Is YouTube De-Funding Content To Help The MSM?


It’s no secret that most media outlets, hordes of vigilant social media users, and the great majority of influencers in the tech and entertainment spheres lean to the left.

In and of itself, the political ideologies of the men and women who most affect thought in the West does not matter. In theory, everybody has one vote.

But those with a healthily skeptical view of human nature and the effects of power know that this notion- that those with the power to influence thought will refrain from doing so out of democratic principle- is utterly naïve.

Politics and social media have become synonymous. Countless Facebook timelines and YouTube home pages remain littered with political discourse.

That may not be the case for much longer. The politics will remain, but the discourse could eventually be replaced by monolithic, ostensibly leftward slanting opinions, with any resistance buried through a number of subversive means.

The wheels are already in motion.

The decision makers for Twitter, Facebook, and Google haven’t even made a convincing effort to mask their suppression of contrarian voices.

Milo Yiannopoulos, despite his more recent errors in judgment, was blackballed from Twitter based on the unspoken premise that he should be held personally liable for the posts of those that follow him. Of course, his one-time iconic status among many who identify with the right was not given as a reason for booting him from the platform, but the formal explanation by Twitter fooled nobody who is paying attention.

Facebook and its fearlessly liberal leader Mark Zuckerberg had to publically deny charges that his platform suppressed stories that would seem to align with a conservative viewpoint from its Trending Topics feed.

The most recent and newsworthy case, however, is YouTube’s demonetization of certain content creators and videos under the guise of enforcing “community guidelines.”

The criteria that warrant the removal of a video is widely-ranging enough to be used by the likes of Joe Stalin and Chairman Mao.

It includes content that is deemed:

  • sexually suggestive
  • violent
  • inappropriate in language, including harassment, profanity, and vulgarity
  • promotional of drugs and other regulated substances

A bit overarching, but understandable criteria, should they be taken at face value. But there is one specified cause for de-funding that is clearly aimed at dissenting political thought:

  • controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown

When you consider that “political conflict” apparently has been construed to encompass a particularly contentious election cycle, then the problem emerges.