YouTube joins Alt-Left Antifa terrorists to suppress Free Speech

YouTube joins Alt-Left Antifa terrorists to suppress Free Speech

YouTube censorship1. New Rules:

Recently YouTube published new rules to suppress Freedom of Speech in its ‘Official Blog’ by increasing the amount of censorship on content they found to be “controversial” even if it didn’t break any laws or violate the site’s user agreement.

 

Tougher standards: We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes. We’ll begin to roll this new treatment out to videos on desktop versions of YouTube in the coming weeks, and will bring it to mobile experiences soon thereafter. These new approaches entail significant new internal tools and processes, and will take time to fully implement 

Early intervention and expanding counter-extremism work: We’ve started rolling out features from Jigsaw’s Redirect Method to YouTube. When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages. We also continue to amplify YouTube voices speaking out against hate and radicalization through our YouTube Creators for Change program. Just last week, the U.K. chapter of Creators for Change, Internet Citizens, hosted a two-day workshop for 13-18 year-olds to help them find a positive sense of belonging online and learn skills on how to participate safely and responsibly on the internet. We also pledged to expand the program’s reach to 20,000 more teens across the U.K.

What does this mean to users? Under the guise of “fight terror content online,” the move was nothing more than a thinly-veiled attempt to censor conservative speech to give their opponents an upper hand. Furthermore, the new censorship rule negatively affect not only the content creators but also YouTube user who merely searches for keywords that YouTube deems ‘questionable’, for whatever reason, as he or she will be promptly redirected to propaganda videos intended to “directly confront and debunk” whatever ‘questionable’ content that user was looking for. In other words, this is not just censorship, it’s active brainwashing. Indeed, YouTube, owned by Google, wants to control not only what information one creates, but also what information one consumes. It’s not only 1984 Big Brother’s, it’s 1933 (Nazi propaganda) and 1940 (Soviet propaganda) combined.

According to a post on YouTube’s official blog, videos will now be subject to the rule of the mob. If enough users flag a video as “hate speech” or “violent extremism,” YouTube may impose restrictions on the content even if it breaks none of the platform’s rules.

We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.

YouTube has also rolled out a “trusted flagger” program, in which 15 “expert NGOs and institutions” to help them identify hate speech and extremism on their platform.

Among these organizations are the No Hate Speech Movement, a left-wing project pushed by the Council of Europe, as well as the Anti-Defamation League, an organization whose president has been accused of “manufacturing outrage” by the World Jewish Congress.

YouTube is also planning to artificially alter its search results so that searches for “sensitive” topics on YouTube no longer return the most popular videos, but a “playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages.”

The platform also plans to artificially promote videos created via its “Creators for Change” program,  which, in YouTube’s words, features creators who are “using their voices and creativity to speak out against hate speech, xenophobia and extremism.”

We’ve started rolling out features from Jigsaw’s Redirect Method to YouTube. When people search for sensitive keywords on YouTube, they will be redirected towards a playlist of curated YouTube videos that directly confront and debunk violent extremist messages. We also continue to amplify YouTube voices speaking out against hate and radicalization through our YouTube Creators for Change program. Just last week, the U.K. chapter of Creators for Change, Internet Citizens, hosted a two-day workshop for 13-18 year-olds to help them find a positive sense of belonging online and learn skills on how to participate safely and responsibly on the internet.

YouTube framed its blog post around fighting “terror content,” yet their announcement also strays into areas that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism, like the company’s diversity efforts. The blog post boasts about YouTube’s involvement with the  “Creators for Change workshop” in which “creators teamed up with Indonesia’s Maarif Institute to teach young people about the importance of diversity, pluralism, and tolerance.”

YouTube’s “Creators for Change” program is filled with progressives who, in YouTube’s words, are “tackling social issues and promoting awareness, tolerance and empathy on their YouTube channels.” Yet Laci Green, MTV’s famous feminist sex educator, one of Time Magazine’s 30 most influential people on the internet, and one of the most successful feminists on YouTube is nowhere to be found.

YouTube uses a combination of machine learning and volunteer “experts” to flag that needs review. It also plans to implement “tougher standards” for videos that are controversial but do not violate the site’s terms of service.

YouTube says it isn’t going to remove the borderline content entirely, but will instead place these videos in a purgatory state preventing them from being monetized or promoted. To facilitate these changes, YouTube will be artificially altering its search algorithms to prevent offensive topics from discovery.

