are inferior to whites, we will create a ‘class’ out thin air (‘race’) that is no where to be found in the Constitution, and put blacks into it and give them some, not all rights that the superior white race has, i.e. they can sit at a public lunch counter even though it’s owned by a private company. The private/public argument is just as stupid as the private/public figure class of people created out of whole cloth in cases of alleged libel and slander. There is one standard of proof for ‘famous’ football coaches; and another for coaches no one has ever heard about.

  5. A private company acting in concert with the government under coercive pressure is, for constitutional purposes, an arm of the government.

    1. Fascism. call it what it is.

  6. Yes, Youtube has a right to be utter cretins, and is well within their rights to be completely captured by the DNC and to claim that it is Omnipotent.

    We need to repeatedly point this reality out.

    1. 8 years this has been an issue. Probably 6 years that the comments have been saying this.

      And this is the first article at reason to come to the correct conclusion.

      And it took Stossel to do it, not even a line writer.

      Come on guys, this is obvious.

      1. “Come on guys, this is obvious.”

        WHAT is obvious? YouTube has poor judgment? OK, granted! Does this call for MORE Government Almighty regulation? I think not!

        Divorce is bad… Shall we outlaw divorce, or use more Government Almighty regulation to reduce it?

        May I remind you, when ALL “bad” things are outlawed, and all “good” things are mandated, we have NO individual freedom left?

        1. *Government Almighty regulates social media through corporatism*

          Meanwhile…

          Sqrlsy – “Hurr durr, objecting to government regulation means you want government regulation”.

          1. MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer – “Section 230 is evil ’cause I don’t like it; it gets in MY Way as I attempt Controlling ALL Things!”

            1. Answer the statement, troll.

              1. Hey OverSizedMammaries, The Sacred You has NO Statements to “Answer”, because YOU are answerable to NO ONE besides The Sacred You!

                Ask me a coherent question, and I will answer!

                In the meantime, You have NEVER stooped so low as to answer this:
                (Every time you post Your Stupid, I am happy to re-post this, to make it clear to one and all, that You have NO answers worth reading).

                Hey EvilBahnFuhrer… 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. “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”

                  Stossel, Robby, ENB and Welch have all pointed out that this administration has been using social media bans to censor people.
                  Hell, White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, just said last week that the White House was using the Good Samaritan clause, to censor people on social media.

                  Why do you refuse to acknowledge this?

                  1. “…the White House was using the Good Samaritan clause, to censor people on social media.”

                    That is total horseshit, regardless of who said it!

                    https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

                    Tell me, a law PREVENTING people from using the courts of Government Almighty to sue each other… HOW can THAT be used to censor people?

                    You are blowing smoke big-time, Marxist power pig!

  7. Is it really Muh Priavet Company! when they’re taking orders from the government on who to silence and ban?

    1. Now that I think about it, the analogy goes deeper; Youtube even gets blanket qualified immunity for everything they do.

      1. “Qualified immunity”, my ass!

        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. “Big Lie”

          Is there anyone here who now doubts that Sqrlsy is a wannabee Stasi Agent for Foggy Bottom?
          Only someone like that can pretend that what is blatant to everyone, isn’t happening.

          Jen Psaki outright said “We’re (the White House) censoring the internet with the help of social media companies”, and Sqrlsy still going around saying “Don’t believe your lying eyes and ears. It’s a bIG liE”.

          1. OverSizedMammaries won’t address my stated questions because more-advanced humanoids make less-advanced humanoids look bad!

            OverSizedMammaries is afraid of my looking smarter and more benevolent than Her, yes? I might persuade ALL of Her inflatable dolls to LEAVE Her! And then I will make ALL of Her babies! THIS fear is evolutionarily engraved in Her near-non-existent troglodyte brain!

            See details of this at http://www.churchofsqrls.com/Do_Gooders_Bad/

            1. Jen Psaki outright said “We’re (the White House) censoring the internet with the help of social media companies”, and Sqrlsy still going around saying “Don’t believe your lying eyes and ears. It’s a bIG liE”.

              1. Citation would be nice….

                Even so…

                https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml

                Tell me, a law PREVENTING people from using the courts of Government Almighty to sue each other… HOW can THAT be used to censor people?

                You are blowing smoke big-time, Marxist power pig!

              2. MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer, please broadcast under YOUR usual posting name, that the Section 230 laws are GREAT, for protecting private property rights, and preventing “Party A” from being punished for the writings of “Party B”! Post that in YOUR name!

                If you won’t do that, you are CENSORING me, and denying me my “inalienable right to free speech”!!! By YOU using the Good Samaritan clause!!! You are taking away my RIGHTS, just as YOU want to take away the RIGHTS of FaceBooooo, etc., to control what all crap, to include lies, that they enable others to spread!!!

    2. Imagine government hiring a private security team to search your place without a warrant to get around the Fourth.

      That’s how bad of an idea this is.

      Except in this case it’s like hiring a private security team that also happen to be ex- and current police.

  8. They have been pulling down videos from 2A channels for some time. I believe they have also done this to some history channels.

    1. You’re free to start your own gun loving, cousin fucking streaming site

      1. Is he? now do Parler and the recent Onlyfans….

  9. “”We lose something by not talking to the other side,” I tell him.”

    You do not negotiate with your executioner.
    I have lost nothing by not using social media.

  10. Rand’s message gets out without youtube

    1. Good point Dillinger!!!

      (Be it Rand Paul or Ayan Rand, Mox Nix).

      In the days on the internet, we ALL get our messages out, whoever we may be! (If we care to broadcast). Is there ANYONE out there with an internet connection, who would LIKE to know Trump’s or Biden’s or Aunt Matilda’s opinion or lies about ANYTHING (that the target is willing to divulge or lie about), who can NOT find said opinion? Because of YouTube censorshit? “I don’t THINK so, Tim!”, as they said on “Home Improvement”!

      (BTW, I think that the price of tea in China is VASTLY over-inflated, most likely by the Lizard Men, who lust after ALWAYS MORE ginger tea flavorings, as sold by Harry TurtleDove!)

      1. I’ve never seen Ayn or Paul on youtube and can’t escape either.

        the Lizards is one of the tougher phish songs to catch live.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HoDlGNTisI

        1. Goodbye (for now) and thanks for all of the Phish songs!

          Ass a token of my gratitude, I give you “Ghost Chickens in the Sky”!

          (By LeRoy Troy)

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkdci55adqk

          1. Quality, but I think that just broke the recommendation algorithm.

        2. Ayn is on YouTube—check out her appearance with Johnny Carson. They don’t do interviews like that anymore.

  11. Free speech is an inalienable right. That means when people use a medium to communicate the owner of that medium can’t censor their communication and they can’t coerce those people to self censor.

    If they want to shut down their medium, they’re welcome to. If they want to charge money to use it, they can. They just can’t violate our inalienable rights.

    You may think you’re “protecting liberty” by advocating this violation, but in reality you’re denying the liberty we all have to the inalienable right to free speech.

    1. Rob Misek, please broadcast under YOUR usual posting name, that the Holocaust was VERY REAL, and sponsored by Adolf Hitler and the NAZIs, who were hateful, racist, and EVIL! Post that in YOUR name!

      If you won’t do that, you are CENSORING me, and denying me my “inalienable right to free speech”!!!

      1. Refuting your bullshit isn’t censorship.

        1. OK, so censorshit is whatever Miserable Misek says that it is. Got it!

          1. Ever hear of a dictionary fuckwit?

            Or is the concept of meaning too authoritarian for you?

  12. Then telephone carriers may forbid voice and internet access to people who have unpopular opinions; grocery stores may refuse to sell food to dissidents; gas stations may refuse to sell fuel to people who think outside the consensus; the electric utility may cut off power to those who disagree with the government; airlines can refuse to board wrong thinkers.

    And so forth, because Muh Private Companies.

    But try to decide who to serve at your Greeensboro, NC lunch counter or your Georgia chicken restaurant and the government comes down on you like a load of bricks because Muh Freedom.

    1. Hey Humple, what is your proposed fix?

      Please consider the below before you respond…

      (Short version up top).
      Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said, ‘The State must follow, and not lead, the character and progress of the citizen.’

      Here is the full-blown quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:
      ‘Republics abound in young civilians who believe that the laws make the city, that grave modifications of the policy and modes of living and employments of the population, that commerce, education and religion may be voted in or out; and that any measure, though it were absurd, may be imposed on a people if only you can get sufficient voices to make it a law. But the wise know that foolish legislation is a rope of sand which perishes in the twisting; that the State must follow and not lead the character and progress of the citizen; that the form of government which prevails is the expression of what cultivation exists in the population which permits it. The law is only a memorandum.’

