Dennis Prager Peddles Complete Nonsense About 'Google Censorship' In The WSJ

from the this-is-bullshit dept

Another day, another major publication peddling complete and utter bullshit about big internet platforms. The latest is Dennis Prager, whose Wall Street Journal op-ed, Don’t Let Google Get Away With Censorship (possibly paywalled) is so utterly full of wrong that it should maybe be a canonical example of how to bloviate wrongness. The entire premise is bullshit, with most of it focusing on the made up claim that YouTube is somehow censoring Prager’s videos because of his “conservative” viewpoints. We’ve debunked Prager’s arguments in great detail before, but apparently we need to do so again.

As a quick summary: a very small percentage (less than 12%) of Prager’s videos are put into “restricted” mode. This does not demonetize them. It only means that the very small percentage of people who have opted-in to set up YouTube to not return videos that are inappropriate for children (which is less than 1.5% of YouTube’s users) don’t see that small percentage of YouTube videos in their search results. This includes videos with titles like: “Born to Hate Jews” and “Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?” which “includes an animated depiction of a nearly naked man lunging at a group of women.” You might recognize why people at YouTube thought this might not be appropriate for children. But Prager insists that it’s evidence of an anti-conservative bias.

Also, as we pointed out, many YouTube channels that come from sources that most would consider to be much more “liberal” find a much higher percentage of their videos put into the same restricted mode. This includes Stephen Colbert (13%), The Huffington Post (14%), The History Channel (?!?) (24%), Vox (28%), Sam Seder (36%), Buzzfeed, (40%), Democracy Now (46%), Last Week Tonight (50%), The Daily Show (55%) and The Young Turks at a whopping 71%. To argue that having fewer than 12% of your videos put into this restricted mode is evidence of anti-conservative censorship is pretty ridiculous, but this is Dennis Prager we’re talking about, and he’s up to the task:

But the issue is much more complex. I was asked to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on this matter for two reasons. One is the size of my website, Prager University, which gets a billion views a year, the majority of which come from viewers under 35. The more important reason is that YouTube, which is owned by Google, has at various times placed about 100 of our videos on its restricted list. That means any home, institution or individual using a filter to block pornography and violence cannot see those videos. Nor can any school or library.

Again, this makes the problem sound much bigger than it really is — and it has nothing to do with anti-conservative bias.

Conservatives who defend Google or merely oppose any government interference argue that Google is a private company, and private companies are free to publish or not publish whatever they want. But Google, YouTube and Facebook choose not to be regarded as ?publishers? because publishers are liable for what they publish and can be sued for libel.

This is, again, a total misrepresentation. There is no “choice.” Google, YouTube, and Facebook don’t get to “choose” if they’re regarded as publishers or platforms — the law says that they are not liable as publishers for third party content (for very good reason). Prager is misrepresenting Section 230 like sites have to make some sort of decision about what to be. But that’s simply incorrect.

Congress gave Google and other social media an exemption from such lawsuits in 1996, with the Communications Decency Act. Section 230 of that bill provided these companies with immunity against defamation and some other legal claims. The clear intent of Section 230?the bargain Congress made with the tech companies?was to promote free speech while allowing companies to moderate indecent content without being classified as publishers.

Congress gave all internet websites that protection (not “exemption”) from bogus lawsuits, because it recognized that without it, bogus lawsuits (the things that folks like Prager used to be against) would flood the docket, and we’d be much better off if lawsuits were properly targeted at those who violated the laws, rather than the tools and services that they used.

But Google and the others have violated this agreement. They want to operate under a double standard: censoring material that has no indecent content?that is, acting like publishers?while retaining the immunity of nonpublishers. When YouTube puts PragerU?s content on the restricted list, when Twitter bans conservative actor James Woods, they are no longer open forums.

Again, this is literally wrong. Section 230 was designed to encourage sites to create “family friendly” zones — that is exactly why then Rep. Chris Cox wrote it, in response to the awful Stratton Oakmont v. Prodigy ruling. In that ruling, Prodigy, which heavily moderated its forums to be “family friendly,” got held liable for content it did not moderate. Cox wanted to prevent that situation from happening, and thus created Section 230. Based on this history, YouTube’s use of restricted mode is literally exactly why Cox passed the law, in order to encourage sites like YouTube to create more “family friendly” areas, so that kids don’t end up seeing violent and sexual content, such as those portrayed in Prager’s videos. There is no “double standard” here. There is no “violation” of the agreement. There is YouTube doing exactly what the law was intended to do, and a whiny Dennis Prager complaining about it and misrepresenting what has happened to his videos (and misrepresenting the law as well).

Richard Hanania, research fellow at the Saltzman Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University, undertook a study of Twitter political bias and concluded: ?My results make it difficult to take claims of political neutrality seriously. Of 22 prominent, politically active individuals who are known to have been suspended since 2005 and who expressed a preference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, 21 supported Donald Trump.?

This is wrong. We thoroughly debunked this study earlier in the year. The “list” of Twitter accounts that Prager seems to think showed proof of anti-conservative bias included literal Nazis (the American Nazi Party was one of the accounts), as well as notorious trolls and hoaxers. And, of course, this also comes soon after this very same WSJ published an article it claimed was from a “conservative” ex-Googler who claimed he was fired for “whistleblowing” on anti-conservative bias, but who actually was engaged in trollish support for white supremacists.

