YouTube Censors DeSantis, Claims Panel Discussion Spread COVID-19 “Misinformation”
“YouTube claimed they removed the video because ‘it contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities,’ yet this roundtable was led by world-renowned doctors and epidemiologists from Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, all of whom are eminently qualified to speak on the global health crisis”
YouTube removed a video of a roundtable discussion with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. Their official reason? “We removed AIER’s video because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19.””
Uh huh.
NBC has the story:
Video of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and a panel of scientists apparently trading in Covid-19 misinformation has been pulled from YouTube.
The video of DeSantis’ roundtable discussion last month at the state Capitol in Tallahassee was removed on Wednesday because it violated the social media platform’s standards, YouTube spokesperson Elena Hernandez said.
It had been embedded in a Tampa-area TV station’s news story and it’s removal was flagged by the American Institute for Economic Research, a “free market” think tank based in Great Barrington, Massachusetts.
“YouTube has clear policies around Covid-19 medical misinformation to support the health and safety of our users,” Hernandez said in a statement. “We removed AIER’s video because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19.”
Hernandez said YouTube only allows videos “that otherwise violate our policies to remain on the platform if they contain sufficient educational, documentary, scientific or artistic context.”
“Our policies apply to everyone and focus on content regardless of the speaker or channel,” Hernandez said.
DeSantis’s press secretary Cody McCloud called YouTube’s move “another blatant example of Big Tech attempting to silence those who disagree with their woke corporate agenda.”
“YouTube claimed they removed the video because ‘it contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities,’ yet this roundtable was led by world-renowned doctors and epidemiologists from Oxford, Stanford, and Harvard, all of whom are eminently qualified to speak on the global health crisis,” McCloud said. “Good public health policy should include a variety of scientific and technical expertise, and YouTube’s decision to remove this video suppresses productive dialogue of these complex issues.”
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford University, one of the scientists on the panel, said this “was a policy forum, in which it is appropriate to consider both the benefits and costs of a policy (child masking) when making judgments and recommendations.”
Woe be unto those who contradict “right-think” these days. The social sharing powers that be will getcha for saying anything mildly contradictory to their pre-set narrative and throw you outside of the city walls for “misinformation.” Truly, it’s projection at its finest (or worst).
Not even Presidents are immune. Let us not forget how the social media conglomerate banded together to completely memory hole President Trump when he was still in office for telling a crowd to peaceably disassemble or how every individual who questions anything COVID-related gets the ban hammer. The choke-hold on information is growing stronger.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Until they get sued for slander and lose in a big way, they will continue lying and pulling this crap. (And yes, it’s slander to claim they’re promulgating ‘misinformation’.)
Sue them possibly – break them up, Scatter them to the wind.
The Franz von Papen Republicans had that opportunity when they ran Congress.
Instead, GOP members took turns licking the jackboots Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg tongue baths.
I remember one exchange in a Congressional hearing. A von Papen House Republican was gushing how Zuckerberg and his company embodied the “quintessentially American entrepreneurial spirit”. The look on Zuckerberg’s face when he heard that was priceless: bewilderment (“Is this a setup?”) soon gave way to naked hate and contempt (“You have GOT to be KIDDING me you f-ing dolt!”).
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF00/20180411/108090/HHRG-115-IF00-Transcript-20180411.pdf
Not surprising, a few months later the GOP House members got annihilated in the 2018 midterms.
When censors silence someone, it’s because they fear people might hear what he has to say.
Because, science!
Because fascism.
How come I can’t up arrow this????
Consider this an up arrow.
The only way this stops is when conservatives break free of these media oligarchs and break up their cartel. Conservatives must stand up our own server farms, internet pay apps and social media platforms, thus breaking their strangle hold on a free exchange of ideas.
Hope Trump does set up his own social media. Also wish one of the Trump family would start a business along the lines of Amazon, with all the benefits available on that site, but without the left bias and someone who doesn’t Zuck at the helm.
The historical parallels are obvious:
https://www.thoughtco.com/who-were-chinas-red-guards-195412
seems like your post should have a link to the video. Here it is along with a transcript and everything. https://www.aier.org/article/great-barrington-declaration-scientists-with-gov-desantis-in-florida/
” flagged by the American Institute for Economic Research, a “free market” think tank”
You can’t bring your own thoughts here, we want a free market!
