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."

1000.png
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.

1001.png

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
 
Crowder is one of the most milquetoast podcasters on YT, what more can he censor?
I disagree with that I'm not sure how he is milquetoast. When I think of milquetoast people I think of boring guys who do the bare minimum in life, always playing it safe and never has any edge to him ever. Is Crowder autistic? Probably a bit, he even joked about it that he wouldn't be surprised. Crowder does censor himself though, on his one of his non YouTube Rumble episodes he said the faggot word which he never does when on YouTube.

I'm not saying that makes him cool and edgy I'm just saying he does hold back when on YouTube to reach out to more people by following YouTube's cucked standards.
 
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.
It hasn't, though. The first amendment doesn't apply to corporations. What you are arguing is that social media companies should not be allowed to have a terms of service because of freedom of speech, which is just silly.
 
I expect a schizo to create a buisness to where the terms of service is no niggers and women allowed just to be taken to the Supreme Court to argue that he’s a private business and can do whatever he wants don’t like it then start your own dildo shop. Being forced to serve niggers and women will shut up the corporate shills for about a couple weeks at most when they’re ADD riddled brains draw their attention to a new current thing to screech about. Also the schizo may or may not drop a grumpy during court.
 
Pretty much. The whole 'there is no law against it, therefore they can do whatever they want!' is disingenous as fuck.

Oh it's 1900, there's a company town employing practical slave labour. Uh well, it's not illegal I guess there's nothing we can do.
Oh a company is dumping toxic waste into the lake but it's like 1960 and there's no law against it. I guess we'll all just get poisoned and die.
Oh we're in a banana republic and a company is breaking the law, but no one can enforce shit against them at the moment. I guess it's justified.

Fuck all that shit. If companies do horrifically harmful shit they need to be stopped.

Also yeah he believes the shit. He hides behind the retarded troll persona to make people not take him seriously, but he's every bit as dumb and as much of a liar as he comes off.


DelusionTree was responding to a post that went 'phone companies can decide to ban you based off your political opinions'. Which is incorrect.
It’s weird living in a time where people act like cheerleaders for mega corporations because those businesses seem to be rooting for the Right Politics. Can’t punish them or enact legislation to have them act reasonably because it’d mean letting the Chuds win.

If we didn’t have so many bootlickers rallying in favor of corporations it’d be easier to force these platforms to adhere to the same utilities’ policies we require of phone companies.
 
The problem is that social media companies want the freedom that comes with being a platform (not being legally liable for what people post on your platform) while executing the control of a publisher (curating posts so that only the approved opinion is allowed airtime). They should have to pick one of the other: either they’re a “public square” where anything legal stays up and they are not responsible for the postings of their users, or they’re a publisher where they can restrict speech to their heart’s content, but they’re then on the hook for any content published on their platform.
 
It’s weird living in a time where people act like cheerleaders for mega corporations because those businesses seem to be rooting for the Right Politics. Can’t punish them or enact legislation to have them act reasonably because it’d mean letting the Chuds win.

If we didn’t have so many bootlickers rallying in favor of corporations it’d be easier to force these platforms to adhere to the same utilities’ policies we require of phone companies.
Every tyrannical ideology starts with cheers, then continues with increasingly coerced cheers. The whole 'ugh those elites at the top are the problem' is wrong. There is a slice of the population, going straight trough every class category you'd care to define, that thinks crippling their own society and shifting powers into the hands of a few unaccountable strangers is a good idea that will make things more stable and safe.
 
It hasn't, though. The first amendment doesn't apply to corporations. What you are arguing is that social media companies should not be allowed to have a terms of service because of freedom of speech, which is just silly.
Yes it does you commie cum-rag get the fuck out of America.
 
It hasn't, though. The first amendment doesn't apply to corporations. What you are arguing is that social media companies should not be allowed to have a terms of service because of freedom of speech, which is just silly.
Even terms of service should have reasonable limits and be applied fairly. And what excuse do you have for not agreeing that social media services should be treated like telephone services, allowing their use to everyone to say whatever they want?

