youtube

It’s probably going to take emerging artificial intelligence technologies in order for Youtube and Google to read the minds of its viewers while balancing the advertising campaigns from its sponsors. But as we first reported this week, there’s a lot of questionable content on Youtube.

On Sunday, we pointed our readers’ attention to Seven Super Girls, a channel of videos created by kids, for kids — so so goes the facade. The only problem with the channel is it’s incredibly exciting to pedophiles — and seems to be geared that way intentionally — something we documented thoroughly.

Compounding problems for Youtube, its selective censorship of far-right, far-left, and alt-media organizations has created an Us versus Them atmosphere where content creators often feel they’ve been discriminated against, simply because someone flagged their content.

Here are a few examples of the dilemma Youtube began facing once it decided to begin censoring videos to please advertisers as well as concerned viewers.

Advertisment

On the right, Michelle Malkin said her two-minute video accurately portraying the victims of fundamentalist Islamists was yanked when her production was deemed offensive. Warriors for free speech began embedding her video in an attempt to get around Youtube’s censorship campaign against her video. Here’s how she described her film in an op-ed piece for the National Review;

My two-minute clip, which I titled “First, They Came,” spotlighted authors, editors, politicians, and other targets of Islamic intolerance and violence. Among those featured in the video on radical Islam’s war on Western free speech: Theo van Gogh, the Dutch filmmaker murdered by jihadist Mohammed Bouyeri for his outspoken criticism of Muslim misogyny; Salman Rushdie, whom the Ayatollah Khomeini cast a fatwa upon after he published the “blasphemous” The Satanic Verses; Oriana Fallaci, the fiery journalist put on trial in Italy for “defaming Islam;” and the editors of the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper, who faced death threats for publishing cartoons of Mohammed, which prompted violent riots and terror plots around the world.

Malkin explained what happened next;

YouTube yanked the innocuous, harmless, nonviolent, non-profane, non-hateful, and nonthreatening mini-film. The company informed me that the video contained “inappropriate content.” I complained across social media — posting additional YouTube videos calling attention to the ban. But “First, They Came” stayed deep-sixed on my YouTube channel. Other bloggers and video consumers tried to subvert the censors by posting the clip on their sites; it became a game of whack-a-mole as the YouTube police hunted it down.

Malkin’s story comes from the right, but the left was also not immune to Youtube censorship. As the Guardian documented, the LBGTQ community has also suffered from First Amendment censorship.

YouTube creators are lambasting the site after the discovery that its “restricted mode”, a feature intended to let schools, parents and libraries filter out content not appropriate for children, also removed a vast amount of LGBT content. Some videos from pop duo Tegan and Sara, who are gay, were hidden from view, as were videos from bisexual YouTuber NeonFiona – but only those which talked about her sexuality.

But what about those that are neither right nor left, those who are a part of the alternative media? In 2016, Assistant Professor Melissa “Mish” Zimdars of Merrimack College in Massachusetts compiled a running list of what she considered “fake news” outlets, and invited some of her colleagues to join her.

READ MORE:  Govt Conveniently Deleted Entire Database of Evidence Documenting Pedophile Rings 

The Free Thought Project, an independent news and commentary outlet made the list. Shortly after the list surfaced, Facebook implemented a temporary ban of our site, lasting nearly a month, and affecting our operations. We’ve sent numerous cease and desist orders as our appearance on this list is entirely slanderous. While the mainstream media seemed to applaud the publication, Facebook acted on it, and as a result became one of the world’s most powerful censors.

Google followed suit, and announced it, too, would begin censoring ‘fake’ news. But why should free speech have to be throttled? Why is the truth, even if it’s a subjective truth, have to be silenced? The answer may lie at the organizations, entities, and individuals who pull the strings behind the scenes.

In April, Google’s attempts to help searchers, and investigators determine fact from fiction went global. Searches now contain labels which convey whether a site is legit. According to ZDNet, “Google has started showing a ‘fact check’ label in search results next to articles containing claims that have been vetted for veracity.” The label, like all determinations of whether something is fake or not, is also subjective and open to determination. But that hasn’t stopped the search engine from labeling.

If content producers want to have the seal of approval, so to speak, of Google, it will have to conform to certain rules. Does that sound like censorship to you? Here’s how ZDNet explained it;

Publishers will need to conform to several rules to have their articles displayed with the fact-check label. Google will only display the label for publishers that have used the Schema.org ClaimReview markup on each page where they have checked the facts of a public statement, or if they use the Share the Facts widget.