Defenders of Google also argue that some left-wing sites have an even greater percentage of their videos on the restricted list. But this is not an apples-to-apples comparison. When left-wing sites are restricted it is because their videos contain expletives or material truly inappropriate for children, not because they are left-wing. PragerU videos do not contain expletives and are very suitable for children. Our videos are restricted only because they are conservative.

This is Prager’s weak attempt to respond to the point that we’ve raised numerous times before (and did above) about all those other, left-leaning, sites finding even more of their videos in restricted mode. But, note that he doesn’t actually respond to that point. He just insists that those other videos were properly put into the restricted mode list, while his videos were not (remember: some of his videos that were restricted, depicted violence and sexual content). And therefore it “must be” because he’s a conservative. This is nonsense, and the WSJ should be ashamed for publishing it.

If the four major U.S. airlines announced they would not allow passengers carrying The Wall Street Journal to travel to some American cities, would any conservatives or libertarians defend the airlines? right, as private companies, to do so?

Yes? I think many conservatives and libertarians would defend that? Just like they would defend PragerU publishing videos that are full of racist, bigoted nonsense. Because he has a right to spew ignorance. And others have the right to (a) respond to it or (b) not to carry it on their own platforms. But here, YouTube isn’t even doing that. It’s not removing videos. It’s not demonetizing them. It’s merely putting a very small percentage of videos onto a restricted list because it decides that those videos are inappropriate for children.

Also, Prager notably leaves out that the lawsuit that he filed over this whole thing was tossed out as the judge noted that Prager’s argument was a complete non-starter. I guess Prager’s next WSJ article will be about how the courts have an anti-conservative bias as well?

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: google, wall street journal, youtube

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Dennis Prager Peddles Complete Nonsense About 'Google Censorship' In The WSJ”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
124 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Important to note:

Indeed, Google could and should give him a big middle finger. As a private entity they don’t owe anything to anyone much less propaganda spreading crooks like him. Google could spitefully single him out for deplatforming and he has zero legal ground to stand on even if the treatment is arbitrary, other than bitch and whine like a moron for public pity points.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

False claims of censorship on the internet are a technology related issue that falls under the general topic of this website, on top of the fact that Mike can post whatever he damn well pleases on his own site. But it also has advertisements and store merchandise that mean conceptually talking about topics others are interested in could be indirect sources of revenue, so in a way, Prager is paying rent by making his absurd claims that Mike can debunk for our entertainment and ad views.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"We no longer live in a world of absolutes, the truth exists in shades of grey."

Only in the twisted minds of bigots who desperately want to portray themselves as presenting absolute villainy as a "gray-scale" area.

Forcing private entities to lend their private properties as platforms for the bullhorns of white supremacists is a digital question – there’s only in practice a yes or no answer. There may be issues with one answer – when private entities can set their own rules for their own property – but the outcome of the alternative answer is completely unacceptable to any form of basic democracy.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

When you are still clinging to your ancient business model & all of the advertising tricks & paywalls didn’t pan out… Just try to kill the internet… that will TOTES make people come back to print, & we’ll totes forgive you for doing it & believe anything you report now since you pinky swore to stop lying so you could be relevant again.

urza9814 (profile) says:

And YT ignores own policies....

Prager also seems to spend a large amount of money on advertising on other YouTube videos, if the ads I am constantly seeing are any indication. And I’ve noticed that a number of those ads violate YouTube’s acceptable content policies, but there’s nothing you can do about that on paid content. There’s no way to flag or block the ads the way you can with a channel. There’s no way to report them, there’s no contact information for YT, there’s nothing you can do. Pay a couple bucks and YouTube will apparently let you spew as much hate and promote as much violence as you want, targeted at the exact audiences you want to target. You can’t post objectionable videos, because advertisers might not want to be associated with that, but the advertisers can post all the objectionable content they want and force any channel they choose to be associated with them.

…which is one of many reasons why I’m ditching YT for Floatplane, LBRY, and Nebula.

urza9814 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: And YT ignores own policies....

…and no wonder I haven’t seen it before, looks like it didn’t exist until pretty recently — archive.org has no record of it before last May, which is definitely after the last time I looked for it.

So yeah, DECADES later they finally add that ability…except it only applies to half of the content that it needs to. Typical, Google…

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 And YT ignores own policies....

So, to sum up your comments:

You’ve insisted on using YouTube’s free version rather than the ad-free premium version or a competitor. You don’t bother to install an ad blocker or seek any solution not provided in the basic interface. The issue is one that annoys you so much that you’re ranting about the issue over a year after the last time you looked for a solution that didn’t require the effort of 3rd party software or paying for the service, but now you’re even angrier that they didn’t meet all your needs with the solutions they did provide without you making the effort.

Good on you for actually deciding to vote with your wallet so to speak, but hopefully you realise the problems here.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: And YT ignores own policies....

