Connect with us

Tech

Cartel? YouTube Removes Project Veritas Video Revealing Mass Censorship of Conservatives on Pinterest

The big tech giants appear to stick together.

Published

on

YouTube Removes Project Veritas Pinterest

After YouTube suspended Project Veritas for posting a screen shot from the video, YouTube joined in the fray by removing the video from YouTube due to a “third party” filing a privacy complaint with the platform.

James O’Keefe, the founder of Project Veritas, conducted an interview with a whistle blower at Pinterest, a social media platform geared toward sharing images, that showed the company’s systematic censorship of conservatives and Christians on its platforms. Terms about Christianity, including “Easter” and “Bible verse” were blocked from the platform, and virtually every conservative news website, including Big League Politics, were added to a list of websites considered “porn” by the platform to prevent links from being shared.

YouTube has now removed the viral video from its platform, citing a “privacy claim by a third party”, likely Pinterest.

Trending: Feds Seize and Redistribute Medical Supplies From Preppers in Unprecedented Power Grab

“YouTube has REMOVED our Pinterest Insider story,” wrote O’Keefe. “The battle is on.”

O’Keefe also provided a link to a GoFundMe fundraiser where users may donate to the Pinterest insider, who was fired from the social media company after Project Veritas’s video went live. In only a few hours, the whistle blower already raised thousands of dollar.

This comes only hours after the Project Veritas Twitter account was suspended for uploading a leaked screen shot of the Pinterest Slack chat, showing employees referring to Jewish conservative commentator Ben Shapiro as a “white nationalist”, who should be monitored for extremist content, along with Candace Owens.

Two of the largest big tech companies now appear to be acting together to protect a third big tech company from having its dirty laundry and blatant anti-conservative bias exposed to the public.

It also comes only shortly after YouTube announced its intention to remove videos that do not directly violate its content policies, but may merely be offensive.

Big League Politics reported:

Google CEO Sundar Pichai told Axios that YouTube’s new content policing strategy would single out what they describe as “borderline content.”

Pichair describes “borderline content” as “Content which doesn’t exactly violate policies, which need to be removed, but which can still cause harm.”

The Google CEO said that the problem at hand is “a hard computer science problem. He also stated that it is an even harder “societal problem because we need better frameworks around what is hate speech, what’s not, and how do we as a company make those decisions at scale, and get it right without making mistakes.”

In a statement last week, YouTube said, “Even if a creator’s content doesn’t violate our community guidelines, we will take a look at the broader context and impact, and if their behavior is egregious and harms the broader community, we may take action.”

It seems as though big tech’s war against conservatism, the America First agenda, and the First Amendment is already in full swing as Republicans prepare themselves for the 2020 elections.

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Bypass Tech Censorship!

Facebook, Twitter and Google are actively restricting conservative content through biased algorithms. Silicon Valley doesn't want you to read our articles. Bypass the censorship, sign up for our newsletter now!

Have a hot tip for Big League Politics?

Got a hot news tip for us? Photos or video of a breaking story? Send your tips, photos and videos to tips@bigleaguepolitics.com. All hot tips are immediately forwarded to BLP Staff.

Have something to say? Send your own guest column or original reporting to submissions@bigleaguepolitics.com.

Tech

Banished Journalist Laura Loomer’s $1.5 Billion Lawsuit Against Tech Giants Will Be Heard in Court

Loomer will have her day in court.

Published

on

Banished journalist and Florida U.S. House candidate Laura Loomer’s lawsuit against Big Tech will be heard in the court of law following an order in the D.C. Circuit on Thursday.

Loomer is accusing tech giants such as Google, Apple, Facebook and Twitter of conspiring to suppress conservative voices on their platforms. The lawsuit is challenging these monolithic corporations for allegedly violating antitrust law as well as the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Her lawsuit had been previously tossed out by U.S. District Judge Trever N. McFadden, a Trump appointee to the bench, who stated that “while selective censorship of the kind alleged by the plaintiffs may be antithetical to the American tradition of freedom of speech, it is not actionable under the First Amendment unless perpetrated by a state actor.” However, Loomer was able to use a recent court ruling to resurrect her lawsuit despite the initial setback.

Loomer’s legal team, led by the right-wing political interest group Freedom Watch, used the precedent of Packingham v. North Carolina, a ruling which determined that it was unconstitutional to ban sex offenders from social media. The case essentially set the precedent that social media is a 1st Amendment right.

take our poll - story continues below

Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump?

  • Are Democrats and the Fake News Media rooting for the Wuhan coronavirus to destroy the economy to remove Trump? 

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Big League Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“Many of the principles set forth by the Supreme Court in Packingham lead to what appellants believe is the natural progression of the law to hold that social media companies are liable for First Amendment violations, given the progression of technology and its infiltration into the daily lives of nearly every single person,” Loomer’s team said in their final brief presented to the court.

Loomer points to Twitter banning her from the platform at the end of 2018 after she said that Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) adheres to a religion in which “women are abused” and “forced to wear the hijab.” She was similarly banned from Instagram for her assertion that Islam is “a cancer on humanity,” and Facebook, which owns Instagram, quickly followed suit and banned her even though the offending post was not made on that platform.

Loomer still cannot get her accounts restored despite the fact that she is running for the U.S. House in Florida’s 21st Congressional District, which could be considered a form of electoral interference.

Through her legal fight against the tech giants, Loomer is forcing them to reveal that they are no longer neutral platforms:

The tech behemoth Facebook has admitted that it is a publisher while defending its arbitrary censorship of banished journalist Laura Loomer, according to court documents.

Facebook banned Loomer’s account from their platform during a purge of popular conservative voices that happened in May. Others targeted by the purge included Milo Yiannopoulos, Alex Jones and Paul Joseph Watson. Loomer is striking back with a lawsuit that is unearthing some interesting revelations about the social media monolith.

“Under well-established law, neither Facebook nor any other publisher can be liable for failing to publish someone else’s message,” Facebook’s attorneys wrote.

Facebook actually has the audacity to claim that their 1st Amendment rights are being violated by Loomer’s lawsuit, in a total contorting of reality. They have filed a motion to dismiss the case.

“She claims Facebook labeled her as a ‘dangerous’ person who promotes hate – yet, the First Amendment has long protected such statements because they are opinions that are not capable of being proven true or false,” Facebook’s attorneys claim in their dismissal motion.

Right now, Facebook is protected under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act from being held liable for the content published on their platform. This special exemption worked fine when the social network engaged in relative neutrality, but those days are no more as Big Tech is at war with conservative and pro-Trump voices.

Loomer hopes to have her ability to communicate fully restored and to make Big Tech pay for infringing on her basic rights.

Continue Reading
It's time to name Antifa a terror org! Sign your petition now!


Trending