I guess censorship is a hallmark of supporting free markets right?
You misread it.
“its removal was flagged by the American Institute for Economic Research” — i.e., they complained about the censorship.
So, cats on trampolines and skanks putting on eyeliner? Check.
Renowned scientists talking about an issue that’s hardly “settled”? Nope.
But it IS settled science. The Socialist/Communists have decided what the “truth” is and they will ensure that no “facts” interfere with their “truth”. Remember Quid Pro Joe told us they believe in truth, not facts.
“The Socialist/Communists have decided what the “truth” is and they will ensure that no “facts” interfere with their “truth.”
Now is a good time to review the origin of the phrase “politically correct,” for this is exactly what it has always meant:
The race to the bottom. That is so interesting that YouTube, in all its medical experience and wisdom, censors a policy forum for having……wait for it …. policies. . Good grief.
Just that statement (and the idea behind it) is chilling, in a totally retarded sort of way. I don’t care if it were a bunch of morons yapping total bullshit, this sort of reaction is completely insane.
Morons yapping total bullshit would never be pulled, they are on the correct side (e.g. Sandy Cortez answering the question of how to bring peace between Israelis and the PA Arabs).
Red States and Republicans simply need to dual platform. If YouTube won’t allow ‘wrongthink’ on their platform then redirect voters to Rumble or another non Woko HaramCommuNazi platform.
When viewers stop using YouTube they’ll have to rethink their policies, but by then it’ll be too late.
The land of the insane
If DeSantis actually believes that masks aren’t efficacious (as the CDC did, before they effectively called themselves liars to justify their flip-flop on masks) why doesn’t he forbid Florida’s businesses and governments from mandating masks?
With regard to business it is presumably because he believes it is a decision which each business has the right to make (for better or worse in the bottom line of the business).
Last month he asked the FL legislature to limit the Emergency Powers of County and City governmental entities because of mask mandates. So he is doing what is legally correct to address that issue.
He has forbidden fines and other enforcement techniques.
Not really. DeSantis only forbade fines on individuals. The counties didn’t like that, so they responded by levying fines on businesses to penalize them for not requiring patrons to wear masks.
Maybe because he doesn’t want to be a dictator like You Tube, Facebook etc. are.
For the same reason that if he believed in no gods, it would be wrong for him to mandate permanent statewide church closures.
Let me qualify this. He is not justified in forbidding Florida businesses. But he may very well be justified in forbidding Florida governments. Maybe he just hasn’t got that as a priority… yet.
Suddenly the dissent of Justice Thomas in the Twitter case is thrust to the forefront. Here we have a private entity removing content on the basis that the content (speech) contradicts the government(s) approved content (speech).
So if the private entity (YouTube) is removing speech because that speech opposes the approved government speech isn’t that private entity acting as a defacto arm of the government? Doesn’t this seem to be a form of censorship?
YouTube readily admits it is acting in place of the government to censor speech that is in opposition to or is critical of government speech. The day this sort of action is recognized for what it is, censorship, is fast approaching IMO.
I don’t understand.
If YouTube is a private entity, isn’t it simply editing and filtering resources as per its point of view? Doesn’t it have a right to a point of view?
Put in different terms: If I am an author, I create a work based to my point of view–and I edit and include/exclude my resources accordingly.
Two issues, IMO, with your argument:
1. Editing is a function of a publisher. YouTube and the rest of the social media very strongly resist any notion that they are a publisher. Why? Publishers wouldn’t be afforded the same protections under SEC 230. So in sum the social media companies reject your description of them as editors/publishers. They have repeatedly done so in congressional testimony and in legal filings.
2. In this particular instance FB is declaring that they removed the content in its entirety precisely because the content conflicts with the government approved speech.
FB itself rejects your efforts to describe them as either an editor or publisher. Further they are, IMO acting as a defacto censor in place of the government.
I can be wrong but I would recommend reading the dissenting opinions by Justice Thomas in the Twitter decision and in the oracle decision. He lays out a very thorough legal analysis/theory regarding the power of social media and how they wield it.