      Another relevant Emerson quote:
      “All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.”
      So anyway, suppose that Government Almighty goes too far, and mandates no-meat diets, which many people disagree with, just like the War on Drugs today…
      Then there will be underground, makeshift, amateurish animal-killing-and-butchering shops, where the animals will be treated far less humanely than they are today! (Thank You Do-Gooders!!!)
      You will not be able to let Fluffy or Fido wander through the bushes in your own back yard, for fear of meat-hungry lawbreaking pet-snatchers!
      (But, Meat-Hungry Lawbreaking Pet-Snatchers would make an MOST EXCELLENT name for a garage band!)

      1. I would put up to a national referendum the following two propositions:

        (1) get rid of the civil rights act and everything associated with it
        or
        (2) give all people the same rights to demand service from any business as minorities, gays, trannies and other minorities get under the CRA.

        Now who could argue with that?

        1. Actually I agree with you. But I do wish we’d all be reasonably broad-minded and tolerant.

          OF OUR OWN FREE WILL!!!

          And that last clause is EXTREMELY important!

          (And a little discretion and compromise is warranted. No one ever died for lack of a gay wedding cake. Emergency Room is different. Maybe cast laws accordingly. Just an idea.)

          1. Nobody has to go without a gay wedding cake or flowers for a gay wedding or a gay pizza. No law is needed because there are plenty of bakers, pizza shops and florists–there is no oligopoly in these businesses. What to do about an oligopoly is another matter.

            As to emergency rooms, there is already a law against refusing anyone service in an emergency room, which is why many ERs do a lot of business with indigent citizens and non-English speaking illegals. I would keep that law, as it applies to anyone, irrespective of grievance-group status.

            1. Whoa! Homple has “horse sense”!

              (Need some more of that around around Hee-Haw! By BR549!)

        2. You’d prefer a new referendum and vote every time people disagree?

          What have you got against standing up for the inalienable rights we already have?

          1. No, I only mentioned one referendum.

            Regarding inalienable rights, as I read the news more of these rights get alienated every year. Judicial dictatorship derived from class-specific civil rights legislation is one of the main reasons rights are disappearing for the general population.

            1. The impetus for a referendum is that public opinion has changed and the law should too.

              Public opinion changes all the time. Propaganda is even used to manipulate it.

              For referendums to ostensibly achieve their purpose, having laws match current public opinion, they must be held regularly.

              This completely contradicts the concept of ethics, right and wrong which do not change with public opinion.

              Something inalienable cannot be given or taken away. Doing so is wrong.

              A referendum could do wrong.

              I’ll ask again. What do you have against standing up for the inalienable rights we have?

  13. There’s always gab for the snowflakes. Or parler…is that one back yet?

    1. A “snowflake” would insist that anyone they disagree with be banned.
      That’s you dickhole.

  14. How about just banning him for being a self-aggrandizing prick and a shameless, unprincipled attention whore? If I ever made the mistake of inviting him to a party, I’d throw him out two minutes after he opened his mouth.

    1. “If I ever made the mistake of inviting him to a party, I’d throw him out two minutes after he opened his mouth.”

      MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer will be here soon, to call you a “corporatist” for imagining that YOUR house-party, in YOUR house, belongs to YOU! And that you could… Ha! THROW SOMEONE OUT?!?! Your house is a “public utility”, or a “commons”, or some such, now, did you not KNOW that? Didn’t you get the memo?

      (MarxistMammaryBahnFuhrer or JesseBahnFuhrer, or some other Enlightened One may stoop so low as to forward the memo to you soon).

      1. You never bothered to look up what “corporatist” means, did you? It sounds like you think it means “corporations”.

        1. And yes, compared to your crazy, dishonest ass, we’re all enlightened Buddha’s… even Sevo… especially Sevo.

    2. Nobody get’s elected to the Senate without being at least some of those things.

      1. Zeb gets it! Thanks Zeb!

        (Please elect MEEEEE ’cause My Ego is BBBBIIIIGGGG!!!!)

      2. Sure, but at least some of them are interested from time to time in doing their actual jobs, instead of just keeping themselves in the media spotlight.

        1. You sound like someone proud of his employees work ethic.

    3. Unprincipled? Compared to whom?

      1. I start with his father Ron Paul. Agree or disagree with Ron he seemed to hold a position.

        1. Right. Rand just goes whichever way the wind is blowing. “Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos.”

  15. Letting people freely discuss the election is a threat to democracy.

    Shutting down a major channel of communication for an elected representative to the federal legislature apparently is just fine, though.

  16. Debate? Debate? Nothing on YouTube is a debate. It is a one-sided harangue, regardless of what side you are on. Unless it is actually STRUCTURED as a debate. Debates are reasoned exchanges supported by facts that are then agreed upon or at least acknowledged. Reasoned (there is that word) conclusions are then proposed and the debate ensues. This is nothing like that. Unfortunately nothing like Lincoln-Douglas occurs today. Boy, have we progressed! Not.

    1. That’s just dumb. Of course people are having debates on YouTube.

      There are raging debates about entertainment.. what happened to Star Wars? What happened to the MCU? Is today’s pop great? Or crap?

      There are raging debates about cars… Is Tesla great or crap? Is self driving the future or a dangerous charade?

      And there used to be raging political debates… But one by one the popular voices on the right have been silenced.

  17. Rand Paul isn’t debating. He’s deliberately spreading misinformation for political gain.

    1. Oh; So you like to spread ‘misinformation’ I see. I’m sure you opinion means soooooooooooooooo much more than the very documents of proof.. /s

    2. ” spreading miSiNFOrmAtioN!!”

      How so. What is Paul saying that is ‘misinformation’?

      1. He’s not agreeing with the Democrats, duh!

    3. Anyone who would pen that sentence is a mindless drone.

      You don’t even have to go to the detail… The fact that Paul actually cites peer reviewed articles to undergird his position is irrelevant…

      Proclaiming your political opponents opinions to be “misinformation” is a dead giveaway these days.

      1. IF he violates the terms of the agreement, shut him down. Period. I am sick of amnesty for self-absorbed celebs, rude politicians, boxing kangaroos in discussion threads and the grossly profane with 6th grade penis humor. Adds nothing to the discussion and it’s uncivil. Just put an end to the people who think they are exempt from the terms of use.

        1. Misinformation doesn’t violate their terms.

          If it did, none of the flat earther nuts would still videos up.

    4. And who gets to decide what counts as “misinformation”?
      And what if they’re wrong?
      How do we argue against them, if arguing against them (even with scientific evidence) is banned?

    5. You’re confused. He’s correcting the lies the Biden administration and their allies are spreading.

  18. U-Tube does not have the right to ban Rand Paul. U Tube exists only because it is a public forum. The internet, and Utube would not exist but for its use of the public spectrum. The public spectrum is a public forum. The First Amendment applies to all public forums. It especially does not have the right to combine and conspire with government officials or to use its corporate assets to provide what are effectively financial contributions of corporate assets to support political parties, officials and candidates by silencing opposing viewpoints.

  19. And the *real* battle causing all these problems??

    A *POWERFUL* Nazi-Regime in the USA government instead of a *LIMITED* Constitutional Union of Republican States government.

    If the ‘feds’ were never granted Nazi-Powers to begin with; national fascism nor national socialism (Nazism) wouldn’t be banging on the door right now.

      1. That powerful platform for propaganda and censorship? You didn’t build that….

  20. Oh, yeah, they should shut him down. Why should he be any different than anyone else?

  21. 1990’s: “Internet hailed as a way for every man’s voice to be heard!”
    2100: “Oh my God, we can’t let that guy post on the Internet!”

  22. How many bans are we up to already? I’ve lost count so let’s TALLY BAN!

  23. The problem with CDC guidance is a bunch of elitists are in charge of communication.

    This is just another “You can’t handle the truth” moment. Elitists are convinced most people are inbred mongoloids who won’t know how to process information. The issue is their elitism doesn’t comport with reality, so the masses see the vaccine deaths (many of which occurred on live TV) and wonder “why can’t the CDC tell me that there are risks?”

    The CDC thinks that if you know the risks, you won’t get vaccinated and the plan will backfire. Problem is, the plan already backfired because of their shitty assumptions. Now there’s no trust and it doesn’t matter what they say.

    Masks are no different. Paul is scientifically correct. Cloth masks do not block particle transmission. It’s physically impossible. What they do is reduce the amount transmitted, hence the policy and why I’ve always been okay wearing a mask, even if I’m not asked to. The crazy thing is we’re not allowing someone to say “I don’t think it blocks enough particles to matter” and censoring them because the feds want everyone to mask and stop asking questions about it.

  24. “Unfortunately, YouTube bans any video that contradicts pronouncements of the World Health Organization”

    Let that sink in.

    Do you believe in deciding for yourself, or letting World Government decide what you need to know?

    1. You’re not just deciding for yourself when we’re talking about a highly contagious disease.

      You don’t have a right to impose your stupidity on other people to their deaths.

Please to post comments