It’s new news but also, unfortunately, old news.
Tech-giant providers of forums for public discussion keep banning discussion of the issues of the day. The latest victim: Ron Paul, medical doctor, former congressman and presidential candidate, father of U.S. Senator Rand Paul.
Alphabet/Google/YouTube has pulled a video from Dr. Paul’s YouTube channel in which he criticized Fauci for, among other things, reversing his advice about wearing masks to combat COVID-19. YouTube warns of further suppression if this kind of thing (debate, I guess) continues. You can still watch the video, since there are competitors to YouTube (and we hope there will be many more). SoundCloud has it.
Paul linked to an image of the YouTube communiqué. “Your content was removed due to a violation of our Community Guidelines. . . . Medical misinformation.”
“If this happens again,” Paul’s channel will be hobbled for a week.
And if even then he still speaks freely, like any red-blooded American would? Still more sanctions, presumably.
Alas, there are many examples of these obnoxious policies.
We’ve recently complained about YouTube’s removal of a Mises Institute talk — once again, for failure to follow the pandemic panic party line. We’ve also complained about how WordPress buzz-sawed The Conservative Treehouse blog for nebulous violations of policy, violations suddenly discovered after years of hosting the blog.
We could go on. We probably will. Like the proverbial “broken record.”
When’re we gonna stop?
Well, right after the tech giants stop their accelerating efforts to suppress debate.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
3 replies on “Ron Paul vs. Fauci, YouTube vs. You”
Is there an alternative to YouTube? If so, then dissenting voices must stop posting and searching on YouTube. Post to an alternative site and let your followers know where to find your work. Make YouTube obsolete.
I believe Rumble is a site like youtube. Dan Bongino bought into Rumble after his show/video were pulled/censored.
Eliminating section 230 would probably cure much of this. Then these outfits could be sued.
They are publishers in everything but name. 230 does not apply to publishers.