Your argument with authorship is flawed because YT is not creating the content that it censors, as an author would self-censor/self-edit.
YT is censoring the work of others, just like a publisher would. But if they do this, they are no longer a “platform” and thus lack the protections of being a platform.
They continue to try and have their cake and eat it too. They need to $#!+ or get off the pot – they can’t claim to be both and neither.
The very premise of ‘the science is settled’ is a wholly unscientific statement. Good science is never settled because the implication is that once something is ‘settled’ it no longer merits examination. Modern science is replete with now discarded ideas that at one time, were generally accepted. Imagine how stagnant science would be if all those ideas remained ‘settled.’
Of course, this has nothing to do with science and everything to do with control and submission.
Wait, the sun doesn’t revolve around the earth?!
Never you min’, honeychile, of course it does!
And the Earth is flat. And heavy objects fall faster than light ones.
This is all just Common Sense™️! Same as Common Sense™️ gun laws!
Claiming “the science is settled” is just stonewalling and trying to deflect criticism – something the Left is good at. It comes down to a refusal to engage in rational debate, which is not something liberals engage in – they’d rather name-call, or stuffing ballot boxes or other kinds of deceit. Whether it’s “settled science” or “that’s just a conspiracy theory” they’re trying to hide something.
It’s not surprise that the left, big tech, and the media have targeted Florida and Florida politicians for special attention. This is what Stalinists do.
“We removed AIER’s video because it included content that contradicts the consensus of local and global health authorities regarding the efficacy of masks to prevent the spread of Covid-19.”
These people seem so certain that they possess The Truth. For how else could they set themselves up as arbiters of scientific consensus?
If these people were at all educated they’d have some sense of what happens when those in power become convinced that they, and only they, possess The Truth. The consequences of authorities infused with an unshakeable conviction that they and only they possess The Truth (and therefore that one’s political enemies must live in darkness and error) have seldom been benign.
But the nation’s colleges (with very few exceptions) haven’t taught that sort of comprehensive history in decades, even while academic history has devolved into just another branch of academia proselytizing the currently fashionable political nonsense. Why would anyone so convinced they already know The Truth ever conduct research, ask questions (let alone tolerate alternate viewpoints that can only be in error)?
Just how ignorant does one have to be to think that appointing YouTube as Infallible Arbiter of Truth could possibly be a good idea?
Simple question to pose to Youtube:
What are you afraid of?
.
A: Another victory like Trump’s.
There’s a good interview with Sharyl Attkisson regarding media pushing propaganda and labeling its opposition as “misinformation,” along with the whole “fact checker” nonsense:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r0_2i1EUYyg&feature=youtu.be
Who on Earth needs highly respected physicians and scientists when you have Der Pichai und Der Dorsey?
P.S. Regulate social media as utility and start making life for these self declared masters of truth very difficult with taxes and new regulations.
The video can be found here:
https://odysee.com/@NoNewAbnormal:4/See-The-CENSORED-Gov.-Ron-DeSantis-Public-Health-Roundtable-:4
tried to post at the nbc FB page linking to the dec 2020 WHO doc that masking was not necessarily warranted—and FB responded:
our message couldn’t be sent because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive.
“Evidence on the protective effect of mask use in community settings At present there is only limited and inconsistent scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of masking of healthy people in the community to prevent infection with respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2 (75). A large randomized community-based trial in which 4862 healthy participants were divided into a group wearing medical/surgical masks and a control group found no difference in infection with SARS-CoV-2 (76). A recent systematic review found nine trials (of which eight were cluster-randomized controlled trials in which clusters of people, versus individuals, were randomized) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness. Two trials were with healthcare workers and seven in the community. The review concluded that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the prevention of influenza-like illness (ILI) (RR 0.99, 95%CI 0.82 to 1.18) or laboratory confirmed illness (LCI) (RR 0.91, 95%CI 0.66-1.26) (44); the certainty of the evidence was low for ILI, moderate for LCI
Advice on the use of masks in the community, during home care and in healthcare settings in the context of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak
You would probably get the same result trying to post the May 2020 CDC meta study showing the same thing (though they studied respiratory viruses generally, not covid).