"Prager also seems to spend a large amount of money on advertising on other YouTube videos, if the ads I am constantly seeing are any indication"

I don’t think I’ve ever seen such an ad. Perhaps there’s something about your history that makes them keep appearing for you? Try using an ad blocker, or paying for the ad free service.

"You can’t post objectionable videos, because advertisers might not want to be associated with that, but the advertisers can post all the objectionable content they want"

If you’re not paying YouTube, the advertisers are their customers, not you.

"force any channel they choose to be associated with them"

Well, any channel that doesn’t bother using the tools available to them to control the ads that are displayed.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Please provide the following:

Evidence of anti-conservative bias in moderation efforts by the sites in question.

Specific definitions of which views are being banned. "Conservative" is too brad and malleable to be meaningful on its own.

Evidence that the same moderation efforts are not also applied to non-conservative viewpoints (remember to define conservative viewpoints in the prior step).

In doing this, remember that there are over 300 million users on Twitter alone. Please ensure to present enough examples that it doesn’t come out to rounding error when compared to overall moderation efforts.

I look forward to your response.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

So weird how whenver anyone asks any of these guys to provide clear and quantifiable evidence to back up their claims of anti-conservative bias, they mysteriously disappear from the conversation.

But I’m sure they’ll be back making the same claims the next time Mike posts an article about ginned-up claims of anti-conservative bias in social media. At least, until someone asks them for evidence again.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

Admit it – you don’t actually have any evidence, so you attempt to attack the motivations of those asking for it to shore up a position that otherwise has nothing to support it.

If the evidence can be discredited, it wasn’t worth anything. You should be glad to share it and have it gone over with a fine-tooth comb. If it’s legit, the failure of attempts to discredit it would only validate your position.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Then offer the “other side of the argument” that isn’t mere conjecture. Point out the facts that prove anti-conservative bias — i.e., how conservatives are being banned only for expressing “conservative views”, what those “conservative views” are, and how said views don’t violate the TOS but get conservatives in trouble anyway. If you can’t do that, fuck off with your for-its-own-sake contrarianism.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

"those who are absolutely positive that there is no bias in social media"

Who claims that? I have read posts here that say there is bias in everything and that websites are free to be as biased as they please because that is the way it is with private enterprise. I do not recall anyone protesting with claims of no bias whatsoever.
If you are not pleased with your experience on one particular website, why not go elsewhere to get your fix? Certainly there are websites that line up with your opinions – yes? What is it that you do not like about those websites that espouse your pov? Is it a compulsion to argue?

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"If you are not pleased with your experience on one particular website, why not go elsewhere to get your fix? Certainly there are websites that line up with your opinions – yes? What is it that you do not like about those websites that espouse your pov? Is it a compulsion to argue?"

Because the bigots and racists who keep getting their asses banned and their posts downvoted aren’t happy just posting in the stormfront echo chamber. They feel entitled to take their bullhorn to forums which hold actual credibility and get miffed over the fact that most sane people decide not to read their manifestos of hatred and bile.

White supremacists just aren’t content with talking about how the N**s and ks are taking over the world and coveting white women with other good old boys in funky basements. They want to espouse those opinions in open daylight with the surrounding crowd of normal people rendered unable to boo and hiss.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The existence of a contrary opinion does not an argument make. Nor do contradicting statements necessarily deserve equal merit.

I can claim as loud as I like that I have been silenced for being too conservative, but that doesn’t mean my claim should be given equal consideration with that of the librarians who asked me to please stop yelling in the kid’s section.

Anonymous Coward says:

The problem is that those who want to believe alkthis horse shit because it is beneficial to whatever ridiculous agenda they have. However, when the truth is published because it’s couner productive to the cause they are championing, not only is it denied, its ridiculed. The truth is always harder to accept than a load of crap, especially when the load of crap is what is wanted

Anonymous Coward says:

Part of the editorial Mike left out...

From the editorial… (for those of you too busy to actually read the damn thing)

"PragerU releases a five-minute video every week. As of this writing, 56 of its 320 videos are on YouTube’s restricted list. They include videos such as “Israel’s Legal Founding” (by Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz ); “Why America Invaded Iraq” (by Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts ); “Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?” (by the Somali-American women’s-rights activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali ); “Are the Police Racist?” (by the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald ); and “Why Is Modern Art So Bad?” (by artist Robert Florczak )."

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Thank you! You make the point exactly."

The point that the youtube label of "restricted for underage children" should be removed from videos which containg graphic descriptions of sexual abuse, racism, violence, etc?

I think I’ll agree with youtube that putting the "restricted" label on those videos so they can only be viewed by clicking "Yes, i’m over 18" is quite appropriate.

Care to illustrate why you feel that 5-year olds should be educated about those topics without any warning?

TFG says:

Re: Part of the editorial Mike left out...

The restricted list is about videos not being appropriate for consumption by children.

I can very much understand that these videos may well not be suitable for consumption by children. The titles alone are not indicative of all content (though, honestly, "Are the Police Racist?" is probably not something a 5 year old should be watching).

These videos are not censored or taken down, nor are they demonetized. They are just restricted from view by children, for those accounts that have decided to activate said controls.

So, what’s your point?

