Those of us who favor freedom of speech and the First Amendment celebrated when InfoWars’ War Room Channel was restored to YouTube earlier this week.
“Without an open system, diverse and authentic voices have trouble breaking through,” Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki said in an open letter to YouTube creators. “I believe preserving an open platform is more important than ever.”
The letter was written as part of a broader announcement that the Google-owned video platform would allow “offensive” content back on its platform. “Offensive,” of course, is a subjective term defined by YouTube, which, along with the rest of Big Tech, has a habit of deeming conservative-leaning content “offensive,” and banning such creators. That, in a nutshell, is what happened to InfoWars’ channel in the first place.
In any case, Owen Shroyer celebrated as his show, “War Room,” which had almost 2.5 million subscribers before it was banned from the platform in August of 2018 for “violating YouTube’s community guidelines,” relaunched on YouTube.
Shroyer celebrated on air:
During his celebration, he vowed to start another YouTube channel for “War Room,” comparing it to his Facebook ban. After he was banned from that platform, he said he opened a new account that lasted for an hour before it was taken down.
The celebration did not last long. In fact, the same thing that happened when he started his new Facebook page happened to his new YouTube channel. The channel was only up for 17 hours before YouTube nuked it again, going back on its word of “preserving an open platform.”
So much for that.
“17 hours later and the channel is banned. I guess [YouTube] CEO [Susan Wojcicki] lied…” Shroyer said.
The re-ban of the “War Room” channel is telling.
YouTube said that it would allow perceived “offensive” content on its platform. In banning “War Room,” YouTube tipped its hand. It obviously does not view “War Room” as offensive, otherwise the channel should have been allowed to stay.
So what it is about InfoWars and/or “War Room” that YouTube finds objectionable? One can only deduce that it has something to do with InfoWars’ political leaning. Of course, the tech giants vehemently deny that they ban certain content based on political views.
Needless to say, we’ll never get a straight answer from Big Tech. We never do. Everyone who is banned gets banned for vague “terms of service” violations, which are never fully comprehensible.
Pro-censorship tyrants on the left raged at YouTube for promising an open platform, which is perhaps why the company caved.
“Saying the quiet part loud. White supremacy, extremism, harassment and violence is a-okay with [Susan Wojcicki] as long as it props up engagement and ad rates. Why is anyone still advertising on this platform? It’s not a matter of if, but when, you end up on some horrendous video,” Sleeping Giants said.
Sleeping Giants is a shadow group of left-wing dorks run by Matt Rivitz who believe that adults aren’t responsible enough to choose which content they should view, and police the internet launching ad boycotts of websites like Breitbart, which they find objectionable.
YouTube might have gotten itself off the hook from the wrath of the political left for now, but eventually, the mob will come for them too, as they do for everyone.
Peter D'Abrosca is a freelance investigative reporter, author, and conservative political commentator.
Latest posts by Peter M. D'Abrosca (see all)
- YouTube Changes Verification Process Without Alerting Creators, Causing Chaos - September 20, 2019
- Twitter Will Now Hide Replies At User’s Request - September 20, 2019
- Forget About Faith Goldy: Trudeau Is Canada’s Alt Right Leader - September 20, 2019