Connect with us

Tech

Infowars Calls YouTube’s Bluff, Gets Banned One Day After CEO’s ‘Open Platform’ Declaration

YouTube removed a new Infowars channel one day after Wojcicki said she would allow “offensive” material on the platform.

Published

on

Yesterday, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki published a blog congratulating her company for their dedication to freedom of expression and reaffirming their commitment to fostering an open platform.

“I believe preserving an open platform is more important than ever,” she wrote.

Recently, YouTube has purged hundreds of conservative and right-wing voices from the network without notice or cause. Just this week, popular vlogger James Allsup was thrown off the network despite never violating their terms of service one single time.

Trending: Judge Amy Coney Barrett Recently Approved Democrat COVID-19 Lockdown Policies

That didn’t stop Wojcicki from insulting the intelligence of her customers in her blog post though.

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • 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.

“A commitment to openness is not easy. It sometimes means leaving up content that is outside the mainstream, controversial or even offensive. But I believe that hearing a broad range of perspectives ultimately makes us a stronger and more informed society, even if we disagree with some of those views,” she wrote.

Infowars reporter Owen Shroyer decided to put Wojcicki to the test, and see whether or not she was being serious about her supposed commitment to allowing “offensive” content to be published on her platform. He started a new Infowars channel on YouTube to see if Wojcicki’s sentiments were legitimate.

He made the sarcastic announcement that YouTube lifted the ban against Infowars yesterday.

It only took one day until YouTube kicked Infowars off the platform yet again, with an assist from the fake news snitches at VICE, proving that Wojcicki’s blog was nothing but hot air.

“We’re committed to preserving openness and balancing it with our responsibility to protect our community,” YouTube spokesperson Ivy Choi said to Vice. “This means taking action against channels that continue to violate our policies.”

Shroyer posted a subsequent video featuring conspiracy icon Alex Jones declaring that the Infowars founder had “won the censorship cup” by incurring Big Brother’s wrath yet again on the tightly-controlled Orwellian video platform.

YouTube is owned by Google, the Big Tech monolith that has recently been exposed by a whistle-blower for systemic bias against conservative and liberty-minded voices. A top Google executive was also caught bragging on hidden camera about the company’s plans to undermine democracy and prevent President Donald Trump from obtaining re-election in 2020.

Tech

ORWELLIAN: Twitter Censors Big League Politics Article About Joe Biden Attacking 17-Year-Old Kyle Rittenhouse

Big Tech does not want the truth to get out.

Published

on

Twitter has censored a Big League Politics article detailing a statement made by the Joe Biden campaign attacking 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse, who shot two communists dead and shot another in the bicep in Kenosha, Wisc. and faces murder charges as a result.

The monolithic social media platform informed the BLP Twitter account on Wednesday that they are censoring a nearly 3-week-old article titled, “Joe Biden Smears American Hero Kyle Rittenhouse,” claiming that it glorifies violence.

The notice can be seen here:

take our poll - story continues below

Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense?

  • VOTE NOW: Did Kyle Rittenhouse act in self defense when he shot three BLM rioters? 

  • 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.

Twitter is not the only platform to censor BLP articles in an attempt to suppress the truth from the masses. Facebook also has BLP in their cross hairs, using a truth commission of fake news hacks to serve as their so-called fact checkers.

Facebook once tried to censor content published by BLP to expose the bizarre and unexplained circumstances surrounding the mysterious death of pedophile Jeffrey Epstein in a Manhattan jail cell:

Facebook’s new ministry of truth, led by disreputable fact checking operations like Lead Stories, has been initiated to stifle independent voices on the social media giant, but they have been caught and forced to backtrack after trying to suppress news about camera malfunctions near Jeffrey Epstein’s cell during his mysterious death at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City last month.

“There were no media reports that a camera monitoring Epstein’s cell area malfunctioned in the hours before the accused sex traffickers death on Saturday August 10, 2019,” claimed Duke, the 26-year veteran of CNN who co-founded Lead Stories, in a blatant deception within the bogus fact check of the story that initially broke on Big League Politics.

Duke’s analysis was false because Big League Politics referenced a media report by digital media specialist Michael Coudrey that he initially refused to acknowledge in his phony fact check.

The phony fact checkers also targeted another BLP article to suppress the truth about Democrat tyrants in Virginia usurping unlawful authority against the 1st Amendment of the Constitution:

Last week, Big League Politics reported on a bill introduced in the Virginia legislature that would effectively criminalize dissent against government officials.

Virginia House Bill 1627 was introduced by Democrat Delegate Jeffrey M. Bourne to protect government officials from so-called harassment caused by “indecent language” transmitted over a “computer or computer network.”

The full language reads as follows: “If any person, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, or harass any person, shall use a computer or computer network to communicate obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language, or make any suggestion or proposal of an obscene nature, or threaten any illegal or immoral act, he is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.”

The legislation applies the above provision directly to “the Governor, Governor-elect, Lieutenant Governor, Lieutenant Governor-elect, Attorney General, or Attorney General-elect, a member or employee of the General Assembly, a justice of the Supreme Court of Virginia, or a judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia.”

Because of the intentionally nebulous and vague nature of the terminology in the legislation, the legislation constitutes a blanket ban of criticism on public officials. A judge, likely appointed by the government officials in question, would determine what constitutes harassment as well as what constitutes “obscene, vulgar, profane, lewd, lascivious, or indecent language.”

In short, the egregiously unconstitutional bill would make free speech dependent on rulings by biased government appointees, and cause a chilling effect on those who wish to speak out against public officials. This is the type of intolerable act that the Founding Fathers waged a revolutionary war to put to an end.

The Orwellian truth commission set up by Facebook found fault with the report and took measures to prevent it from being disseminated widely on the platform. They had their hired goons at Politifact flag the story as fake news in order to restrict the story from being shared and prevent social media users from knowing the truth about what is happening in Virginia.

Politifact claims that the legislation “spells out criminal penalties for harassment of or threats made to certain state officials. It does not affect ordinary free speech.” This is an assessment that is at best embarrassingly naive, but more likely the cognizant disinformation from a guilty and complicit agent of Big Brother.

The Orwellian push by Silicon Valley corporations is intensifying before the election. They must lose their Section 230 subsidies under the federal government for their heinous and anti-American business practices against free speech.

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


Trending