Anonymous Coward says:

Library Filters

"That means any home, institution or individual using a filter to block pornography and violence cannot see those videos. Nor can any school or library."

My librarian bride has worked in six different library systems of different sizes and political mien. In all systems that employed them, filters were defaults as required by the government under CIPA (Child Internet Protection Act) rules in exchange for federal funding. Any individual, adult patron can waive CIPA filters at any time, gaining full access to the unvarnished Interwebz in all of its glorious depravity, e.g., Dennis Prager.

Zof (profile) says:

Best watch that racebaiting.

Racebaiting is perhaps the worst form of racism, and the worst kind of racist simply because of how disrespectful it is to reduce a very real struggle that ruined many many lives to your talking point. And it’s rarely a person of color doing the racebaiting. You’ll notice that. There’s a rich whiteness to the racebaiter typically.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Maybe he should get a different one.

race baitingverb; always unhyphenated

  1. (derogatory) Dismissal of any criticism of racist policies/racial discrimination as an act that needlessly incites racial tension where none supposedly exists

    • Example: “I first thought Mike was writing [the article] until I saw the race baiting section.”
    1. The use of dogwhistle politics to incite racial tension
    2. Making an association between a person or people of a certain racial/ethnic group and someone of the same race/ethnicity who has a low public reputation to smear all people of that race/ethnicity
    • Example: “Donald Trump engaged in race baiting when he described Mexicans as ‘rapists’ during his presidential campaign.”

race-baitingadjective; always hyphenated

  1. (derogatory) Descriptor for a person whose criticism of racist policies/racial discrimination needlessly incites racial tension where none supposedly exists

    • Example: “Black people who keep talking about racism are nothing but race-baiting assholes.”
  2. Descriptor for a person who engages in race baiting [See: race baiting, def. 2]

    • Example: “Donald Trump has been a race-baiting asshole ever since he began his presidential campaign.”
AN69 (profile) says:

Mike, you lost me

"… are inappropriate for children (which is less than 1.5% of YouTube’s users)… "
doesn’t make any sense. Frankly I have not idea how anyone could even think that number is realistic. You mean to say that within the US (330,000,000 People) that only 2 million children look at YouTube. MIKE.. THAT is BULLSHIT.

I read the article in the WSJ. There was more to his argument than you let on .. but you are a publisher and can say anything you want.

The numbers that get bounced around are ALL garbage and anyone can make those made up numbers to make a point.

The real issue is does Tweeter, YouTube, etc want to be PUBLISHERS and be responsible for what is seen or not seen or do they want the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to protect them. I really don’t see how they can have it both ways.

I really don’t care what the hell Prager, AOC, Alex Jones and all the other IDIOT brain dead excrement want to say. But when some claims 203 and at the same time says that a video of a threats of to a Senator can’t be posted .. your REALLY have to believe that there is something screwed up. It was only after a bunch of Republicans and Democrats that are now investigating the likes of YouTube; that YouTube "claimed after multiple appeals from affected parties," they "reviewed this case more closely." That is publishing.. all the news that we think you should see until we get called on it.

What about a little guy like me… I am quite sure that any video threats directed at me that I posted on YouTube would be banned .. well just because I’m not a Senator or member of Congress and some little ass-wipe in California doesn’t like it because I think something different from whatever the ass-wipe thinks I should think or believe.

They are publishers or 203.. not both ways.. Too simple.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re:

There was more to his argument than you let on

By all means, explain what more to his argument there was beyond “YouTube isn’t letting me reach all the people I want to reach”.

I really don’t see how they can have it both ways.

I do. CDA 230 empowers Twitter, YouTube, etc. to moderate third party speech on their platforms. So long as those companies have no direct role in publishing speech — i.e., if YouTube doesn’t directly aid Prager U in uploading videos — those companies are not publishers. And even if they were publishers, legal liability for published content is the only real difference. Publishers have as much right to decide what will be published in their offerings as YouTube does to decide what speech will be available on its platform (and whether that speech will be hidden by an age-gate restriction).

when some claims [230] and at the same time says that a video of a threats of to a Senator can’t be posted[,] you[ ]REALLY have to believe that there is something screwed up

Not really. Nobody ever said enforcement of moderation rules must remain consistent for a platform to retain CDA 230 protections. And besides, YouTube can legally refuse to host speech that contains threats of violence regardless of the context in which that speech is presented.

That is publishing[:] all the news that we think you should see until we get called on it.

And your point is…what, exactly? Publishing news will always be fraught with bias. Someone must decide what to publish, what to distill out of the mass of available data, and what facts to check.

What about a little guy like me… I am quite sure that any video threats directed at me that I posted on YouTube would be banned

…why the hell would you be threatening violence against yourself on YouTube?

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Mike, you lost me

"… are inappropriate for children (which is less than 1.5% of YouTube’s users)… "
doesn’t make any sense.

The reason it doesn’t make any sense is that you cut the first part of the sentence off.

the very small percentage of people who have opted-in to set up YouTube to not return videos that are inappropriate for children (which is less than 1.5% of YouTube’s users)

Less than 1.5% of YouTube’s users have opted-in to remove videos that are inappropriate for children.