We’ll soon be applying tougher treatment to videos that aren’t illegal but have been flagged by users as potential violations of our policies on hate speech and violent extremism. If we find that these videos don’t violate our policies but contain controversial religious or supremacist content, they will be placed in a limited state. The videos will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes.

Victims of Alt-Left Antifa terrorists

According to YouTube, the system, while largely automated, will mix in human reviews in the form of its already established “Trusted Flagger” volunteer program that works with over 15 institutions to deal with extremist content, including the Anti-Defamation League.

The ADL recently released a list naming members of the “alt-right” and the “alt-lite,” the latter of which included controversial YouTube personalities like Gavin McInnes, Mike Cernovich, and Brittany Pettibone. Curiously, the ADL is selective in what it chooses to label as “extremism.” It does not have violent far-left ideologies like Antifa and militant leftist organizations like Redneck Revolt on its radar.

 


YouTube demonetize & censors Infowars broadcaster Paul Joseph Watson.

 


YouTube demonetize & censors Conservative Mark Dice.

 


YouTube demonetize & censors Donald Trump supporters Diamond & Silk.

 


YouTube demonetize & censors YouTube personality Phillip DeFranco.

2. Who are YouTube and Google supporting?

YouTube and Google are supporting Alt-Left Antifa terrorists, leftists, liberals, Islamofascists, and Democrats. These are the unholy alliance as its fascist members all share the common goal of suppression of the freedom of speech by all means necessary, including violence, destruction, assassination and mass murdering for political and religious reasons, toward dominating if not overthrowing the current democratically elected government.

Donald Trump supporters Diamond & Silk censored by YouTube.

3. Google supports Democrats (since at least 2008)

The Groundwork, Quartz reporters Adam Pasick and Tim Fernholz note, is the third Schmidt-funded startup run by former Obama campaign staffers. The other two, Civis and cir.cl, emerged out of Obama’s campaign, but the Groundwork is different because Schmidt backed it before the Clinton campaign even got underway. It’s already giving her campaign a leg up on the competition.

Should Schmidt’s company continue to provide the primary digital firepower for the Clinton campaign, he will be able to wield a degree of influence far beyond what normal wealthy donors might achieve by making maximum campaign contributions or pouring money into a super PAC. “That’s the beauty of the Groundwork,” write Pasick and Fernholz. “Instead of putting money behind a Super PAC that can’t coordinate with the campaign, a well-connected donor like Schmidt can fund a startup to do top-grade work for a campaign, with the financial outlay structured as an investment, not a donation.”

Google already permeates our digital lives – from e-mail, to advertising, to transportation – Google is everywhere. Other campaigns by Bernie Sanders or Republican contenders almost certainly will not be able to match the connections Schmidt brings nor draw the same caliber of engineers to the rough-and-tumble campaign work that Schmidt can.

Google has been relying on cronyism to overhaul the patent system. Google is doing this through an extensive network of political appointees working inside the Obama Administration – and they are pushing an overhaul that would help stifle America’s top innovators. They’ve given political contributions to politicians that further their ends – like President Obama. Google employees donated about $800,000 to each of his campaigns.

And Obama gives back. Google only received a slap on the wrist after the Federal Trade Commission investigated its practice of favoring its own products in Google searches. And when the Federal Communications Commission was on the verge of implementing net neutrality through Title II regulation, Google received improper access to the plan and convinced the FCC to tweak it in the company’s favor.

Google has already received plenty of favorable treatment under the Obama Administration. In 2012, the company emerged unscathedfrom a Federal Trade Commission antitrust investigation into its practice of favoring its own products in Google searches. And earlier this year, Google was given improper access to the FCC’s final decision to embrace net neutrality through Title II regulation and secured a last-minute tweak to the FCC’s new rules.

Given how many former executives at Google worked in the Obama Administration, this was hardly surprising. Former Google patent attorney Michelle Lee, for instance, now serves as the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, a move that is sure to benefit Google’s innovative technological endeavors. The country’s chief technology officer (CTO) Megan Smith spent more than a decade at Google as a Vice President. Alan Davidson, formerly a top Google lobbyist, was recently hired by the Commerce Department for a new position, “director of digital economy,” that seems suspiciously tailor-made for his connections. And the list goes on. This has granted Google special access to the White House – access that far exceeds other companies of similar financial clout and influence.

It’s easy to see how helping elect the next president could help a tech company: “With tech policy an increasingly important part of the president’s job—consider merely the issues of NSA surveillance and anti-trust policy, not to mention self-driving cars and military robots—helping to elect yet another president could be incredibly valuable to Schmidt and to Google,” write Pasick and Fernholz.

A Hillary Clinton presidency would mean Google could continue the crony business model it began under the Obama administration, and Eric Schmidt knows it.

Schmidt also requested a meeting with Bill Clinton in February 2015. “[I]t is about the business [Schmidt] proposes to do with the campaign,” Tina Flournoy, Bill Clinton’s chief of staff, wrote. “He says he’s met with HRC.” “Yup,” Podesta replies. “I’ve talked to him too. Robby is in touch with his team.”

Flournoy also mentioned that Google was lending its corporate jet to fly the Bill Clinton to Africa that summer as part of a Clinton Foundation trip, with the two joking about previous times that it had broken down.

4. Eric Schmidt advises then endorses Hillary Clinton

Wikileaked emails show that Google’s Eric Schmidt drew up a campaign plan a year before she announced she was running for president. Schmidt sent a detailed plan to Cheryl Mills, who had served as Clinton’s chief of staff when she was secretary of state, in April 2014, a full year before the Democratic politician announced her bid for the White House.

Schmidt outlined Hillary’s campaign plan, including where she should base her campaign headquarters (New York City), and as it later turned out, Hillary Clinton did exactly just that.

Schmidt suggested that Hillary Clinton’s campaign be based out of New York or Chicago, but not Washington, D.C. ‘Its important to have a very large hiring pool (such as Chicago or NYC) from which to choose enthusiastic, smart and low paid permanent employees… DC is a poor choice as its full of distractions and interruptions,’ he wrote in the memo, emailed to Mills.

She then passed it along to John Podesta, whose emails were hacked and made public by Wikileaks.

The note was also addressed to Robby Mook, who became Clinton’s campaign manager, and David Plouffe, a veteran of President Barack Obama’s campaign, who now works for Uber.

In October 2014, at least six months prior to Clinton announcing her run for the presidency, a draft memo on digital strategy written by Mook for Hillary Clinton discusses “Eric Schmidt’s company Groundwork,” then a ten-person team developing a dynamic sign-up page and donation tool to be deployed by the campaign when it launched more than six months later. It suggests that campaign staff were eager to have control over their own core technology.

Indeed, an attachment to the email written by Teddy Goff, a former Obama campaign Digital Director now working for the Clinton campaign, appears to discuss “Working relationships with Google, Facebook, Apple, and other technology companies.” Goff further states that the Clinton campaign has “begun having discreet conversations with some of these companies.”

The memo also includes some of Goff’s suggested starting points for the digital campaign to undertake, which are listed as:

  • Raising lots of money;
  • Creating and distributing excellent content, for both supportive and persuadable audiences,on social and paid media and in videos; and
  • Recruiting, engaging, and organizing volunteers and prospective volunteers.

Throughout the memo, Goff repeatedly refers to “Eric Schmidt’s group,” at one point saying, “I have been kept apprised of the work being done by Eric Schmidt’s group and othersworking directly and indirectly with your team. [emphasis added] On the whole, I am comfortable with where we stand and confident in our roadmap to launch day and beyond.”

Schmidt’s team seemed to be quite crucial in the development of Clinton’s online campaign, with Goff saying, “We have instructed Eric’s team to build the most important products in their portfolio—specifically, the back-end of the website, the ability to accept donations (along with associated features, most importantly the ability to store credit card information), and the ability to acquire email addresses—first.”

The Washington Free Beacon proposes that the Eric Schmidt-backed startup known as The Groundwork is the group in question. To date, The Groundwork, who’s website consists simply of a pyramid-like logo, has been paid approximately $600,000 by the Clinton campaign.

Google have previously been accused of manipulating search results in favor of Clinton, while WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has outright claimed that Google is “directly engaged” in the Clinton campaign. With recent revelations that Sheryl Sandberg worked to organise meetings between Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and the Clinton campaign, it seems that many Silicon Valley elites are attempting to align themselves heavily with the Democratic presidential nominee.

Schmidt publicly endorsed Clinton in June, 2016.

5. The Groundwork

The Groundwork was formed as a Delaware LLC with Schmidt’s backing two months later, in June 2014. As Schmidt advised, its offices were in Brooklyn, blocks from the building that would eventually house Clinton’s campaign headquarters. The company’s leader. Michael Slaby, had been one of Obama’s top digital staffers in 2012.

