Behind the Google-Southern Poverty Law Center relationship


Simply put, SPLC doesn’t classify Antifa as a group that vilifies others based on race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or gender. If you know otherwise do share.

On their criteria for classifying hate groups.


Bartholomew does not make the claim in court that her video was removed for being conservative.

Nor would I.

Youtube uses other pretexts to silence political dissent.



I never brought up PragerU.


I did.

Apparently so you could attempt to deal with “demonitization” over “demonization” (of conservative videos that frequently get stifled on Youtube.

Why? Because it is easier to re-define the premise and now focus on “demonitization” instead of “bias and bigotry” against people who they politicallt disagree with).

Yes. YOU broght up PragerU alright.



I’m sharing facts.

No you are not.

You are special pleading.

You are sharing selective facts, and ignoring others.

Youtube = Bias and anti-conservative bigotry.

SPLC is in my opinion an anti-conservative hate group. (But admittedly, that is merely my opinion).

Twitter? They seem to be following the same “pattern” as Youtube.

Big social media needs to be broken up with anti-trust laws (again admittedly my opinion).


Big social media shouldn’t be allowed to censor content. According to modern rules private business can’t choose its customers. They have to serve everyone. This is especially important when you have social media companies that have such a huge market share. To not be on YouTube is to essentially take away a man’s first amendment right.

Judge Dismisses Google/Youtube Conservative Censorship Case

No, I bring it up because it’s a case where a conservative entity is making an attempt to prove it’s case. The Fox News story above doesn’t do this and doesn’t provide much for discussion.

As of yet there’s not demonstration of a voice being silenced for being conservative. There are examples of videos for which brands declined association and videos in violation of community guidelines.

It’s easier to respond to assertions where someone has attempted to support them. PragerU appears to echo your concern and is attempting to argue their stance. The Fox news video put emphasis on emotion and suspicion but made very few statements of facts. If person A says that she feels person B is a bad person she hasn’t shared anything actually about person B. She’s only shared her own feelings. If person A can describe incidents of person’s B behaviour then we now have information from which to make an assessment.

What facts do you feel have been overlooked? In the specific case that you provided it was a fact that her video had been removed, but from there on what was shared was speculation on what happened and a description of the feelings of others that responded to it. There was a vague assertion made that YouTube “re-coiled.” No attention given to the reaction of the Brands that pay for and express decisions on where ads are shown.

This is also something being argued in the PragerU v Youtube case and has been argued in previous cases against Facebook and others. For the previous cases with ruling in which it was argued this argument has generally failed because of the right of the publishing company (the social media entity) to make editorial decisions.

This argument has come up in previous cases and was brought up again in the PragerU v Google case. In previous cases it has failed because of failure to show the social media entity was a state actor. Also the right to make the editorial decisions is protected by the first amendment.

Facebook censors image of Santa kneeling before baby Jesus, calls it ‘violent content’

But these business don’t have the right to discriminate regarding their customers. That principle is enshrined in law and trumps any personal rights. Public utilities definitely can’t discriminate and these are public utilities.


The have the right to discriminate on attribitutes and motivation that do not violate federal, state, or local laws in which they do business. At the federal level the laws on discrimination are the Americans with Disability Act and Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The primary discrimination claims argued have been based on videos having lower visibility to people that have opted in to having videos filtered from search results. The videos are still present and visible to everyone that has not opted into filtered views. Primary discrimination claims have also been on the videos not getting revenue for ads, but this is defended by the right to make editorial decisions.

PragerU is trying to argue this too and YouTube has argued against it.

Judge Dismisses Google/Youtube Conservative Censorship Case
Judge Dismisses Google/Youtube Conservative Censorship Case

We don’t need a law to protect a constitutional or even basic human right. The court has said this in abortion cases and the same sex marriage cases. Freedom of speech is a constitutional right which these companies are trampling on.



No, I bring it up because it’s a case where a conservative entity is making an attempt to prove it’s case.

No. You are bringing it up to change the focus of the argument.


Because THAT was not what I chose to use in my syllogism so you changed it.

(Almost certainly you changed it because it would be more difficult for me to defend regarding a demonitization case that has not been decided. Which is WHY, I explicitly did NOT use demonitizarion examples in the first place. So I focused on just “removal” and NOT on “demonization” examples).

And I reject your change of focus of my premise.

(Bold edited by me to correct my typo.)


As of yet there’s not demonstration of a voice being silenced for being conservative. There are examples of videos for which brands declined association and videos in violation of community guidelines.

Go ahead and delude yourself if you want to think that.

No one even “quasi-conservative” is being fooled here.

You go right ahead and pretend its all about “community guidelines”.


The companies also have a free speech right. If they refuse to publish the work of another to be a free speech issue they must be shown to be a state actor or acting on behalf of one. But they are not government entities.



There was a vague assertion made that YouTube “re-coiled.” No attention given to the reaction of the Brands that pay for and express decisions on where ads are shown.

Well ThinkingSapien. You go ahead and give attention to it.

But “the reaction of the Brands that pay” was the same when the video was put up, they were the same when the video was forced down, and they were the same when after publuc outcry, the video was placed BACK UP.

The chicanery is not working ThinkingSapien.

The video was removed because of the pro-life content but using other pretexts.

The video was placed back up, due to public outcry.


No they don’t. If a hotel refused a same sex couple they’d be violating that couples right’s. The same thing works here. By denying a customer because they disagree with their views they are violating their fundamental rights.