Although I suppose your parsing, that less than 1.5% of YouTube’s users are videos, is technically also correct.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Mike, you lost me

"… are inappropriate for children (which is less than 1.5% of YouTube’s users)… "

Odd that you missed the first part of the sentence, where it notes that I’m talking about how many YouTube users opt-in to use the restricted list.

MIKE.. THAT is BULLSHIT.

Nah, friend. What’s "BULLSHIT" is your ability to miss the first half of a sentence and misrepresent the second. Work on that.

I read the article in the WSJ. There was more to his argument than you let on .. but you are a publisher and can say anything you want.

No, there isn’t. Or, at least, feel free to add in the part that I did not "let on". Because there isn’t. And you don’t provide it.

The numbers that get bounced around are ALL garbage and anyone can make those made up numbers to make a point.

The 1.5% came from a filing in the court in Prager’s lawsuit. Say what you want about Google, the idea that they’re file bogus numbers in court is… unlikely to be true.

The real issue is does Tweeter, YouTube, etc want to be PUBLISHERS and be responsible for what is seen or not seen or do they want the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to protect them. I really don’t see how they can have it both ways.

Then you don’t understand CDA 230. There is nothing in Section 230 that says companies "pick" whether they’re platforms or publishers. It says that no one online — user or internet site — gets blamed for 3rd party content. That’s just about correct application of liability. It ALSO says that no provider should face liability for their attempts to moderate. You totally ignore that last part, just like you ignored the first half of my sentence above.

Why?

But when some claims 203 and at the same time says that a video of a threats of to a Senator can’t be posted .. your REALLY have to believe that there is something screwed up.

Uh… what?

It was only after a bunch of Republicans and Democrats that are now investigating the likes of YouTube; that YouTube "claimed after multiple appeals from affected parties," they "reviewed this case more closely." That is publishing.. all the news that we think you should see until we get called on it.

I have no idea what case you’re talking about, but you’re still wrong. CDA 230 actively encourages (in fact, was written to encourage) content moderation by internet sites. Literally from the law: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material." It was literally written to encourage moderation.

What about a little guy like me… I am quite sure that any video threats directed at me that I posted on YouTube would be banned .. well just because I’m not a Senator or member of Congress and some little ass-wipe in California doesn’t like it because I think something different from whatever the ass-wipe thinks I should think or believe.

What the fuck are you talking about?

They are publishers or 203.. not both ways.. Too simple.

You okay?

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Some 'interesting' friends there...

You just gotta love that of all the pieces of ‘evidence’ he could have trotted out he chose a ‘study’ that not only had a laughably small sample size but which included literal self-described nazis as evidence for how conservatives are being treated ‘unfairly’.

You’d think by now that the people making such claims would have figured out that pointing to nazis and how they are being booted, only to claim that as evidence of how their side is being discriminated against might not be a good idea as it gives some rather telling impressions, none of them good.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re: Re:

"Erm, OK, what kind of views?"
""Born to Hate Jews""
"Erm, OK, what kind of people?"
""the American Nazi Party""

To be fair I can’t blame the white supremacists for wanting another venue than stormfront to peddle their toxic message through. That place is a toilet.

Bluntly put, since they have shat all over the floor of their own dank basement they now want to be allowed to shit on the carpet of other people’s living room unhindered.
Surely, at least in their minds, that isn’t an unreasonable demand. To claim otherwise is just supporting state-mandated censorship.

Right?

/s

Sheilaaliens (profile) says:

Google Insider will be coming out tomorrow

You’re going to have to rewrite your entire article once you realize that a Google insider is coming out TODAY and releasing hundreds of documents and he has turned them all over to the doj and it explains exactly how their algorithms discriminate politically. Your propaganda piece is garbage.

That One Guy says:

Re: Where to even begin...

Given how that worked out the last time a ‘Google insider’ supposedly came out talking about how they had proof Google has an anti-conservative bias you’ll excuse me if I don’t hold my breath.

If they actually do have evidence that the company has and implements algorithms that (somehow) discriminate ‘politically’ they’d certainly be the first, but funny thing, as pointed out by others before on TD even if they did they would still be in the clear, as both the first amendment and 230 allow them to ‘discriminate’ on political basis all they want, so invoking the DOJ isn’t going to get you or them very far.

As a side note I do find it rather funny that you apparently have a serious problem with TD’s ‘propaganda piece’ while ignoring that it’s tearing up Prager’s utterly garbage propaganda piece itself, as while TD’s position may turn out to be faulty due to lacking certain information his tripe is based upon already debunked claims and a ‘study’ that literally included nazis in a list of ‘conservatives’.

TFG says:

Re: Re: Re: Google Insider will be coming out tomorrow

Charitably speaking, they’re referring to a different Google Insider, since that guy’s already made his statement and released what he had, and they’re talking about somebody new.

I just hope they have someone other than Project Lacking-in-Veritas, or they really won’t have a leg to stand on.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Is it today or tomorrow bro?

Congrats on badly having the cognitive ability to create a profile. ???? Now I know you won’t answer, but I’ll ask anyway. Do you get paid in rubles, US currency, or Vodka?