Slaby hired top engineers from companies like Netflix and Google to build the unsexy but critical back-end infrastructure for signing up supporters and collecting donations, with plans to market the platform to corporate clients through the Groundwork’s parent company, Timshel, also backed by Schmidt.

“There are a lot of people who can write big checks,” Slaby told Quartz last year. “Eric recognizes how the technology he’s been building his whole career can be applied to different spaces. The idea of tech as a force multiplier is something he deeply understands.”

Slaby would not be the only talent that Schmidt helped bring to the campaign. The campaign’s influential chief technology officer, Stephanie Hannon, is a veteran Google engineer. Civis, another company founded by former Obama staffers and funded by Schmidt, has provided some media analytics for the campaign.

Clinton met with Silicon Valley start-up titan’s on the heels of a speech she gave at the New School. Schmidt then wanted her to have a close-door meeting (press not allowed) the heads of Uber, Lyft, Airbnb, Instacart, Munchery, and others, to clarify her previously made statements that made her sound anti the ‘sharing economy’. In other words, Schmidt wanted her to full the full backing of Silicon Valley, and not just of Google, explained Stephanie Hannon, Clinton’s chief technology officer and former Google’s employee.

Aaron is a significant supporter and has maxed out primary contributions,’ the email said of Aaron Levie, the CEO, co-founder and chairman of the storage space start-up Box.

When Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told an open government conference in 2015 that “Google was now Hillary’s secret weapon,” he was undoubtedly referring to The Groundwork, a stealthy startup funded by Google Chairman Eric Schmidt that’s providing consulting services to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The Groundwork was building digital infrastructure like the Obama campaign did in 2012, laying “the groundwork’ for personalized, data-driven electioneering in 2016.

While Schmidt has said that he would not work in a Clinton administration, he did not only support her presidential campaign, he directly supervised her campaign staff, just like he did with the Obama administration, with a number of former employees serving in top positions, from U.S. Chief Technology Officer Megan Smith to the head of the U.S. Patent Office, Michelle Lee who suddenly retired in June 2017 without warning. The chief technology officer of Clinton’s campaign, Stephanie Hannon, was also hired from Google.

Assange was not the first person to raise concerns about a search algorithm stealing the presidency. Harvard Law professor Jonathan Zittrain has explored how Google or Facebook could influence an election by customizing search results or news, swinging undecided voters to one side or another.

Based on private emails from John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair, and revealed by WikiLeaks, a relationship between Hillary Clinton with Eric Schmidt dating back to at least 2008 showed that Google loaned its jet to members of Clinton’s campaign staff on several occasions.

According to a February 2015 email to Podesta from Tina Flournoy — who serves as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff — Google planned to lend its company jet for a trip to Africa. Podesta wrote, “FYI. They are donating the Google plane for the Africa trip.”

It’s not clear what trip they’re talking about, but the email chain also said that Schmidt wanted to meet “WJC,” shorthand for “William Jefferson Clinton.” Given the timing, they may be talking about Bill Clinton’s nine-day trip in May 2015 to Tanzania, Kenya, Liberia and Morocco. The annual trek to Africa included a group of 20 donors and supporters, several of whom were “expected to give generously” to the Hillary Clinton campaign, according to Politico.

Both Podesta and Flournoy wrote that the Google plane has a bad habit of breaking down. While Podesta said it would be a “nice way to travel,” both of them mentioned issues with the plane in the past.

“Yes, until it breaks down in Ethiopia — as it did the last time we used it,” Flournoy wrote.

Podesta responded: “Funny, the only time I was on it, it broke down in Rwanda and we had to fly Ethiopian Airlines home.”

The emails also say that Schmidt had met with Hillary Clinton and spoken with Podesta.

In April 2014, Schmidt sent Hillary Clinton aide Cheryl Mills a detailed plan for the 2016 campaign, writing “If we get started soon, we will be in a very strong position to execute well for 2016.” The plan laid out ideas for the campaign, like where it should be headquartered and who should be hired.

In an email to Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook the same month, Podesta wrote that Schmidt seemed eager to be a part of an exploratory committee and “clearly wants to be head outside advisor, but didn’t seem like he wanted to push others out.” Podesta wrote that Schmidt was “ready to fund, advise recruit talent, etc.” and was “more deferential on structure than I expected.”

Podesta encouraged Mook and Mills to meet with Schmidt to discuss his involvement with the campaign. According to Podesta, Schmidt pressed Podesta to look for young coders “preferably in outer borough NYC” and thought Northern California was too expensive for any kind of Clinton campaign home base.

 

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedIn

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply