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

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

While I agree there's two sexes, I am pretty sure that's in their TOS as it's considered Transphobia or whatever they call it. So it's covered in their TOS.

So you admit it's not just "dangerous misinformation" that they restrict, which was what I said.

And the Hunter laptop story has so much bullshit behind it but I don't want to get into that there or we'll get way off topic. It is hilarious how obsessed you Republicans are with Hunter, though

The only bullshit behind it is the government and big tech's collusion to suppress and lie about it during an election year. It's confirmed 100% legit, so all you can do is make excuses for why it was actually totally okay to hide damning information based upon the lie (or if we're feeling charitable, the baseless assumption they made) that it was fake.

Back to the equal enforcement issue, the bullshit Steele dossier--genuine misinformation--was allowed to be shared on social media. Again, if they at least censored both sides equally it'd be fine, but that's objectively not the case.

Same for "hate speech", it's okay to say virtually anything you want about straights, whites, men, and Christians, but no other groups. Defend that, justify it in the context of equal enforcement of their ToS. Even if you think it's okay you know they selectively enforce them, whether you approve of it or not. You can look up vicious hate speech right now about whites but try posting "faggot" and it's an instant ban.

Why should TOS have limits? It's their product. I thought you GOP boomers hated communism? Yet now you want the government to take over social media

Then why should any company have regulations, limits, etc? They have to follow all kinds of rules and guidelines imposed upon them in various ways, for many different reasons. Unless you suddenly think it's okay to tell niggers to fuck off from a business, and allow them to dump toxic sludge anywhere they want, then you support limits.

Common sense dictates that a company should operate within certain parameters, you need to justify why they shouldn't in just this one specific instance.

The government already took over social media, White House admitted to working with them to enforce censorship (illegal), and Zuckerborg admitted to carrying out the will of the government in relation to suppressing pertinent information about Democrats.

And again, they only censor conservatives. They happily allow the spread of misinformation about Republicans. If Trump's administration did this stuff you'd rightly call it fascism, and now I hope he does if by some miracle he's re-elected, just to see you squirm and flip-flop.

You don't need a social media to survive.

Lots of old people I know say that about the Internet as a whole. People said that about phones in the past. Times change, gramps. A lot of communication occurs over the Internet and through social media now, and it's only increasing.

You pretty much need an phone service (either cell or landline) and obviously need power and water.

Nope, if you don't need Internet and social media, then you don't need a phone either. You can pay your bills, communicate, etc through the mail perfectly fine.

The only stuff you strictly need to survive is water and power, but if you want to be really obtuse about it (like you are already) then you technically don't need those either, or can supply your own. Find a well, buy a generator, bigot.

Plus there's other social media companies out there. Plus, being banned from Twitter isn't the government punishing you (which is what the first amendment says). Just like how if you go to a national park and harass people via speech, they can kick you out. Being kicked off of something for being a shithead isn't the government punishing you

Other social media are often shut down. You use KiwiFarms nigger, they try to shut this place down constantly. They were successful in ruining Parler, and in limiting the reach and growth of stuff like Gab. Why should a payment processor be allowed to deny Gab anyway? You're pretty arbitrary on what we need and don't need, and it always aligns in your favor, fancy that.

Without laws forcing these companies to behave fairly our basic freedoms are imposed upon by libtards and our corporate overlords who do the bidding of the government in oppressing their opposition. I know you like that but you can at least stop being a coward and admit it.

 

[derpherp2]

You got that backwards mate, as usual. There's no irony when sexual content and even cheese pizza exist on Twitter and Facebook. You also have nude yoga videos on youtube that are clearly sexual in nature. Don't forget the softcore titty streamers on Twitch. The sexual content you think is prohibited is actually widely created and distributed.

You forgot the weirdass elsa videos the monkey torture vids being used as a replacement for rampant pedophilia - to the point that those faggots made goddamn "porno firms" or whatever they labeled their pedoshit, and then other assorted bullshit quite literally archived IN THE VERY FUCKING WEBSITE THESE DUMB FAGGOTS ARE ON.

These are the people bitching about the people in A&N not going outside of the subforums btw.
Wonder how often they even look at other threads that aren't TES or their little PM chains we're pretending we don't see.


also back on topic. If you guys didn't notice. The faggot got unbanned or some shit. Hurraaaaaaay.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

So you admit it's not just "dangerous misinformation" that they restrict, which was what I said.


The only bullshit behind it is the government and big tech's collusion to suppress and lie about it during an election year. It's confirmed 100% legit, so all you can do is make excuses for why it was actually totally okay to hide damning information based upon the lie (or if we're feeling charitable, the baseless assumption they made) that it was fake.

Back to the equal enforcement issue, the bullshit Steele dossier--genuine misinformation--was allowed to be shared on social media. Again, if they at least censored both sides equally it'd be fine, but that's objectively not the case.

Same for "hate speech", it's okay to say virtually anything you want about straights, whites, men, and Christians, but no other groups. Defend that, justify it in the context of equal enforcement of their ToS. Even if you think it's okay you know they selectively enforce them, whether you approve of it or not. You can look up vicious hate speech right now about whites but try posting "faggot" and it's an instant ban.


Then why should any company have regulations, limits, etc? They have to follow all kinds of rules and guidelines imposed upon them in various ways, for many different reasons. Unless you suddenly think it's okay to tell niggers to fuck off from a business, and allow them to dump toxic sludge anywhere they want, then you support limits.

Common sense dictates that a company should operate within certain parameters, you need to justify why they shouldn't in just this one specific instance.

The government already took over social media, White House admitted to working with them to enforce censorship (illegal), and Zuckerborg admitted to carrying out the will of the government in relation to suppressing pertinent information about Democrats.

And again, they only censor conservatives. They happily allow the spread of misinformation about Republicans. If Trump's administration did this stuff you'd rightly call it fascism, and now I hope he does if by some miracle he's re-elected, just to see you squirm and flip-flop.


Lots of old people I know say that about the Internet as a whole. People said that about phones in the past. Times change, gramps. A lot of communication occurs over the Internet and through social media now, and it's only increasing.


Nope, if you don't need Internet and social media, then you don't need a phone either. You can pay your bills, communicate, etc through the mail perfectly fine.

The only stuff you strictly need to survive is water and power, but if you want to be really obtuse about it (like you are already) then you technically don't need those either, or can supply your own. Find a well, buy a generator, bigot.


Other social media are often shut down. You use KiwiFarms nigger, they try to shut this place down constantly. They were successful in ruining Parler, and in limiting the reach and growth of stuff like Gab. Why should a payment processor be allowed to deny Gab anyway? You're pretty arbitrary on what we need and don't need, and it always aligns in your favor, fancy that.

Without laws forcing these companies to behave fairly our basic freedoms are imposed upon by libtards and our corporate overlords who do the bidding of the government in oppressing their opposition. I know you like that but you can at least stop being a coward and admit it.

That's a lot of autism to just say you're assmad that you can't be a racist retard on Twitter. It's hilarious how you think it was the Democrats doing that in the runup to the 2020 election when Trump was still president then. How could the white house, being run by your white nationalist waifu, have told Twitter to suppress a story to help Democrats? Your logic is worse than usual here, Eris.

It really doesn't matter, it's their company, their rules. When you sign up, you agree to the terms of service. You are saying that a company shouldn't be able to have a terms of service.

A social media company is not a utility, no matter what you armchair lawyers keep trying to convince yourself. You need a phone to dial 911 or whatever. You need water and electricity to survive. You don't need Twitter and if you need it that badly, you don't need to say the n-word or to post QAnon stuff on it.

I don't give a shit about "corporate overlords", but I do believe in the constitution. You GOP boomers have become so mad that companies don't want your racist, backwards asses on there platform that you've become communists who want the government to control everything so that you can say the n-word on Twitter.

BTW, did you write that much because of your autism? Because you can't expect anyone to read all that autism.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

That's a lot of autism to just say you're assmad that you can't be a racist retard on Twitter. It's hilarious how you think it was the Democrats doing that in the runup to the 2020 election when Trump was still president then. How could the white house, being run by your white nationalist waifu, have told Twitter to suppress a story to help Democrats? Your logic is worse than usual here, Eris.

I know you're too much of a pussy to actually take on actual points so you dodge them and just cry "autist", but I'll humor you.

"There's 2 sexes" = racism lmao. And you can be racist on Twitter, but only against whites.

My logic is irrelevant, Zuckerborg himself admitted it. Cope and seethe that you're called out for supporting the government using social media to selectively suppress information.

It really doesn't matter, it's their company, their rules. When you sign up, you agree to the terms of service. You are saying that a company shouldn't be able to have a terms of service.

So they should be allowed to explicitly tell niggers they refuse to serve them? They should be allowed to dump waste anywhere they want? All because "their company, their rules"? No common sense regulations lmao ok.

A social media company is not a utility, no matter what you armchair lawyers keep trying to convince yourself. You need a phone to dial 911 or whatever. You need water and electricity to survive. You don't need Twitter and if you need it that badly, you don't need to say the n-word or to post QAnon stuff on it.

Internet isn't needed to survive any more than social media yet it's widely regarded as a utility, except by dusty old farts. Go write a letter faggot, get a well for your water faggot, get a generator faggot.

I don't give a shit about "corporate overlords", but I do believe in the constitution. You GOP boomers have become so mad that companies don't want your racist, backwards asses on there platform that you've become communists who want the government to control everything so that you can say the n-word on Twitter.

You want to violate the Second Amendment you retard, you do not believe in the Constitution.

Government already controls what people say on social media you cock sucker, Jen Psaki admitted to co-operating with them to remove non-illegal content, just stuff they don't like, which is a blatant violation of the First Amendment on the part of the government who shouldn't be working to limit legal speech in any way, shape, or form.

BTW, did you write that much because of your autism? Because you can't expect anyone to read all that autism.

Words scary, right? Or more like you have no rebuttal because you're a worthless libtard.

 

[Snekposter]

Quick, nobody tell the Hulkster about the thread where we have proof the Facebook jannies were talking to the CDC about how to censor COVID "misinformation", thus making them agents of the state and invalidating any claims to "muh private business".

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Quick, nobody tell the Hulkster about the thread where we have proof the Facebook jannies were talking to the CDC about how to censor COVID "misinformation", thus making them agents of the state and invalidating any claims to "muh private business".

It's okay, it's "their company, their rules". If they want to act as agents of the state then they can, commie.

 

[The Tall Man]

Noooo not my heckin based Crowderino, how could Susan do this.
He was such a good boy always suckling on the zio-tit always towing the line with PragerU.

 

[The Tall Man]

That's a lot of autism to just say you're assmad that you can't be a racist retard on Twitter. It's hilarious how you think it was the Democrats doing that in the runup to the 2020 election when Trump was still president then. How could the white house, being run by your white nationalist waifu, have told Twitter to suppress a story to help Democrats? Your logic is worse than usual here, Eris.

It really doesn't matter, it's their company, their rules. When you sign up, you agree to the terms of service. You are saying that a company shouldn't be able to have a terms of service.

A social media company is not a utility, no matter what you armchair lawyers keep trying to convince yourself. You need a phone to dial 911 or whatever. You need water and electricity to survive. You don't need Twitter and if you need it that badly, you don't need to say the n-word or to post QAnon stuff on it.

I don't give a shit about "corporate overlords", but I do believe in the constitution. You GOP boomers have become so mad that companies don't want your racist, backwards asses on there platform that you've become communists who want the government to control everything so that you can say the n-word on Twitter.

BTW, did you write that much because of your autism? Because you can't expect anyone to read all that autism.

there is no separation between business and state
following laws is not a virtue

 

[derpherp2]

It's okay, it's "their company, their rules". If they want to act as agents of the state then they can, commie.

Seriously imagine all the shit that just happened with trannies.

And then somehow still defending retarded companies doing whatever they want.
Because rightoids are bad.

And then he's going to bitch about MTG like some nothing faggot "Qtard" nobody's even heard of means he's right.

 

[Wesley Willis]

So would we then go from Trust and Safety committees back to FCC Standards and Practices boards censoring media? Is that any better?

 

[teriyakiburns]

Page after page of the same stock phrases, over and over, yet not one of you people has explicitely made the point that HHH's arguments are exactly the same as the arguments used to repeatedly attack and deplatform kiwi farms. The entire problem with this shit is that people are using social network effects to deplatform ideas and people they disagree with (or simply don't like), regardless of what they have done, regardless of their legality, when these services should instead be falling back on the law as a guide.

"It's a private company yadda yadda" is a cop-out; everyone knows it's just an excuse to censor things the dominant clique in the tech sphere wants to see hidden. It's used to suppress ideas that are contrary to their views, which includes left wing positions other than a select, anointed few that are acceptable to corporate interests.

When it comes to network-scale platforms*, TOS concerning speech should be concerned with who is speaking, not what they're saying. If you want to age-restrict your platform to children and restrict content to what is appropriate to children, go right ahead. That's a legal avenue to restrict content (under coppa in the us and simlar laws in other countries), but it means that you are only alowing children to use your service.

Otherwise, unless it's illegal, or it directly harms the functioning of the service by making it technically unuseable, or a court has specifically and validly ordered it removed, it stays. This would resolve almost all of the argument, because no court in the world (except maybe China, but they should be ignored as a matter of course) is going to order Steve Crowder to be removed from a service for interviewing a politician.

Spam is illegal in many jurisdictions, but regardless of that, it causes direct damage to the platform hosting it, by making it useless for its intended purpose. Someone constantly spamming NIGGER, to the point that it makes the service unusable, would fall under this, so that argument is gone.

CP is hyper-illegal. It causes harm to the depicted subjects. Gone.

Direct calls to commit crimes are illegal. Gone.

Harassment is illegal, or could count as spam. Gone.

And so on and so forth...

Everything else, get a court order.

*This is a mush term for something bigger than Kf, something that has tried to make itself indispensable to people in some way. A thing-as-a-service situation. I haven't quite figured out the precise definition, but I'm working on it.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

It's okay, it's "their company, their rules". If they want to act as agents of the state then they can, commie.

It's cute how you QAnoners are fine with communism as long as it means you can be a bigot on Facebook without being banned. I mean, you guys do use Facebook to spread your retarded conspiracy theories about how every Democrat is a satanic pedophile while every Republican is a good boy, which is why you don't want to get banned. It's even more funny then how you are the same retards who say you hate Facebook and Twitter.

And I didn't read your previous post because I don't feel like reading an essay about how you think you should be able to say the n-word on Twitter and post your essays about how every Democrat is a satanic pedo on Facebook, and I already have proof you're uneducated and don't know how the first amendment works, so there's no point in reading more.

Quick, nobody tell the Hulkster about the thread where we have proof the Facebook jannies were talking to the CDC about how to censor COVID "misinformation", thus making them agents of the state and invalidating any claims to "muh private business".

Lol Facebook had a "no covid misinformation" policy, so the CDC asked them to start enforcing it better. That's not exactly the huge "OMG FACEBOOK WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT" conspiracy that you Republican boomers think it is.

 

[Snekposter]

Mmm, can I just say this is some tasty bait you've laid out? Normally I wouldn't take a bite, but this one line of yours is sooo juicy.

Lol Facebook had a "no covid misinformation" policy, so the CDC asked them to start enforcing it better.

That's not exactly the huge "OMG FACEBOOK WORKS FOR THE GOVERNMENT" conspiracy that you Republican boomers think it is.

So... by your own admission the CDC asked Facebook to better control the flow of information... and yet despite Facebook acting upon a direct request from the Federal government, they're somehow not working for the Federal government?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Mmm, can I just say this is some tasty bait you've laid out? Normally I wouldn't take a bite, but this one line of yours is sooo juicy.


So... by your own admission the CDC asked Facebook to better control the flow of information... and yet despite Facebook acting upon a direct request from the Federal government, they're somehow not working for the Federal government?

Yes? Again, CDC asked them to, didn't make them to. Facebook had a no covid misinformation policy and the CDC asked them to enforce it. Again, I understand you're an uneducated simpleton, but it's really not hard to understand. And again, they're a private company with their own investors, owners, stakeholders, etc... They can have any rules they want. When you sign up, you agree to the Terms of Service. You are saying that they should be nationalized (lol commie) and shouldn't be allowed to have a terms of service, all because you're upset you have been banned everywhere for being such a shitty person so you decided to come here.

CDC: Please start enforcing your covid misinformation policy
FB: Okay!

You: REEE THIS MEANS FACEBOOK IS THE GOVERNMENT AND I SHOULD BE UNBANNED FOR CALLING PEOPLE THE NWORD

Also, it's hilarious how you Republican boomers think anyone who isn't a GOP loving simp is "baiting"

 

[derpherp2]

Page after page of the same stock phrases, over and over, yet not one of you people has explicitely made the point that HHH's arguments are exactly the same as the arguments used to repeatedly attack and deplatform kiwi farms. The entire problem with this shit is that people are using social network effects to deplatform ideas and people they disagree with (or simply don't like), regardless of what they have done, regardless of their legality, when these services should instead be falling back on the law as a guide.

"It's a private company yadda yadda" is a cop-out; everyone knows it's just an excuse to censor things the dominant clique in the tech sphere wants to see hidden. It's used to suppress ideas that are contrary to their views, which includes left wing positions other than a select, anointed few that are acceptable to corporate interests.

When it comes to network-scale platforms*, TOS concerning speech should be concerned with who is speaking, not what they're saying. If you want to age-restrict your platform to children and restrict content to what is appropriate to children, go right ahead. That's a legal avenue to restrict content (under coppa in the us and simlar laws in other countries), but it means that you are only alowing children to use your service.

Otherwise, unless it's illegal, or it directly harms the functioning of the service by making it technically unuseable, or a court has specifically and validly ordered it removed, it stays. This would resolve almost all of the argument, because no court in the world (except maybe China, but they should be ignored as a matter of course) is going to order Steve Crowder to be removed from a service for interviewing a politician.

Spam is illegal in many jurisdictions, but regardless of that, it causes direct damage to the platform hosting it, by making it useless for its intended purpose. Someone constantly spamming NIGGER, to the point that it makes the service unusable, would fall under this, so that argument is gone.

CP is hyper-illegal. It causes harm to the depicted subjects. Gone.

Direct calls to commit crimes are illegal. Gone.

Harassment is illegal, or could count as spam. Gone.

And so on and so forth...

Everything else, get a court order.

*This is a mush term for something bigger than Kf, something that has tried to make itself indispensable to people in some way. A thing-as-a-service situation. I haven't quite figured out the precise definition, but I'm working on it.

Oh no we know.

It's just funny he keeps repeating it after Nool has to move shit AGAIN.
Dudes so desperate for an own he's siding with trannies that want him unpersoned. Lmao.