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: Mike Lee Passes Big Tech H-1B Visa Giveaway in Senate Without Objection

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

Twitter Suspends Election Whistleblower After Giving Riveting Testimony in Arizona about Mathematical Fraud

This isn’t the first time.

Published

on

Throughout the day in Arizona, many credible whistleblowers have stepped forward to give testimony about the multitude of irregularities that occurred during the election.

One expert witness, Bobby Fiton, attested to mathematical fraud during the election that casts serious doubt on the vote totals as they are currently reported. He made a particularly powerful statement with regards to Gov. Doug Ducey, who certified the dubious vote while whistleblowers were going on the record.

“If I was an executive at a publicly-traded company, I would never sign that because I risk jailtime and having all my money taken from me in lawsuits,” he said.

“I would have never, ever certified. I would have rather resigned than certify those results… I believe they’re fraudulent based on the data,” Fiton continued.

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.

“And my sister asked me a simple question this morning, she goes: ‘How sure are you?’ And my sister’s a pretty stubborn person like me, and I said: ‘I’d be willing to put my life on it.’ I’m that sure about the analysis assuming that the data that I got from the state and everything else was accurate,” he added.

A clip of Fiton’s testimony can be seen here:

Immediately after he issued his testimony, Fiton was banned on Twitter to prevent his analysis from being widely understood by the masses:

Twitter had previously done this to the personal account of state senator Doug Mastriano to stop his anti-fraud efforts from gaining momentum immediately after similar hearings were held in Pennsylvania last week.

“We move heaven and earth with American dollars to secure elections in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. We can’t do it in our own state?” Mastriano said at the hearing. “There’s people in Pennsylvania not interested in safe, secure elections.”

Big League Politics has reported on Twitter’s assault on conservatives, which includes a recent hire of an extreme far-left activist as head of conversational safety:

The media company Protocol, a sister site of Politico, recently published an article about Twitter’s new “head of product for conversational safety,” Christine Su. It claims that Su, a “young, queer Asian-American businesswoman,” is revolutionizing what “user safety” on social media means.

Twitter hired Su around six months ago to be in charge of “what might be the most difficult task on Twitter,” despite having no apparent experience in politics, programming, and media relations. But Twitter seems to like her for her “creative” and “somewhat radical new ideas” about user safety.

“As a queer woman of color who is an Asian American in tech in rural America, that experience is a very intersectional one. I’ve had plenty of experiences moving through spaces where I wanted more safety,” Su said.

Protocol writes that Su’s vision incorporates “transformative and procedural justice.” Transformative justice ostensibly refers to a non-retributive form of repairing harm done to someone and preventing it from happening again; procedural justice to enacting a set of rules that “make harm rarer in the first place.”

This all sounds nice and dandy—but beware. So-called transformative and procedural justice will not benefit you, but will crush you. Anything that’s perceived as “harmful” against “women and people from marginalized groups” can and will be used to censor you. Christine Su may reassuringly claim that “the point is not to make the entire world a safe space,” but she’s open about the fact that she will help give the Coalition of the Fringes more control over what people are allowed to do and say on Twitter.

Big Tech has emerged as an existential threat to the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If they succeed in validating Biden’s electoral fraud, it will mean an end to America and a death sentence for Western Civilization.

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


Trending