Michele Malkin censored

[Hawkmoon]

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/04/23/michelle-malkin-censored-by-youtube-for-medical-misinformation/

Apparently discussion is now verbotten in the Yoo Ess of Ay.

[Ben]

I think she may have been one of the first people hit in the whole censorship thing. She started getting censored/banned well before Twitter stepped things up with Trump.

You may not agree with her, but I don't recall he ever saying anything that required "censorship". She has sure made statements that made people feel uncomfortable, but they were discussion-worthy, not ban-worthy.

[dogmush]

What did she say that was misinformation?

[zxcvbob]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/hhgFbqqirk8/

[Hawkmoon]

What did she say that was misinformation?

She failed to adhere rigorously to the party line.

[dogmush]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/hhgFbqqirk8/

Yeah I saw that, I just don't have the energy for 30 min of badly edited rambling.  I made it to like minute 6.

I was hoping, since there seemed to be a consensus here that it was unfair, that someone had actually watched it and could tell me what was said.

Hard to have an opinion on the righteousness of a banning if you don't know what she said (or what the moms she apparently interviewed said)

[zxcvbob]

Yeah I saw that, I just don't have the energy for 30 min of badly edited rambling.  I made it to like minute 6.

I was hoping, since there seemed to be a consensus here that it was unfair, that someone had actually watched it and could tell me what was said.

Hard to have an opinion on the righteousness of a banning if you don't know what she said (or what the moms she apparently interviewed said)

I've watched a good bit of it, but guess I didn't make it that far.  She was still talking with Mo Brooks.  I'll watch some more later.  Maybe

[Ron]

Tiger moms are out these days.

[cordex]

Hard to have an opinion on the righteousness of a banning if you don't know what she said (or what the moms she apparently interviewed said)

What righteous reason for banning are you expecting to have missed?

[RoadKingLarry]

Tiger moms are out these days.

.


Except or particularly, that bitch Carole Baskin.

[dogmush]

What righteous reason for banning are you expecting to have missed?

I dunno, "The vaccines are made from aborted babies" might be up there. Or "The vaccines are filled with control chips from Bill Gates."  "The vaccines are targeting solutions for the Jewish Space Lasers" would probably also trip a ban hammer if I had a video sharing website.  Stuff like that.

[cordex]

I dunno, "The vaccines are made from aborted babies" might be up there. Or "The vaccines are filled with control chips from Bill Gates."  "The vaccines are targeting solutions for the Jewish Space Lasers" would probably also trip a ban hammer if I had a video sharing website.  Stuff like that.

Interesting.

[zxcvbob]

I dunno, "The vaccines are made from aborted babies" might be up there. Or "The vaccines are filled with control chips from Bill Gates."  "The vaccines are targeting solutions for the Jewish Space Lasers" would probably also trip a ban hammer if I had a video sharing website.  Stuff like that.

In a manner of speaking, I think the J&J vaccine is.  The use a cell line cultured from an aborted fetus years ago.  (that's why I haven't gotten a shingles vaccine, although I'm not sure the new one is made the same way)

[dogmush]

In a manner of speaking, I think the J&J vaccine is.  The use a cell line cultured from an aborted fetus years ago.  (that's why I haven't gotten a shingles vaccine, although I'm not sure the new one is made the same way)

1. No, it's not, in any honest manner of speaking. Yes I know about the cell culture.

2. I didn't make any of those examples up out of thin air. All of them have been said to me in earnest on various parts of the internet.

[cordex]

Dogmush,
Rather than addressing Bob with your own arguments, shouldn’t the staff here just ban him as he would be on YouTube and MushTube?

Don’t you think that heavy handed suppression and censorship is more effective than discussion and having to address bad ideas and falsehoods with good ideas and facts?

[Bogie]

When you get censored, that just means you're worth censoring.

[dogmush]

Dogmush,
Rather than addressing Bob with your own arguments, shouldn’t the staff here just ban him as he would be on YouTube and MushTube?

Don’t you think that heavy handed suppression and censorship is more effective than discussion and having to address bad ideas and falsehoods with good ideas and facts?

Yes and no.  Some ideas are worth discussing and talking out, some are so irredeemably idiotic it's not worth the time, and in the case of the internet literal money, on bandwidth to discuss them.

Pretending that every idea has enough merit to be worth discussing is how we get folks like AOC.

If, however, Bob decided to go full retard, and the staff here banned him, I would want to evaluate the statements that got him banned before advocating on his behalf.

Has anyone watch the Malkin video yet? Do we know what was said?

[Ben]

Has anyone watch the Malkin video yet? Do we know what was said?

It would be nice if the youtube would have specified what part of the video required censoring. The thing is an hour long and I haven't had the chance to listen to the full hour. I went through and randomly listened to snippets, which obviously means  I could have missed some critical 15 seconds somewhere. From what I got in sampling it, they are mostly talking against mandatory vaccines and "tracking" parents who refuse vaccines for their kids. Also talking about pregnant women opting out of the covid vaccine because they are concerned about side effects.

Whatever she or her guests said or didn't say, it seems only fair that if the big tech wants to censor someone, that the burden of proof is on them to exactly specify what requires censoring, quoting EXACTLY what they have a problem with. Simply saying, "This video contains misinformation" is a bit 1984. A statement about the covid vaccine causing nose warts would be different than a statement questioning the safety of the vaccine for pregnant women, regardless if medical professional say it's safe for them or not. As an example. Even then, I don't need the nose wart statement censored.

Regardless, using your AOC example, I'd rather that the interwebz be full of her blathering (which it is) and that I, as a free thinking individual, be able to decide for myself if she's full of crap or not. If she were censored, I might think she was intelligent.

The interwebz is full of "the moon landing didn't happen" and similar stuff, and I manage to make my own mind up about it. Censoring that kind of stuff because some of the sheep might not question it and do their own research is just lowest common denominator "The state is mother, the state is father" stuff to me.

EDIT: I was letting the video play as I typed.  I wonder if starting around 43:00 is part of the issue? It's on child vaccines in general and talks about some pharma mislabeled vaccines.

[MechAg94]

Yes and no.  Some ideas are worth discussing and talking out, some are so irredeemably idiotic it's not worth the time, and in the case of the internet literal money, on bandwidth to discuss them.

Pretending that every idea has enough merit to be worth discussing is how we get folks like AOC.

If, however, Bob decided to go full retard, and the staff here banned him, I would want to evaluate the statements that got him banned before advocating on his behalf.

Has anyone watch the Malkin video yet? Do we know what was said?

I disagree.  I think the lack of discussion about many things that should be talked about is what led to politicians like that.  Someone deciding topics are verboten is part of what got us here.  I am not saying every idea has merit, just that at some point every idea should be addressed even if it is just to show it has no merit.   

[Ben]

I would also add, not to harp on the AOC example, but:

Let's assume that Michelle is as full of crap as AOC is. What is the difference between the two? As far as I know, AOC is NEVER censored by big tech or the MSM. Michelle has been getting censored for years.

It's not just about the censoring, but about targeting who is and is not censored, which is another reason that I'd rather default to uncensored noise vs "curated" and "fact checked" crap that is chosen for me to read.

[cordex]

Yes and no.  Some ideas are worth discussing and talking out, some are so irredeemably idiotic it's not worth the time, and in the case of the internet literal money, on bandwidth to discuss them.

I'm not sure the only question justifying censorship is whether not not it is worth a person's time to discuss a particular issue. 

As far as money, I don't think YouTube is particularly concerned with scarcity of bandwidth.  Given they will allow anyone to post a sixteen part series of ten hour recordings of grass growing, trying to point at the hard costs of hosting either misinformation or content countering misinformation is a red herring.

Some other relevant questions that I think should be considered regarding censorship:

Is censorship effective at suppressing an idea we don't like, or does it just push people who advocate that idea out of the mainstream and deeper into their own echo chambers, freshly energized by what they interpret as proof of conspiracy?

Who decides what is "irredeemably idiotic," and even if you trust them today can you trust them (or their successors) tomorrow? 

Once established, does censoring ideas remain in the realm of saving time in addressing misinformation or does it tend toward establishing an orthodox narrative independent of truth?

Do attempts (especially automated and policy-based censorship) tend to impact legitimate discussion? I'll note that YouTube's current policies prohibit content that "contradicts local health authorities or WHO" ... which is funny as local health authorities and WHO may not agree with each other, and certainly don't agree with themselves in retrospect.

Pretending that every idea has enough merit to be worth discussing is how we get folks like AOC.

AOC is on your side when it comes to advocating for censorship on tech platforms.

[dogmush]

So on the flip side, which private company gets compelled to spend their resources on speech they don't like?

Should APS be compelled to hold discussions from Stormfront?

Remember, she wasn't "censored", a private company decided not to do business with her. After all, the speech, whatever it was. Is right there for us to watch.

And I stand by my statement that private enterprises certainly can decide something is too stupid for them to deal with.

We should correct the Publisher/Platform mislabelling and let nature take it's course.

[MechAg94]

I think people are going to have to get over the "private company" issues.  If a company has managed to set up a monopoly in the market, they don't get to do anything they want anymore.  If various companies act in collusion to against other private parties to push them out of the market, they don't get to do anything they want anymore.  IMO, the fault is with the system and judges and legislatures who refuse to take action for various reasons. 

I would blame consumers more for not switching platforms, but look at what happened to Parlor.  A bunch of corporations colluded to kill that platform for not using the rules they wanted.  They were leaning on others to do the same.

[cordex]

So on the flip side, which private company gets compelled to spend their resources on speech they don't like?

Compelled by whom?  I don't advocate governmental compulsion in the slightest, but if a company decides to position itself as a platform for the free exchange of ideas and once established uses its dominance to attempt to manipulate messaging and curate narrative are we not free to criticize those policies and (hopefully) compel them toward less censorious ones?

Should APS be compelled to hold discussions from Stormfront?

Nope.  But from what I've seen when Stormfront-type issues pop up it is typically more effective to address them via debate and discussion instead of immediate locks and bans.

Remember, she wasn't "censored", a private company decided not to do business with her. After all, the speech, whatever it was. Is right there for us to watch.

You're playing a little fast and loose with the definition of censorship there, aren't you?  Assuming she is telling the truth then she was censored by multiple platforms colluding to suppress her content.  Whether that content is right and true is a separate discussion.  Whether that content is currently available via other sources is immaterial.  To claim that at least two of the largest social media platforms working together to restrict her content - even the sharing of links to alternate sources - is not censorship ... well, I guess newspeak goes right along with censorship, doesn't it?

And I stand by my statement that private enterprises certainly can decide something is too stupid for them to deal with.

Of course, but in doing so they need to consider the downsides of censorship on media platforms and realize that while it may be pragmatic, righteousness doesn't really figure in to it.

Also, just to be clear I don't want AOC to be censored either.  Do you?

[Ron]

How about if a media platform wants that sweet government money in the form of contracts and partnerships they have to follow freedom of speech in spirit if not letter.

Libertarians are the handmaidens of globalist tyrants these days ... muh private corporation!

Corporations are creatures of the state.

Your business can't discriminate against the victim du jour but globalist media corporations can silence the right when in cahoots with leftist governments. Got it.

Libertarianism has devolved into being the global leftists useful idiots.