I mean it’s not like you couldn’t figure out the difference in time zones between St Petersburg and NYC in your own post.

Thad (profile) says:

Re: Google Insider will be coming out tomorrow

checks calendar

Time’s up, Sheila.

You know, the funny thing about your "There is a document dump tomorrow!" foolishness? If there actually had been, all you would have had to do is wait one day to write your gloating nonsense.

Next time you’re predicting something’s about to happen — within a day, even! — why not just wait and see if it happens before you pipe up? That way, if you’re wrong, nobody will ever know, and you won’t publicly make a fool of yourself.

dickeyrat says:

I personally worked with Dennis Prager in talk-radio some 35 years ago, before he became a tool of the Fascists, but as he was establishing a justified reputation as a scholar on Judaism. It was a joy to know him, his first wife, and to meet his parents–all warm and wonderful people. Around ten years later, I met his second wife, who radiated "cold shafts of broken glass", to quote Pink Floyd. Dennis had achieved a growing level of success as a talk-radio host in the ensuing years, and had become completely unapproachable, as he bought mightily into his own P.R. For a number of years into 2019, Dennis has hosted his own daily national show produced and distributed by the Salem Radio Network. What I’d like to know is, how can Dennis Prager–not as a blind, bleating Trump defender who seems unbowed by his "pussy-grabbing" would-be dictator, but strictly as a Jewish scholar, which he will always be regardless–how can he be comfortably at home in the same literal workplace as given to a known, blatant holocaust denier and open toady to European Nazis, "Dr." Sebastian Gorka, a former paid Trump acolyte and current-colleague talk-radio host, following Prager with his own daily national Salem talk-radio show? Gorka was documented as rubbing elbows with then-current Nazi pillars in Europe, a little over ten years ago. "Dr." Gorka was seen publicly since, proudly wearing a pin commemorating the Hungarian Guard, an organization which traces its roots back to the original German Nazi Party. Salem fired Michael Medved, and gave his daily slot to Gorka at the beginning of this year, where he holds forth daily sounding like satan himself spewing out far-far-right barking points with a rich, deeply clipped English accent–despite being allegedly Hungarian. All this with no objection whatsoever from Prager, who now betrays his own heritage giving tacit aid and comfort to one who would send his (Prager’s) own people to gas chambers, making lampshades out of their skin.

dickeyrat says:

Re: Re: Links

This further explains his club-memberships, his somewhat bogus "Ph.D", and allegedly negates his anti-semitism, though failing to reconcile that with his organizational activities. A real sweetheart he is, who loves to conceal-carry…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Gorka

FYI, we also have this…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/18/sebastian-gorka-hungary-fugitive-white-house-aide

And, this WaPo claim, after his check cleared…
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/12/former-white-house-aide-gorka-no-longer-wanted-for-arrest-by-hungarian-police-mystery-lingers/

My PC is possessed, so these may not actually "link", but they will "paste-and-go".

dickeyrat says:

Re: Re:

For the sake of full-profile disclosure, Salem spews their far-reich bile on potent market-worthy AM signals in NYC, Philly, Pittsburgh, D.C., Atlanta, Orlando, Tampa, Chicago, Louisville, St. Louis, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Phoenix, L.A., San Diego, S.F., Portland, Seattle and Honolulu. They barely show in the Nielsen ratings in some markets, and not at all in others. Their audience is a sort of "invisible empire", to borrow a phrase.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Some of these guys are in so deep, they assume that the reason why Veritas is the only organisation coming up with these stories is because they’re the only ones valiant enough to stand up to state the truth. The fact that nobody’s talking about it is because it’s just some crap James O’Keefe dreamed up after his last bunch of scams failed either hasn’t occurred to them, or it’s just another cozy lie they prefer to believe rather than fact the facts that their worldview just isn’t all that popular.

Anonymous Coward says:

I don’t get it … even if private business websites censor the contents of user submitted material, that is not illegal so long as it is not based upon race, religion, sex, and all that.
These same folk who argue for forced hosting of material on private business websites also believe that private business should be allowed to not serve whomever they so designate regardless of any prior laws, ie; race, religion, sex, and all that.
This point of view is a bit confusing for me because if one were to analyze and compare the two there seems to be a huge hypocrisy. I think what they really want is the ability to skirt the law based upon their religion all the while forcing others to adhere to the laws they write for everyone else.
Well, obviously, their silly little scheme will not fly.

JC_ says:

GOOGLE BRIBES CLERKS, JUDGES, ETC.