The liberal mob hollering to discriminate against conservatives doesn’t stop at Youtube (Google) and Twitter either.

ROKU Won’t Drop NRATV: ‘We Do Not Curate or Censor Based on Viewpoint’
by CHARLIE NASH 28 Feb 2018
Popular streaming device manufacturer Roku has refused to censor NRATV, following mob pressure and protests from Moms Demand Action.
“NRATV promotes dangerous conspiracy theories, racially charged rhetoric, and violent demonization of the NRA’s political opponents,” claimed pressure group Moms Demand Action on Twitter, Saturday. “Tell Apple, Google, Roku and Amazon to #DumpNRATV.”
In response, Roku refused to censor NRATV’s content, noting that they hadn’t broken any of Roku’s rules.
. . . . While the vast majority of all streaming on our platform is mainstream entertainment, voices on all sides of an issue or cause are free to operate a channel. We do not curate or censor based on viewpoint.”
“We are not promoting or being paid to distribute NRA TV. We do not and have not ever had a commercial relationship with the NRA,” they continued. “Their channel is free to consumers with no ads. We welcome Moms Demand Action and other important groups to use our platform to share their messages too.”
Roku then added, “While open to many voices, we have policies that prohibit the publication of content that is unlawful, incites illegal activities or violates third-party rights, among other things. If we determine a channel violates these policies, it will be removed. To our knowledge, NRA TV is not currently in violation . . .


I think the Government ought to be breaking MANY if these mega-corporations up. Many.

Zucker at least gets it right about Google and Facebook.

February 26, 2018 - 03:27 PM EST
CNN’s Zucker: Regulators should focus on Google, Facebook 'monopolies’
CNN President Jeff Zucker on Monday called on regulators to focus on the powerful influence Silicon Valley heavyweights Google and Facebook exercise in an era when news organizations are allocating more money and resources to digital operations.
“Everyone is looking at whether these combinations of AT&T and Time Warner or Fox and Disney pass government approval and muster," Zucker said in his keynote address at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona, Spain.
"The fact is nobody, for some reason, is looking at these monopolies that are Google and Facebook,” Zucker noted. “That’s where the government should be looking, and helping to make sure everyone else survives. I think that’s probably the biggest issue facing the growth of journalism in the years ahead.”
The Department of Justice (DOJ) last November sued to block AT&T’s $85.4 billion acquisition of Time Warner, CNN’s parent company, arguing that the telecom giant would “use its control of Time Warner’s popular programming as a weapon to harm competition.” The DOJ added that it “would result in fewer innovative offerings and higher bills for American families.” . . . .


Youtube is Shutting Down Conservative Criticism of CNN Parkland Shooting
Under pressure from the mainstream media, YouTube is censoring videos attacking the credibility of anti-gun Parkland students. They say they’re only going after so-called “conspiracy theories” — but now they’re censoring criticism of CNN too.
Conservative YouTube creator and Berkeley student Ashton Whitty had her video, which criticized CNN and analyzed a clip from Tucker Carlson Tonight, removed from the platform after YouTube accused her of “bullying,” engaging in “personal attacks,” and “harassment,” despite the fact she rejected theories that the Parkland students-turned-media personalities were “crisis actors.” The video was eventually reinstated – two days later, when the news cycle had moved on. . . .
. . . Because platforms like Google, Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter are such large platforms, they have taken over the internet and this very dangerous,” said Whitty. “They are censoring those with a different perspective and anyone who shares what the mainstream media won’t. They are disturbing the domestic tranquility by censoring viable and factual information that should be shared to the public. If this information was actually false and just some sort of trolling and wasn’t actually valuable or true, they wouldn’t work so hard to censor it.” . . .


That was addressed in the my first sentence of message 18. Refusal of service laws are applicable here. California and New York have laws against this. Mississippi has laws that support it.

If you wanted to make an online service that only promoted messages of a certain type (conservative, liberal, Catholic, or something else) and not allow content that was against your topic of interest you can legally do so in the USA.

I know that you feel that YouTube is unjustly silencing conservative voices, but little has been provided on voices that were silenced. You’ve mentioned Joyce with no evidence that the content of her video is what got it removed. The removal of this single video doesn’t make for a strong case for your assertion.

Community guidelines, and reactions from those that provide revenue, and the assumption of one’s self being persecuted.

I did. I mentioned her their objection to their ads being pair with certain messages as being a driver to the response to many videos including many that would be classified as conservative and right leaning. You do understand this is part of the reaction and not from an arbitrary decision from YouTube, right?

I understand that this is what you believe, but there has been nothing shared to support this. If there were groups of videos that this happened too for which it could be shown that these videos were not in violation of community guidelines and the videos could be shown to have a common theme in their message then that would be supporting evidence for this. Or, if pro-life content were absent on YouTube despite people uploading it it would be evidence for this. But I can find pro-life content on YouTube.

A video removed for a 4(h) violation can just be uploaded again. If you watch a lot of YouTube you’ll see that relatively new videos will sometimes see their view count freeze at 300 or 301. That’s one of the thresholds at which an analysis process runs to check for a 4(h) violation.

Judge Dismisses Google/Youtube Conservative Censorship Case
Judge Dismisses Google/Youtube Conservative Censorship Case

They are well-known to be very biased against racists.


And then there is Brigitte Gabriel.

She was born in Lebanon and fled to avoid being killed by muslims.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit