YouTube on Friday disappeared four videos from RT’s channel and assessed a strike, which will sanction the news outlet for one week. If it happens again, the next round of penalties will last for two weeks (as just hit RT’s German channel, RT DE). Eventually, enough alleged violations of community guidelines can get a channel evicted from the public square permanently.
And YouTube apparently can make that happen just about anytime it wants. The four offending videos were spread out over a period of several months, some dating back to last year, but they were rounded up at once, providing the four violations of community guidelines needed to assess a strike against the channel. And given how little it apparently takes for a video to be deemed in violation – and the lack of transparency around YouTube’s decision-making – there’s little that RT can do to failsafe against being censored again. It would have to follow CNN and other mainstream media outlets in producing only ruling-class propaganda, if even that would be safe.
The topics of the videos varied, but the common thread was that they revealed the existence of contrarian viewpoints. For instance, one was a livestream of an anti-lockdown protest in London, while another showed Covid-19 skeptics holding a demonstration in Birmingham, England.
RT didn’t endorse the views of the protesters, though in a free society, that should be allowed. According to YouTube, merely showing footage of these protests violated its policy against “medical misinformation,” showing content that “explicitly disputes” the guidance of local health authorities or the World Health Organization (WHO).
Another video was found to have violated the same policy, showing an interview with legendary Soviet virologist Dmitry Lvov about the dangers of the coronavirus outbreak and the efficacy of masks.
In our increasingly dystopian society, only one set of beliefs on certain key topics is allowed to be discussed. Disagreeing with those beliefs is forbidden. Even showing someone or a group of people who disagrees with those beliefs is prohibited.
Then again, it may depend partly on who shows it. YouTube removed another RT video in March because it showed former President Donald Trump talking about another forbidden topic, alleged fraud in the 2020 election. Videos of the same speech posted by mainstream outlets, such as Reuters and ABC, were initially allowed to stay up, although some were removed later. Different livestreams of the same speech were treated as either “problematic misinformation” or “authoritative news” by YouTube, depending on who posted them.
That kind of arbitrary and capricious application of the rules makes authoritarianism all the more scary. Incidentally, the other RT video that was taken down in the latest purge by YouTube, an episode of the “Wayne Dupree Show,” also somehow crossed the line with YouTube’s election sensitivities.
The platform’s attempts at thought policing betray an incredible level of contempt for humanity. People whom no one elected and who aren’t always right, such as Dr. Anthony Fauci and the WHO, will prescribe how we all must think about a life-and-death topic. Fauci can flip-flop on his edicts and even admit to purposely misleading the public – as he did on the topic of herd immunity – but we all must follow his orders and pretend that no other ideas worth even considering exist.
That level of arrogance is astounding. Our rulers keep talking about “following the science” – except biology, the science that is outlawed when it comes to transgender propaganda – but think about all the great scientists who would have been forever silenced if they had tried to make themselves heard in the era of Big Tech. Eratosthenes, Galileo Galilei and Sir Isaac Newton would have been thrown into social media prison, never to be heard from again, and they’d never get booked on CNN.
Good and honest science can stand up to being challenged, and when it loses an argument and is amended, it becomes better science. Likewise, free societies that respect human rights don’t try to cover up ideas that might conflict with a favored narrative.
When authoritarians try to crush open discussion, they send up red flags in the minds of thinking people. If your lockdown advice is so wise, why can’t we discuss it and examine the research? If your vaccines are so safe and effective, why force them on anyone or try to manipulate public opinion, as Fauci admitted to doing when he misled the public about herd immunity? If the election was won fair and square, why can’t we thoroughly investigate and then dismiss the allegations of fraud?
Going the censorship route, the best that Big Tech, the media and the billionaire globalists can hope for is to scare most people into obedience. Perhaps they want a world full of NPCs, non-player characters, to walk around like soulless drones, buying their products and shouting down the few free thinkers on command. But NPCs aren’t true believers, and real humans tend to push the boots off their faces eventually.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
© 2021, paradox. All rights reserved.
