US YouTube Suspends Steven Crowder After Interview With Kari Lake - In a tweet, Steven Crowder wrote, “Wow. Won’t be able to steam [sic] to [YouTube] because of comments from a CURRENT GUBERNATORIAL candidate. On a show with all references provided. If this isn’t suppression of political speech, then nothing is."

DALLAS, TEXAS - AUGUST 06: Republican nominee for Arizona governor Kari Lake speaks at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the Hilton Anatole on August 06, 2022 in Dallas, Texas. CPAC began in 1974, and is a conference that brings together and hosts conservative organizations, activists, and world leaders in discussing current events and future political agendas. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

YouTube has suspended the account of a conservative commentator after he interviewed Arizona Republican gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake.

In a tweet on Wednesday, Steven Crowder wrote, “Wow. Won’t be able to steam [sic] to [YouTube] because of comments from a CURRENT GUBERNATORIAL candidate. On a show with all references provided. If this isn’t suppression of political speech, then nothing is.”

He shared an email he received from the video streaming service that stated, “Our team has reviewed your content, and, unfortunately, we think it violates our misinformation policy.”

The email added that Crowder’s interview with Lake had been removed from YouTube.



The email explained that content that “advances false claims widespread fraud, errors, or glitches, changed the outcome of the U.S. 2020 presidential election is not allowed on YouTube.”

That’s a pretty clear policy to understand.

And given that Lake has claimed that the country’s election system is “rotten to the core” and vowed that she will not “stop talking about it until our elected official stand up and do something,” the chances were high that she would say something which violated the platform’s policy.

Crowder should have been aware that there was a good chance the video would have been taken down.

A post on Crowder’s site explained that he will be “unable to live stream on YouTube for the next two weeks.”

Despite claims that there was widespread fraud in the 2020 election, several recounts and legal challenges failed to find evidence to substantiate them or alter the outcome of the election.

YouTube should be able to moderate content on its platform. It’s not a government agency. It can decide what kind of content it wants to host.

But it’s a rather silly policy to ban accounts that interview candidates for elected office who repeat unfounded claims about the election.

Words are not violence, and people should be able to hear what they have to say — even if it’s crazy, ridiculous theories.

And if candidates want to repeat conspiracy theories and lies, voters deserve to know that about them.

Rather than take down the video and suspend Crowder’s account, it would have been better to add a link that would include facts about the election to dispute Lake’s claims.

The action YouTube took will prevent users from hearing the claims on its platform. But Crowder has been sharing the interview on streaming services and sharing links to it on Twitter. So it is not shutting down Lake’s claims.

Instead, taking this action increases the chances that people will abandon YouTube and start using services that only feed them the content they want to see and hear without countervailing information, which might lead them down crazier and crazier rabbit holes on other platforms with less moderation.

Article Link

Archive

 

[CarlosDanger]

It seems republicans have just accepted that big tech is fucking them in the ass, because they sure as hell aren't doing anything about it.

No, we have created and joined other avenues, which is why Crowder's stream hit 90k on Rumble, or how Trump's rallies on Gettr and Rumble reach 1 million viewers. You could not even say these things a year or two ago.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

Well, legal personhood is the entire point of corporations. If a corporation isn't a legal person, it can't own property or be represented in court.

No. Read Gangs of America.


It would be very easy to distinguish between a person and a corporate entity (such as its historical predecessor, the charter). As I stated, the charter was granted a license in exchange for fulfilling certain conditions.
That does not exist with an actual person.
Of course, there are many limitations and distinctions that make the idea that a corporation is a person absurd on its face. Common carrier restrictions are another example of regulations that apply to certain corporate entities that could never apply to a person.

The problem is the Civil Rights Act regulates speech itself. It doesn't matter if multiculturalism is a laudable goal or a legitimate government interest, Congress cannot abridge the freedom of speech, full stop.

A law requiring me to fire employees who express the opinion that the reason there aren't as many black software engineers is evolutionary abridges the freedom of speech, but we have that law on the books. It doesn't matter if the opinion is correct or not. It doesn't matter if my business is a sole proprietorship, an S-corp, or 501(c) nonprofit. Opinions about the causes of human variation are protected speech under the First Amendment, and the Civil Rights Act abridges the freedom of speech by requiring an employer to take punitive action against employees who express forbidden ideas.

Yes, except that corporate entities are not persons, and we should value First Amendment Rights of actual persons and close knit associations (eg churches, fraternal organizations) much more than corporations.