The PEOPLES REPUBLIC HAS DEFAULTED case #1:20-cv-00099 Eastern District of Missouri and has effectively issued a Waiver of Service, in admission of waging [[Biological warfare]] against the World with the Help of the media and DemoNcratic Party. Wind maybe 11th Plague of Passover, it blew Joe Biden down steps, and Ever Given to block Suez Canal. Who has ever given to God, that God should repay them Romans 11:35-36. On 26MAR2021Jeffrey Cutler filed a 345 page MOTION TO INTERVENE, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BECAUSE OF CRIMES (18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1 & MAIL FRAUD AND TO COMBINE CASES FOR JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in case #27-CR-20-012646 STATE OF MINNESOTA v. DEREK CHAUVIN. Despite sending this to over 400 reporters and lawyers there is not one story about what JC is doing. This is in a effect a change in venue to MO and combine with case 1:20-cv-00099 Eastern District of MO. This is the same day that in 1933 : Leader Herman Goering spoke his point of view regarding the mistreatment of Jews. He made a statement that the persecution of a person just because he (or she) is a Jew will not be tolerated, and the Camp David Peace Treaty was signed. <ref> http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/march26th.html </ref> The Parable of the Unjust Judge (also known as the Parable of the Importunate Widow or the Parable of the Persistent Widow), is one of the parables of Jesus which appears in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 18:1–8). In it, a judge who lacks compassion is repeatedly approached by a poor widow, seeking justice. On 11MAR2021 JEFFREY CUTLER FILED A MAIL FRAUD COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA FOR CLAIMING THEY REFUSED A 321 PAGE MOTION TO INTERVENE, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BECAUSE OF CRIMES (18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1 & MAIL FRAUD AND TO COMBINE CASES FOR JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in case #1:20-cv-00099 in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI received on or near 16FEB2021 at their embassy in Washington, DC (tracking 9505 5141 4909 1042 6153 86) at their DC Embassy (3505 International Place, NW) and after opening the document one week later (24FEB2021) claimed the document was REFUSED in a conspiracy with the POST OFFICE to CHEAT the UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT of RETURN POSTAGE and follow the LAWS of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. This effectively PUTS the PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA in DEFAULT for violating the LAWS of the UNITED STATES. Inside the document is a 193 page report that COVID-19 is LAB DERIVED and JEFFREY CUTLER was claiming CHINA has engaged in Bio-Warfare with the WORLD based on a previous actions with HEPARIN and pet food and that the testing supplies are tainted and may be spreading the disease in the United States. The media and political leaders have been BRIBED to go along with MASKS and distance are the ONLY cure when PNEUMOVAX23 and Prevnar13 which are the PRIME COMPLICATION TO THE COVID-19 and FLU that result in DEATH from pneumococcal disease and Ivermectin to treat the COVID-19 <ref> https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ </ref> Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgCle8F_zUk for more information and read comments sorted newest first. Also see <ref> https://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/case/jeffrey-cutler-v-u-s-dept-of-health-human-services/ </ref> and <ref>https://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/corman-v-torres </ref> <ref>https://redistricting.lls.edu/files/PA%20corman%2020180724%20brief.pdf </ref><ref> https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27231978/CUTLER_v_PELOSI_et_al </ref> As an Official Whistle Blower in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Jeffrey Cutler declares the actions Mr. Krasner, the Mayor of Philadelphia, and the Governor were a concerted effort to legally Murder Jews and Blacks. Mr. Cutler ran for governor as a Pro Se candidate against Tom Wolf and had an advertisement in the METRO paper on 24OCT2018 page 15 :titled “SAVE BILL COSBY”. On 03JAN2019 [[Nancy Pelosi]] made a false statement in court via her lawyer (Mr Donald B. Verilli Jr.) and stated “[N]o one would be hurt and the greater justice would be attained” and violated (18 USC § 1001) on 03JAN2019 on page 24 of the filing that was made in case 4:18-cv-00167-0, a significant federal crime. On 26FEB2019 Jeffrey Cutler filed a lawsuit in FEDERAL COURT 5:19-cv-00834 in [[Philadelphia]] against [[Nancy Pelosi]] called (CUTLER v. PELOSI, et al.). This is 26 YEARS AFTER THE FIRST WORLD TRADE CENTER BOMBING. THE EQUIVALENT OF THE KKK IS WORLDWIDE. Meghan Markle is being ATTACKED for TWO REASONS, ONE BECAUSE SHE IS HALF BLACK, TWO BECAUSE SHE IS HALF JEWISH. SHE POINTED OUT THE MEDIA ARE THE ATTACKERS. JEFFREY CUTLER HAD STATED SHE WOULD BE A BETTER VP FOR JOE BIDEN ON AIR (<ref> https://www.iheart.com/podcast/459-the-marc-scaringi-show-28240609/ </ref>, BECAUSE SHE HAD NO RECORD, SHE HAD INTERNATIONAL EXPOSURE, AND SHE IS A REAL PRINCESS. COVID-19 IS BIO-WARFARE AND BLACKS DIE AT TWICE THE RATE OF WHITE PEOPLE BECAUSE IT WORKS AS DESIGNED. On 04MAR2021 at about 1:20 PM Jeffrey Cutler filed a 312 page ERRATTA MOTION TO INTERVENE, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BECAUSE OF CRIMES (18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1 & MAIL FRAUD AND TO COMBINE CASES FOR JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in case 1:21-cv-00445 (U.S. DOMINION, et al. v MY PILLOW, et al.) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, as an INTERVENER DEFENDANT. On page 80 is screen print of complaint of ELECTORAL FRAUD made 24DEC2020, on page 81 is the mail fraud complaint against JOSH SHAPIRO for making FALSE certification by mail. On page 82 is a PRIVATE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT DATED JUNE 20, 2017 to JOSH SHAPIRO. On page 83 is time stamped Order from Robert Torres (DATED 12APR2018) that REQUIRES ALL VOTING METHODS IN PA HAVE A HARD COPY RECEIPT AVAILABLE, BY THE END OF 2019. The DROP BOXES IN PA FAILED TO HAVE A HARD COPY RECEIPT AVAILABLE, AND THEREFORE ALL VOTES VIA DROP BOXES ILLEGAL. RUSH LIMBAUGH died on ASH Wednesday and the same day they tried to ERASE TRUMP from Atlantic City. On 12FEB2021 at 10:41 AM JEFFREY CUTLER filed a 321 page MOTION TO INTERVENE, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BECAUSE OF CRIMES (18 U.S. Code § 1519 – Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records), 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1 & MAIL FRAUD AND TO COMBINE CASES FOR JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND SUMMARY JUDGEMENT in case 1:20-cv-00099 (THE STATE OF MISSOURI, et al. v THE PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA, et al.) for engaging in Bio-Warfare in COLLUSION with the DemoNcratic party. It contains a 193 page REPORT that SHOWS COVID-19 is LAB DERIVED (www.DrQuay.com) and they tested it on the SUBWAY in CHINA. Mr. Cutler claims that some of the testing kits are tainted and are being use purposely to infect people, and that is why the infection rate is so high IN THE UNITED STATES. Multiple Documents in Federal Court have vanished!! JOSH SHAPIRO (PENNSYLVANIA AG) has ENGAGED IN MAIL FRAUD ABOUT CERTIFICATION OF BALLOTS AND COMMITTED ELECTORAL FRAUD. PAGE 9 OF THE LINK BELOW IS TIME STAMPED PROOF OF ELECTORAL FRAUD, ORIGINALLY FILED IN FEDERAL COURT 20OCT2020 PAGE 169 OF USCA CASE 20-2936, PAGE 320 OF CASE 20-1422 FILED 13JAN2021 AT 4:10 PM AND PAGE 384 OF DOCUMENT FILED IN FIFTH CIRCUIT 21-40001 <ref> https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.181.0.pdf </ref> THE DROP BOXES IN PENNSYLVANIA FAILED TO HAVE HARD COPY RECEIPT AVAILABLE!!! BASED ON ORDER FROM TORRES PAID FOR WITH FEDERAL FUNDS ON 12APR2018. HARD COPY RECEIPT HAD TO BE AVAILABLE FOR ALL VOTING METHODS. ALL VOTES VIA DROP BOXES ILLEGAL AND COVERED UP BY FEDERAL COURT CLERKS, JUDGES, MEDIA DR. FAUCCI, KRISTEN WELKER and Persons of the CDC have LIED about an Approved Vaccine to Stop COMPLICATIONS from the FLU & COVID-19 & Ivermectin to treat it. <ref> https://nypost.com/2021/02/05/youtube-cancels-the-senate-and-other-commentary/ </ref> They are called PNEUMOVAX23 and Prevnar13 which are the PRIME COMPLICATION TO THE COVID-19 that result in DEATH from pneumococal disease and Ivermectin to treat it <ref> https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ </ref> <ref> https://www.diabetes.org/diabetes/medication-management/flu-and-pneumonia-shots </ref>. KRISTEN WELKER’S HUSBAND IS A MARKETING EXECUTIVE FOR MERCK. THE TESTING KITS ARE TAINTED AND HELPING TO INFECT PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD <ref>https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg53183/html/CHRG-110hhrg53183.htm </ref> <ref> https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/health/06heparin.html </ref> <ref> https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2008-mar-20-na-fda20-story.html </ref> <ref> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_pet_food_recalls </ref> <ref>https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-18/carcinogen-scare-tainted-zantac </ref> COVID-19 IS <ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare </ref> NOTE CHINA GONE FROM LISTS AND PROGRAMMED TO BE EXCLUDED JUST LIKE VOTES FOR TRUMP. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgCle8F_zUk for more information and read comments sorted newest first. Also see <ref> https://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/case/jeffrey-cutler-v-u-s-dept-of-health-human-services/ </ref> and Official Whistle Blower in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Jeffrey Cutler declares the actions Mr. Krasner, the Mayor of Philadelphia, and the Governor were a concerted effort to legally Murder Jews and Blacks. Mr. Cutler ran for governor as a Pro Se candidate against Tom Wolf and had an advertisement in the METRO paper on 24OCT2018 page 15 :titled “SAVE BILL COSBY”. On 03JAN2019 You CAN HIDE THE EVIDENCE, BUT YOU CANNOT HIDE THE TRUTH. TAIWAN HAS 976 TOTAL CASES AND 10 DEATHS WITH 24 MILLION PEOPLE. 09MAR1961 IS THE DATE INDIA ATTACKED PORTUGAL AT GOA AND THE WORLD DID NOTHING!! JOE BIDEN IS A PAWN OF CHINA, WITH HELP OF THE MEDIA FUNDED BY BILLIONAIRES USING CHINA TO MAKE THEIR PRODUCTS.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...