Over the last several years, one has put one’s YouTube speech at risk by addressing such verboten or intermittently suppressed topics as pandemic policy, vaccine efficacy, origin of the COVID-19 virus, “climate change” (are winter, summer, and all natural disasters really caused by carbon footprints? inquiring minds want to know!), 2020 election fraud, and whatever else inspires post-Enlightenment institutional censors to clatter into action.
Because of the emails and other documents that have come to light in various lawsuits, we now know for sure that social-media companies have not been censoring independently.
They’ve been in cahoots with government agencies — agencies eager to find corporate workarounds to the First Amendment.
A recent target of Google’s YouTube? Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Running for president as a Democrat in competition with the alleged incumbent, Joe Biden, this son of assassinated 1968 Democratic presidential candidate Bobby Kennedy is disturbing the serene pools of so-called thought that constitute Acceptable Opinion and Settled Science.
I often disagree with Kennedy. But I feel that he isn’t just feeding me B.S.; he actually believes stuff.
He may be mostly wrong, but I prefer that to mostly crooked.
Google has just deleted another Kennedy video, one in which he converses with Canadian psychologist Jordan Peterson about climate change, COVID-19, and a possible link between exposure to chemicals and sexual dysphoria.
This last musing seems dubious. But, whatever, let the guy talk. Except — hold on — isn’t RFK Jr. causing Joe Biden a lot of political trouble?
Can’t have that.
Or, anyway, Google can’t have that.
Or whichever Biden administration officials are directing Google (or vice versa) can’t have that.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with PicFinder.ai
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
1 reply on “Google Can’t Have That”
If-and-when Alphabet, Meta, or some other firm is shown to have censored on behalf of the state, a failure to sue individual employees, as well as the firm itself, would be markèdly foolish.
If people learn that they face personal financial destruction for such actions, they will in future be far less willing to be participants.
Note that no doctrine of qualified immunity exists for such agents.