Forcing a family owned business (or a business owned by a single person) that they must serve interracial couples or bake the cake for the fags is a much different proposition to me and really to any sensible person than it is to force large corporations, chain restaurants and the like to do so.

It is the inability to make such an obvious distinction in the law that has rendered corporate interests so inordinately powerful in this shitty country.

 

[wyattamurcan]

I like Chowder to a degree, because he comes off as an autist who went to 4chan in his younger years.

He was actually in a Myspace group I was a part of called "Hawkish Republicans" back in the day, we've talked back and forth before he had his show when Obama was elected. I don't think he ever fucked with 4chan though, I barely fucked with 4chan back in 05, YTMND was where my meme-ing happened.

Conservatives are controlled opposition. They'll put on a show, but know they exist to be defeated.

The problem with conservatives, is that they are no such thing. They just kick the can down the road on social policy by about ten years at a time, which is why so many of them support so-called faggot "marriage" now. I have no problem with them realizing that the War on Weed was a stupid policy to begin with, and I don't even smoke or use Marijuana.

 

[Dracula's Spirit Animal]

I dunno man I have my doubts about that. He has been remarkably consistent in spewing the usual lefty talking points with no sign of introspection for the past 2+ years. I too thought it was a gimmick or forum persona but the retard train does not stop with that man.

I don't think he's a gimmick poster, I just think he always argues in bad faith.

Regarding Crowder, I don't get the appeal, he's incredibly juvenile and not very bright. I guess he'd appeal to college age kids, but I find him at about the same intellectual level as that Jackass guy.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Now THAT is funny

I can't help it that you can't comprehend how the first amendment works.

The government cannot punish you for your speech, but a social media company can ban you if you violate their TOS. You're literally saying that social media companies cannot have terms of service because of the first amendment.

Yeah. "Wannabe Nazis". *Me blinking slowly*

The wholly disingenuous comments by HHH are pure comedy, though. There is no way he actually believes them. It's simply not possible, so I suggest just ignoring his nonsense, lest he get ass-blasted again and we lose our tendies stickies. What he has been saying is nonsense. You cannot ban someone for any reason. If any online community based in the US wanted to find out how quickly, just start openly banning niggers, and see how well that would go.

It's funny how you newer users (read: 2018-current) just can't comprehend that this site is not a Republican loving hugbox and get so upset and astounded each time someone goes against the Republican boomer hugbox. It's also amusing how you don't understand what "protected class" is. You cannot ban someone because of their sexuality, race, ethnicity, etc... but you can for what they say. Social media companies are allowed to have terms of service, and they are allowed to enforce them, despite what a career conman told you

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

I can't help it that you can't comprehend how the first amendment works.

The government cannot punish you for your speech, but a social media company can ban you if you violate their TOS. You're literally saying that social media companies cannot have terms of service because of the first amendment.

Asked and answered.... You are not even pretending to read lead alone comprehend.

- The First Amendment is a legal prohibition against government censorship. But it is also represents a societal value championing freedom of expression. In this way, allowing a handful of tech oligarchs and monopolists to dictate what can be uttered in the public is contrary and anathema to the underlying values that justify the existence of the prohibition of government censorship. I am not alone in submitting that allowing twitter, youtube, etc to do as they will is more chilling to free speech than a government ban.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Asked and answered.... You are not even pretending to read lead alone comprehend.

Except that's not the case. You might think it should be, but legally, it's not the case. Social media companies are allowed to have terms of service as to what you can say on their platforms and are allowed to enforce it. You're literally saying that social media companies are not allowed to have terms of service. That's not the case.

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

Except that's not the case. You might think it should be, but legally, it's not the case. Social media companies are allowed to have terms of service as to what you can say on their platforms and are allowed to enforce it. You're literally saying that social media companies are not allowed to have terms of service. That's not the case.

If you were paying attention or showing a minimum levle of good faith you would notice that free speech is often conflated with the First Amendment even among lawyers.

Many laws (The Constitution and the amendments are the highest laws) often stand for higher, more intrinsic values. Eg laws against murder exemplify society holding human life as a value. So 1a stands for importance of freedom of speech and personal expression.

All of this is wasted on you, but will likely benefit other readers of this thread.

 

[Gar For Archer]

Know that calling me boomer, pedo other nonsense in no way rebuts what I and others have written.

I think it’s kinda dumb that you even bothered engaging to this extent (just a waste of your own time, really) but you basically know you’ve won once he starts calling you a Republican boomer who wants to have sex with the orange conman. Like exhausting all the dialog options on an NPC after which they just keep repeating their default line.

