BRUTAL Cartoon Illustrates Censorship In 2017

Regan Pifer reports that Ron Paul is being punished by YouTube.

How so? Despite the fact that his uploaded videos regularly receive hundreds of thousands of views, “his videos have been labeled ‘not suitable’ for all advertisers by YouTube’s content arbiters.”

According to Zero Hedge, Julian Assange–the founder of WikiLeaks–tweeted about YouTube’s economic censoring:

Assange claims that Paul was being punished for speaking out about President Donald Trump’s decision to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan, after Paul published a video on the subject earlier this week.

The notion that YouTube would want to economically punish a former US Congressman for sharing his views on US foreign policy – a topic that he is unequivocally qualified to speak about – is absurd. Furthermore, the “review requested” marking on one of Paul’s videos reveals that they were initially flagged by users before YouTube’s moderators confirmed that the videos were unsuitable for a broad audience.

First and foremost, though many of us many not agree with former congressman Ron Paul, he actually knows what he is talking about.

He knows foreign policy. He is allowed to have an opinion, voice said opinion, and, if enough people listen to him, be paid via advertisements for putting said opinion out into the world.

We may disagree with his position and conclusion–but he is not one of the millions of crazies who lacks any sort of substantial experience.

Secondly, how does YouTube decide whose videos are unsuitable for a broad audience? They’re flagged by viewers.

By viewers?

Have you ever read the ‘comments’ section on YouTube? The only people crazier than the people who post from the basement of their parents’ house are those who troll and comment… from the basement of their parents’ house.

These are the individuals who are informing YouTube what is appropriate for a broad audience?

Thirdly, Ron Paul isn’t the only one.

Tim Black and Paul Joseph Watson, for example, have both been censored by YouTube likely “for sharing political views that differ from the mainstream neo-liberal ideology favored by the Silicon Valley elite.”

This is one of the many ways social media has attempted to censor what they deem appropriate and inappropriate political commentary.

Facebook, for example, is filtering “fake news” (because, if anyone is an excellent judge of what happened or what didn’t happen, it is definitely Facebook).

Nevermind that Aunt Charlene’s post about who started the drama at Thanksgiving placed almost all the blame on cousin Jan. Or that Uncle Norman was actually the one who was 15 minutes late.

And Sally’s teacher really is a “B” for calling her out in class.

Thanks, social media, for deciding what we should and should not see, what is fake and what isn’t.

Maybe Instagram and Snapchat, in an attempt at authenticity, will remove filters so we actually know what your face looks like at 7 am.

Whatever it is, whatever social media platform, I’m glad this progress is being made so we no longer have to think about anything.

They’re all thinking for us…those in Silicon Valley…and those in their parents’ basement.

What are your thoughts on this?