Bolsheviks at BigTech

THE CONSERVATIVE YouTube channel of PragerU is taking the video-hosting service to court over its blatant, left-wing, shameless censorship. Let us pray for the success of that legal action and that it’s extended to Facebook, Twitter and their unsavory ilk.

As PragerU’s attorney says in the video, this is of vital importance to the survival of the Republic. Meanwhile, a whistle-blower at Google reveals the astounding degree to which that company goes to influence elections and mold American culture.

While hysterical Democrats have writhed on the floor since Trump’s election in 2016 over nonexistent “Russian collusion,” actual election meddling continues at BigTech on a daily basis. Sensible Democrats might consider switching parties as I did in 2008.

You’ll like it over here. The air is fresher. And bluebirds sing.

Alas, the Bolsheviks also control Hollywood and the American educational system. The significance of this is difficult to overestimate.

29 thoughts on “Bolsheviks at BigTech

  1. One has to wonder what the eventual goal of this “progressive” movement is? Where to and what kind of world are they taking us to? Capitalism is seen as evil. Corporations are seen as evil. Working-class people are viewed with disdain. The elite can commit crimes with impunity. Those standing in their way are eliminated like Seth Rich and Jeffery Epstein. People earning a half million dollars a year are complaining about income inequality. Police can enforce the law only against certain racial groups. They get pelted with garbage and insulted in some neighborhoods. What will happen when all of the people who do the work and pay the taxes are fed up with this?

    Again, this will not end well.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Prager U is asking the Government to regulate YouTube? I thought conservatives believed that people should be able to do whatever they wanted with private property. Buncha crybabies, if you ask me.

    Like

    1. Creigh: The basic issue is whether these giant tech firms still can be considered simply private property instead of what they have become, guardians of the global information gateway. But I am distressed to hear that you think only opinions you agree with should be permitted on the public stage. Sad, sad, sad.

      Like

      1. Busted (I have an admitted aversion to video. But I went back and watched it anyway.)

        Prager’s argument is that a public forum can’t be held liable for content and therefore can’t restrict content, citing Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act. Section 230 says “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of..any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230. I love the internet!)

        I guess a court will decide if this means they have to host anything that comes along. Seems like a pretty heavy lift to me.

        Like

        1. Creigh: What makes the situation particularly outrageous is that PragerU is not the KKK, the Daily Stormer or anything of that sleazy ilk. It is a traditionally conservative outfit that basically promotes what is known as “family values.” Also, were our side in the BigTech catbird seat, gagging middle-of-the-road Democrat Party ideas, you would not view it as kindly as you do or label the aggrieved as crybabies.

          By the way, kudos to you for admitting you had not watched the video. Five Brownie points on your permanent record.

          Like

  3. Wow, another person who cites court rulings (thanks, jonolan). Comment on your approach left on the linked site.

    Like

      1. Sr. Felipe: jo and I are both trying to bring some intellectual rigor to your comments section, although maybe from different directions. But we agree completely on Pumpkin Spice Spam.

        Like

        1. Creigh: I am delighted to hear of your accord, and my comments section sometimes needs additional intellectual rigor. However, mostly we’re just having a good time here.

          Like

  4. I am somewhat amazed at how some of this new technology works. Yesterday, it was extremely hot here in Phoenix. It was about 118 on our thermometer. As a result, I spent the whole day watching Youtube videos in my undies. No way was I going out there.
    I watched Il Volo, Andrea Bocelli and Jonathan Antoine videos all morning. Then I watched videos about classic cars, cooking videos, fishing videos. I spent the whole darn day on Youtube.
    So, when I went into Youtube this morning, what comes up on my suggested viewing, but videos about guys with guys. Nothing pornographic, I think. But what computer progam dumped me into this? I am too old to change.

    Like

    1. Señor Gill: YouTube makes recommendations based on your viewing history. That’s what happened to you, of course. I like that aspect of it. For me, it never suggests programs on MSNBC.

      Like

  5. So they keep track of my history. A lot of my viewing past is related to Russian language videos. I am still trying to get a handle on that language, but not with much success. It isn’t easy. I have to go to Google translate and enter the English word and translate it to Russian. Then I cut an paste it to the Youtube search block.
    I never sign into Youtube. I forgot that password years ago.

    Like

    1. Señor Gill: Please do not use Google translate, or anything of Google’s that you can avoid. Here is a non-Google translator and, according to people who know, it does it better than Google. English to Russian is one of the options.

      https://www.deepl.com/translator

      As for your YouTube password, normally it’s your Google password, but in any event, resurrecting it is a piece of cake. Just follow the instructions.

      Like

  6. I saw a book of my son’s (the anti-hacker geek) titled “AI and Algorithmic Oppression.” Flipping through and quickly glancing at content, AI searches for key phrases like “why are black women always angry.” I get the idea, but my son talks about “deep learning” in AI where those trigger words and phrases attract the algorithm’s attention.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Carole: Recently, someone brought to my attention the very different results you get from Google Search and DuckDuckGo on certain topics. When it is a political topic that potentially made leftists look bad, Google reduced the search results considerably, cleaning it up as it went. It was blatant.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I was told some time ago by an Apple Genius Bar genius never to use Google as a search engine. He didn’t say why but now I think I know why with all the recent Google publicity.

        Like

  7. Well, all the “they’re a private company and can do whatever they want” B.S. is just that: B.S. At a bare minimum, they should be required to publish the rules, and then explain to users exactly how they broke those rules. At a minimum, that is simply fair. However, if you follow Paul Joseph Watson’s banning from Facebook, they have, in writing, refused to tell him why he was banned. And this was supposedly on the grounds that if they explained why he was banned, that other people would be better able to follow the rules and not get banned. Seriously! I’m not making this up.

    If that isn’t a Stalinist way to run a business, then I don’t know what is. Compare that to every other dealing one has with a private company. They are all subject to either a long, obtuse “agreement” or contract (like with a bank), or the rules are so well understood as to not needing to be in writing. (Like with stores. Everyone knows you can walk about the premises, but need to pay for things before leaving.)

    Truly something needs to be done, and it needn’t be some big, complex set of rules. Rather the gov’t should force transparency, and require these companies to follow their own rules.

    Doesn’t seem like either draconian or too much to ask.

    Saludos,

    Kim G
    Boston, MA
    Where all of this is making me sick!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. P.S. But it turns out that Watson was banned (recently) from Facebook for having interviewed Tommy Robinson three years ago. Heaven forbid anyone oppose the rape of underaged girls!

      Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.