 

[DelusionTree]

Except that's not the case. You might think it should be, but legally, it's not the case. Social media companies are allowed to have terms of service as to what you can say on their platforms and are allowed to enforce it. You're literally saying that social media companies are not allowed to have terms of service. That's not the case.

Serious question, where is your limiting principle to megacorp power when it comes to speech or anything else in ToS?
Is there any point at all where a ToS can become unconscionable or do you seriously take the extreme libertarian-style stance that these megacorps can literally do whatever they want with their contracts which can include extreme harms to consumers?

 

[Tsukasa Kadoya]

I can't help it that you can't comprehend how the first amendment works.

The government cannot punish you for your speech, but a social media company can ban you if you violate their TOS. You're literally saying that social media companies cannot have terms of service because of the first amendment.

I can't help but agree. Facebook, Twatter and other sites have to have their TOS to protect themselves. While yes you can go out in public and call everyone nigger faggots and not be punished LEGALLY, sites have to enforce such laws so normies and corporate companies won't be scared off.
DO I think Chowder deserved the ban? No. Does someone who posts "NIGGER!" on facebook deserve a ban? Yes because, as cucked as modern social media is, if you want to be on the site you have to follow the rules.
Part of why I love the farms: you can say whatever and not get nuked from orbit (barring fedposting and shit)

 

[George Lucas]

What about equal application of law? YouTube’s TOS are the same for all users. If YouTube is selectively enforcing its terms (which is proveable), doesn’t that effectively make the TOS meaningless? I think you could argue that YouTube is violating its end of the bargain, which is providing a service.

 

[SiccDicc]

Except that's not the case. You might think it should be, but legally, it's not the case. Social media companies are allowed to have terms of service as to what you can say on their platforms and are allowed to enforce it. You're literally saying that social media companies are not allowed to have terms of service. That's not the case.

I kind of wish federal subsidy would qualify them for the case, though.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

So what I've gathered from this incredibly retarded slap fight is that if every major communication network comes together and made criticizing pedophilia against the rules HHH and friends would become pro pedophilia to own the chuds.

They're already basically at that point. I don't want to imagine how they'd behave in such a scenario.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

If you were paying attention or showing a minimum levle of good faith you would notice that free speech is often conflated with the First Amendment even among lawyers.

Many laws (The Constitution and the amendments are the highest laws) often stand for higher, more intrinsic values. Eg laws against murder exemplify society holding human life as a value. So 1a stands for importance of freedom of speech and personal expression.

All of this is wasted on you, but will likely benefit other readers of this thread.

Except again, from a legal perspective, websites are allowed to have their own terms of service and enforce them. They're not the government. If their TOS say you cannot call someone a faggot, then they can ban you for calling someone a faggot.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I think it’s kinda dumb that you even bothered engaging to this extent (just a waste of your own time, really) but you basically know you’ve won once he starts calling you a Republican boomer who wants to have sex with the orange conman. Like exhausting all the dialog options on an NPC after which they just keep repeating their default line.

"But thou must, bigot!"

Except again, from a legal perspective, websites are allowed to have their own terms of service and enforce them. They're not the government. If their TOS say you cannot call someone a faggot, then they can ban you for calling someone a faggot.

The government is in bed with social media, we can't trust companies to not be enforcing the will of the corrupt government anymore, and never should have to begin with. It's time to deem social media services utilities like phone services and be done with it.

 

[derpherp2]

Hey guys did you hear.
Private companies aren't the government.

That means they can do anything guise.

I think it’s kinda dumb that you even bothered engaging to this extent (just a waste of your own time, really) but you basically know you’ve won once he starts calling you a Republican boomer who wants to have sex with the orange conman. Like exhausting all the dialog options on an NPC after which they just keep repeating their default line.

Or when he brings his buttbuddies to negrate everything.
Btw they care about internet stickers.
A lot.

 

[Wesley Willis]

You gave your data, they profited. And you're more worried about being able to scream nigger online...

 

[Norbert the Tiger]

Except again, from a legal perspective, websites are allowed to have their own terms of service and enforce them. They're not the government. If their TOS say you cannot call someone a faggot, then they can ban you for calling someone a faggot.

This has already been addressed, on more than one occasion, and not just by me. I can explain it to you, I cannot comprehend it for you.

 

[Hollywood Hitler]

Well, there is really no much Crowder himself could do besides what he already does: it's not the first time he gets suspended, yet he keeps doing the same type of content without censoring himself.

Crowder is one of the most milquetoast podcasters on YT, what more can he censor?