It’s a war no one can win, really. Content creators (whatever their political leanings), even though they may spend hours ensuring their sources are credible, still run the risk of being deemed “Fake News.”

READ MORE:  Documentary Just Released Online Blows Lid Off Hollywood Pedophilia: "This is the Tip of the Iceberg"

And we haven’t even begun to address the political motivations, alliances, secret deals, and opinions to which some of the thousands of fact-checkers may ascribe. All of this leaves us with the firm belief that people owe it to themselves to get educated, inform themselves, and draw their own conclusions. Readers should also prepare for a day when there’s a media blackout, when state-funded MSM and only pre-approved content creators are allowed to create new content.

Make no mistake, this is something the owners of the 5 largest media companies in the world would love nothing better to see.

To us, at The Free Thought Project, we have determined that it is a statistical improbability that Google, Facebook, or an entire nation of professors, cannot and will not be able to effectively censor every page of content which is offensive to a particular audience. But they all can, at least, try to pose a solution to the videos on their networks featuring little girls in depraved and sexually stimulating scenarios upon which pedophiles may indulge — as this sort of thing is far more damaging to society than alternative views on political subjects.

SHARE
Jack Burns is an educator, journalist, investigative reporter, and advocate of natural medicine
  • Zaphod Braden

    Are you surprised? The “tech giants” are all controlled & steered by TPTB who are NOT working for a healthy society.
    FACEBOOK, TWITTER, YOUTUBE, REDDIT, GOOGLE are PLACES OF PUBLIC GATHERING, “SOCIAL Media”, and ADVERTISE themselves as PUBLIC places.. They are also PUBLICLY TRADED CORPORATIONS, unlike the PRIVATELY owned and operated “Mom&Pop” Bakery and Party Planner SUED by homosexuals.
    FACEBOOK is a PUBLIC SPACE therefore it has no right or legal option to censor participants. FACEBOOK is a PUBLICLY TRADED company, NOT a “private entity” and it solicits PUBLIC memberships.
    Just as cake bakers HAVE to bake homosexual cakes, and wedding planners HAVE to “accept” homosexual weddings, SUCKERberg has to accept opinions, videos, and pictures he does not like. These Social Media/Meeting Places must accept anything which is Permissible under the First Amendment.
    The same applies to ALL “social media”, YOUTUBE, and search engines.
    A lowly COUNTY CLERK was jailed for refusing to “do her duty” by not issuing homosexuals marriage licenses The Baker, Planner, and Clerk SHOULD have just said: “You homosexuals VIOLATE OUR COMMUNITY GUIDELINES” !!! They advertise themselves as “Social Media & Public Spaces” so everything that is covered under the First Amendment can be posted there. A Party Planner and a Baker were successfully sued for refusing service to homosexuals ….. these “Social Media” can & should also be sued for violating People’s 1st Amendment RIGHTS to speak freely in PUBLIC SPACES.
    Facebook, Youtube, Twitter, etc. engaging in politically motivated censorship is like your meter reader shutting off your electricity because you have a Trump sign on your lawn. These social media have become like public utilities and therefore have no right to engage in political censorship.

    • Damiana

      Take your nasty gay-hate somewhere else.

      • Zaphod Braden

        Poor little homosexual BooHoo

        • Jason Adams

          Usually those who exhibit the most rabid homophobic views, are themselves, in denial about their own latent homosexuality.

          • junktex

            Many were gay republicans

          • disqus_bFXHHP3bse

            Some of us just try to live right and stay away from those that are proud of their sins.

  • Tom

    Michelle Malkin’s video didn’t say anything that wasn’t true. It may be embarrassing to certain people, but that doesn’t make it false. When we go far enough down the rabbit hole to discover why Jewish owned and controlled media go out of their way to protect their supposed blood enemy, Islam, we will also discover one of the world’s darkest secrets.

    • Damiana

      I suppose next you’ll be selling us a membership to the Illuminati.

    • billdeserthills

      Could it be that george soros and others of his ilk are the owners of the controlled media? Jesus was jewish as is george soros, I hope you don’t compare them

  • IceTrey

    You guys are going to get sued for libel.

    • Damiana

      I sure as hell hope so. However, I think the word “discovery” will keep TFTP nice and safe from any litigious intent.

  • Kirkyshooter

    If YOU see anything sexual in those videos, YOU might actually be the pedophiles, just saying…