It’s weird living in a time where people act like cheerleaders for mega corporations because those businesses seem to be rooting for the Right Politics. Can’t punish them or enact legislation to have them act reasonably because it’d mean letting the Chuds win.

If we didn’t have so many bootlickers rallying in favor of corporations it’d be easier to force these platforms to adhere to the same utilities’ policies we require of phone companies.
They are hypocrites too, if a company doesn't do exactly what they want, to the degree they want it, they try to ruin the business. Chick-fil-A can't dare to support traditional values, and the Five Nights At Freddy's guy isn't even allowed to support the politicians he wants, or the left has a meltdown.

Ban you from the Internet for saying maybe biological men shouldn't compete in women's sports? GOOD.
 
They are hypocrites too, if a company doesn't do exactly what they want, to the degree they want it, they try to ruin the business. Chick-fil-A can't dare to support traditional values, and the Five Nights At Freddy's guy isn't even allowed to support the politicians he wants, or the left has a meltdown.

Ban you from the Internet for saying maybe biological men shouldn't compete in women's sports? GOOD.

The problem here seems to be that when a political party gets in power they spread their ideals they have rightly or wrongly to the masses and there's always push back so what's the answer here?
 
It hasn't, though. The first amendment doesn't apply to corporations. What you are arguing is that social media companies should not be allowed to have a terms of service because of freedom of speech, which is just silly.
Asking again because you avoided it:
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?

Seems like you don't want to answer this question because your current stance doesn't square at all with traditional democrat positions, for example limiting megacorp power or that megacorps shouldn't have any freedom of speech because they aren't actual people, aka anger around Citizens United v. FEC.
 
The problem here seems to be that when a political party gets in power they spread their ideals they have rightly or wrongly to the masses and there's always push back so what's the answer here?
That's never been a problem in my lifetime, neither of the Bushes spread conservative ideals. That'd be fucking awesome to see.
 
It's endearing watching all the newer members engage with @Hollywood Hulk Hogan. Shine on you crazy bastard.
I'm just curious if he will ever give a serious answer to having extremely contradictory positions and if he will realize that he has basically become the moral equivalent of authoritarian Bush era Neo-Cons, who literally used to say anyone who didn't support their policy positions like the invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan and the anti-terrorism laws were aiding threats to democracy.
 
There are all kinds of government rules on contracts.

The most obvious is that you can't have people sign away their civil rights in a contract-you can't bar me from voting, practicing a religion, reading a book, etc. Employment contracts have all kinds of rules on hours, compensation, etc. Years ago, I think one of the M states in the Northeast banned the increasingly common practice of putting a TOS inside a box that stated that opening the box was consenting to the TOS. Some states require landlords to go over the terms of a lease with the renter and ascertain that the renter has heard and understood the terms. Minors can't validly sign contracts. Many states have laws on the maximum security deposit on a lease. Everybody, federal and state governments included, has a raft of laws regulating what can, can't, and must be in loan contracts.

Anyone who claims private companies can put anything they want in a contract is clearly a child whose parents do everything for him.

Seems like you don't want to answer this question because your current stance doesn't square at all with traditional democrat positions, for example limiting megacorp power or that megacorps shouldn't have any freedom of speech because they aren't actual people, aka anger around Citizens United v. FEC.

Around the time CU was handed down, I enjoyed making libs sputter and spit by pointing out everything from NARAL to the New York Times is a corporation, and if the SCOTUS ruled the way they thought it should, none of their precious media outlets or advocacy groups would enjoy 1A protections any more.
 
I heard about this from Styx. I generally don't follow who YouTube is banning and who they aren't. Everyone should have an account on the alt-tech sites these days in case they get baned from YouTube. Even if it's just a temporary ban you will still have a backup where you can go and do your livestreams or videos.
 
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.
I would not be surprised in the slightest if he believes his own bullshit. The talking points are broadly identical to the stuff from when people mine or Josh’s age would have been in high school. If he’s within about 10 years of that cohort it’s the exact kind of crap a brainlet would spout.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo