YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki Gets 'Freedom Expression' Award Sponsored By YouTube (newsweek.com) 133
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Newsweek: YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki received a "Free Expression" award from the Freedom Forum Institute in a virtual ceremony sponsored by YouTube, an online video platform owned by Google. On Thursday, YouTube creator Molly Burke presented Wojcicki with the accolade in a video shared to the platform. "I'm so excited to be here tonight to present Susan Wojcicki with the Free Expression award. As the CEO of YouTube, Susan is facing some of the most critical issues around free expression today," Burke said.
Following the ceremony, some Twitter users mocked Wojcicki for receiving an award that was sponsored by her own platform. "YouTube CEO won a Free Speech award...sponsored by YouTube. Hahahahhhaahhhahhahahahaaaaaaa," one user wrote. Another wrote, "Lol, youtube receiving an award for free expression/pro first amendment is Orwellian s***. What's next, Facebook getting an award for respecting privacy?"
Following the ceremony, some Twitter users mocked Wojcicki for receiving an award that was sponsored by her own platform. "YouTube CEO won a Free Speech award...sponsored by YouTube. Hahahahhhaahhhahhahahahaaaaaaa," one user wrote. Another wrote, "Lol, youtube receiving an award for free expression/pro first amendment is Orwellian s***. What's next, Facebook getting an award for respecting privacy?"
lol (Score:4, Informative)
as this happens. [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Remember when the WHO claimed there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus at the same time that videos were being leaked showing the CCP dumping sand on highways and welding people into their homes? Yeah, trying to help people by showing how the WHO was wrong would get you banned under YouTube's new policy. Same with Fauci saying that masks don't work and you should definitely not use them.
Re: (Score:2)
> Remember when the WHO claimed there was no evidence of human-to-human transmission
https://twitter.com/WHO/status... [twitter.com]
Do you remember when Fauci said 2-masks were just common sense?
Re: (Score:3)
China lied, people died. Chinese man in suit says: "Tell only lies, tell only lies".
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
LIAR, LIAR pants on fire. This is not about Youtube censoring criminal content. This is about Youtube censoring content that is anti-establishment no matter how truthful, it is about Youtube censoring content that threatens the profits of their major advertisers, it is Youtube censoring content that goes against the insane egos of the executives as they crave greater power and profit and it is about censoring content to distort and corrupt democracy.
It is about the most slimey from of comment censorship. The flithy fuckers delete your comments 30 seconds after you post them, so you will not notice, for all sorts of words so for example they actively censored the following Muslim extremism, Jewish extremism but not Christian extremism that they left up (they probably have fixed it by now). When you post a comment on Youtube, don't forget to refresh the page 60 seconds latter to see if it has been deleted, really scummy behind the scenes censorship of the worst order. Really fucking evil shite and the fuckers gave themselves an award for it.
Censor criminal content sure, censor anything else and you are just evil fuckers seeking power and control, all as sick as fuck. Evil is as evil does and Google is just as evil as fuck now, decent people who work there should be deeply ashamed for the evil they assist.
Re: (Score:1)
This is about Youtube censoring content that is anti-establishment no matter how truthful, it is about
Yes, but they’re private, which means they should be able to discriminate against whoever they wish including gays, blacks, fat people, and ugly people.
Gosh, are you not for a corporations right to discriminate against whoever they please? How can you even call yourself a Democrat.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be, but are not without pressure from government, who threatens these trillion dollar internet companies with hundreds if billions in stock losses via section 230 changes, or outright breakup, if they don't censor harrassment. "Oh, did I mention, our political opponents' words are harrassment?"
"Yes, sir." -- Google, Apple, Twitter, facebook
Re: (Score:2)
Gosh, are you not for a corporations right to discriminate against whoever they please? How can you even call yourself a Democrat.
Thinking that a company that does this and then awards themselves a free expression award...what would you call yourself? Definitely not someone that value free expression, that's for sure.
If a company wants to censor on their platform, I mean, okay. But to then say that they value free expression is pretty highly hypocritical.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah I can see that. 4 years of wild "Russian Conspiracy" theories plastered all over Youtube while Trump was in office. Conspiracy theories of systematic racism without proof (no this isn't referring to a few racist police encounters). Pay gap conspiracies that aren't comparing job positions, tenure, or experience - just a generic apples-to-oranges stat originating from a feminist journal which compares fields.
Crazy stuff all over Youtube. Kind of odd that they don't block all those theories coming from the left though. Why are these acceptable? Nobody knows except Youtube.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
This is of course rubbish, because
Re: (Score:1)
Their rhetoric is reduced to a simple rulebook saying whether things are "with-us" or "against-us".
It's an entirely right-wing matter.
Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you read, but I never said that the right was anti-racist. There is a different between being anti-racist, and throwing out wild conspiracies about how everything was designed to be racist and now needs to change. Mind you, this is without actually saying what exactly is racist or what exactly needs to change. That's just a conspiracy theory, and it has definitely harmed our society which is the point you are making, isn't it?
Last time I checked, right wingers weren't pushing it. Nor were
Re: (Score:1)
Of course you didn't, because for some reason in many countries the "right" (and in America we're talking about the Republican party) refuse to distance themselves from racism. Which is unfortunate, especially for right-leaning voters, who deserve a better representation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As a former engineer at a google datacenter in Iowa, I deeply regret working for that company. I thought it was awesome at the time (2012), but now I am extremely ashamed I supported a company like that. Just like I've turned down engineer jobs at FaceBook, LinkedIn, etc... Very few projects I take today, either in Multimedia production (videographer/editor/directly), or even IT (which I service my local area as the only one that does in my immediate 5 miles, and am very well loved and keep my prices low,
Re:lol (Score:5, Insightful)
Are we really any worse off for not having instructional videos on how to slap the gay out of your kids?
You have the right to state your opinion that these videos should be censored.
But you should not receive a "freedom of expression" award for doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Are we really any worse off for not having instructional videos on how to slap the gay out of your kids?
You have the right to state your opinion that these videos should be censored.
But you should not receive a "freedom of expression" award for doing so.
I’m damn sure that’s EXACTLY what they’re about.
I mean, I don’t think a “progressives” would resort to histrionics.
By the way, why did they watch a video about such a topic in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All expression isn't equal.
Sure it is.
Some is just more equal than others.
Re:lol (Score:5, Funny)
Kids come out of the anti-gay and anti-sex camps fucked up. That dude in Georgia who sprayed 3 spas' worth of prostitutes with bullets, recently completed a stint at one of those self-hate camps. Most likely at the insistence of his father, who is preacher. (They want you to think it was racially motivated.)
That sounds terrible. I agree with you, btw. Instead of this “free speech” stuff, we should have a group of people who are good, sane, smart, and without flaws, and we should have them determine what people are and are not allowed to say. Of course, they should be rich, ain’t no poor tech CEOs, and not a lot of black ones either (wink wink).
What we need are affluent white members of the political class or executive (the only class free of corruption with no psychopaths) determine what the less affluent can say. Then, the children could be safe and we could all feel good about ourselves. We’d hate the right people this time, and we’d let them define a new vocabulary for us, which we’d use to help identify the THEMS from the USes. Anyone not thinking and talking like an US? Cancelled.
With the minor exceptions of slavery, the civil war, the kkk, eugenics, opposition to the civil rights act, Tammany Hall, DC, Chicago, and being 60% of all public figures found guilty of fraud ... the Democrats have never steered us wrong yet.
You know, I think you’re on to something, and I think I like it!
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, yes, the historic revisionism of a “switch”. Like Robert “KKK” Byrd, right?
Man, the sad attempts at propaganda never cease with Leftists. Point out the history of their evils, and repetition of their behavior (now that illegal immigrants have become the new slave labor for their modern plantations), and they try to flip it as if Republicans were actually the party of slavery. “The labels switched, and actually the Democrats like black people now.“
They even come with
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, the historic revisionism of a âoeswitchâ.
There is no historic revisionism there [livescience.com].
Man, the sad attempts at propaganda never cease with Leftists. Point out the history of their evils
It's not their evils. Left is not a party, it is a position. The Democrats were the right-wingers, now the Republicans are the right-ringers. This whole confusing party with positions thing is why you conservacucks are so confused.
and they try to flip it as if Republicans were actually the party of slavery
No one is doing that. People like you always try to mischaracterize this argument that way, but that's bullshit. Democrats were the party of slavery, but now Republicans are the party of racism and white nationalism [motherjones.com].
So in short, no, that's n
Re: (Score:2)
Conservatives really hate when you point out that they are the force behind racism in America.
That's why I never stop doing it.
Meanwhile in my organization a club of "anti-racists" have started up, who spend their time spreading propaganda on why people should be differently based on race. 7M racists in California actually voted to roll back the clock on state discrimination based on race [wikipedia.org].
We just got done seeing an executive for CNN, one of Youtube's "authoritative sources" and the Democrat's unofficial mouthpiece, inadvertently admit on camera that the entire "whites against asians" narrative was fabricated. [youtu.be]
Tell me more about how
Re: (Score:2)
We are probably not worse off for that, but when naming a singular symbol of free expression, the criteria should be pretty selective. *Especially* if you are deciding to pat yourself on the back with the 'award'.
So one, ideally the extent to which the person is responsible is restricting speech should hurt their chances. So there's things like this and also some reports of inhibiting people trying to get directly funded without youtube getting a cut. It may be a fine thing and even responsible thing to cur
Re: (Score:2)
Slapping a gay guy is as bad as child rape and sexual exploitation?
I have a hard time believing that the children would agree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
The citation is in the post I was replying to. If there's something that was made up, that's where you'll want to look.
Wow! Employee of the month (Score:2)
Gee, I hope she gets a raise, maybe her own bathroom stall.
YouTube is so petty (Score:3, Insightful)
Now they're pretending they're a bastion of free speech.
LMFAO.
Re: (Score:1)
They constantly shadow ban on political grounds too. You see a lot of smaller center-right content creators suffer through that. It's nothing too extreme. I'd say it's what the mainstream was maybe a decade ago.
I've seen way more extreme channels on the left side - even advocating violence sometimes stays unsuppressed while channels like the LiberalHivemind are shadowbanned (he does clickbait titles but content isn't anything too crazy).
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah.. I'm pretty appalled at the state of YouTube, and as a separate issues, also "the left".
In my head, I support dictionary liberalism. I'm not a conservative except on core principles, and that just means I change slower--not that I don't change.
But lately, I've had an awful lot of conversations with friends that ended in arguments because they espoused judging people just for their party associations and not their individual actions.
Re: (Score:2)
foundational principles of Western societies from free-speech to meritocracy as a goal.
Neither of those are foundational principles of Western societies.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're going to successfully post anonymously, you should make sure you don't have any idiosyncrasies unique to how you post (such as bolding the text you are quoting instead of using quote tags) that could be seen as an identifying shibboleth.
They Can "Hide", But They Can't Hide (Score:4, Informative)
Old and new media are both desperate to pass off a manufactured/astroturfed popularity, and we've seen major upticks in this kind of thing over the last few years, both in politics and entertainment.
Manipulating RT critic reviews [slashdot.org] worked for Last Jedi, at least for a single weekend until the user reviews showed up and no one trusted the critic score anymore.
Manipulating RT user reviews worked for Captain Marvel, and now few people trust the user score either.
What's left? Most of what people still trust (e.g. word-of-mouth from folks they know, or reviews from trusted Youtubers) can't be gamed the same way, definitely not as effectively.
Now that Kathleen Kennedy has demonstrated she's still perfectly able and willing to damage Star Wars (and arguably other IPs) even after creative control's been stripped from her [youtube.com], anything that publically embarrasses her [youtube.com] or demonstrates the unpopularity of her politics (i.e. anything that gives the public a voice) must also be reworked . . .
Re: (Score:3)
Covered what now? YouTube has let users hide the like/dislike count on their videos for quite some time. The option is available to any user who uploads a video. I just checked, and it's still there.
The only channel I've seen actually use it is a Japanese vlog about ducks. [youtube.com]
Exactly What I'm Talking About (Score:3)
Covered what now? YouTube has let users hide the like/dislike count on their videos for quite some time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
See? You're not even aware of what Youtube was doing, probably because Slashdot didn't cover it. Google "dislike count" for the articles.
Re: (Score:2)
So I watched this video, they mentioned YouTube was (spooky theremin noises) "experimenting with hiding dislikes." and not much else. Apparently, I'm supposed to care because of some Marvel movie and Star Wars?
It wasn't reported on Slashdot because it's not news. YouTube has let uploaders hide the dislike count on their videos for a long time. If it's part of some plot to (more theremin noises) manufacture consent, they're giving equal latitude for any user on their platform to do it.
With all of the valid r
Re: (Score:2)
You dont even know the basic facts. Provably. You even admit it.
Re: (Score:3)
The only time you hide the ratio and disable comments is when you have something to hide yourself. There is no reason to do it.
But but but some videos attract tro-
The responsibility to call bullshit outweighs this.
But but but some videos are controve-
Any subject that is "too sensitive to discuss" MUST be discussed.
But but but some people have harassment campai-
There are no harassment campaigns, this is an excuse made up by thieves, liars, and scammers.
But but but some videos are watched by chi-
Google is fre
Re: (Score:1)
I feel like I've seen this before somewhere.. (Score:5, Insightful)
“So this is how liberty dies ... with thunderous applause."
Re: (Score:3)
I used to think that quote was rather fake, but now I guess it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who applauded this "virtual ceremony", even virtually. It reads like a stark exercise in navel-gazing. The most popular content on the site also tends to be navel-gazing, so maybe they thought it'd fit, or something. As far as it having anything to do with "liberty", no. Not any more than any other cheesy ad.
Orwell was a genius (Score:1, Troll)
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
Big Tech is Free Speech
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube is OurTube.
With apologies to Woody Guthrie (Score:3)
This tube is your tube, this tube is my tube
Watch what you watch, dude
Or up the bum with no lube.
From Pewdiepie to the false flag hoaxes
This tube was made for you and me.
Don't be too hard on Molly Burke (Score:2)
I'm sure she just didn't see the hypocrisy in the situation.
Re: (Score:2)
She just saw which side her bread was buttered on, and decided it was in her best interest to do a bit more buttering up herself.
Re: Don't be too hard on Molly Burke (Score:4, Interesting)
No...she's blind. They literally picked a blind person to atest to the moral character of YouTube.
Seen worse (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You think that's bad? They gave the Prize to some other dude just because he didn't eat dinner.
WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Excuse me? Did I read this correctly?
YouTube gives its CEO an award for doing something that she's not doing at all?
YT is the *last* place to go for the balanced set of opinions and perspectives normally associated with free speech.
Unless you're drinking from YouTube's own koolaid you're almost certainly going to be relegated to the bottom of the search results -- and demonetized, and given a few bogus community strikes as well.
This is like giving Hitler the Nobel Peace prize.
Unbelievable!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
YT is the *last* place to go for the balanced set of opinions and perspectives normally associated with free speech.
You do know that Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson and Steven Crowder are on there, right? Obviously people are allowed to say a wide range of unsupported poorly thought out garbage associated with free speech.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which ideas are "alt-right"? The only one that stands out is his view on gender politics, but he is still respectful of trans people even if he doesn't believe in declarative genders, and respecting others' ideas is a staple trait of a liberal.
Re: (Score:2)
Jordan Peterson is typically described as a conservative.
From what I recall from listening to him he is conservative-leaning, and some of his views are solidly conservative, but he does have some liberal views as well.
I think this WP except says it pretty well, though:
Re: (Score:2)
You just named a demonetized person,
Oh come on stop being a wanker. I think this award is as stupid as the next person (it's just astonishingly stupid) but seriously stop being a wanker. You're claiming a lack of free speech because youtube is no longer PAYING the person for their speech.
Re: (Score:1)
Apparently conservatives think that Youtube not only owes them a soapbox, but also a salary. Whatever happened to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? Oh yeah, that only applies to poor people.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently conservatives think that Youtube not only owes them a soapbox, but also a salary. Whatever happened to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? Oh yeah, that only applies to poor people.
None of the listed people seem to be hurting for a buck, and none of them seem to be dependent on Youtube for their livelihood. I think the argument, though, is that if Youtube has a system by which creators can make money off their work AND they (per the article, albeit indirectly) declare themselves a place where freedom of expression can thrive, then the logical consequence is that the monetization system should apply equally to those who have popular views, and those who do not.
There's a difference betw
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
promoting narcissistic ignorance and dangerous anti-science because feelings are more important than facts.
The difference between them and Shapiro, Peterson, and Crowder, is they aren't fucking banned or demonetized.
So, no difference between them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It's not even hard to argue that Hitler actually does have a good chance of getting a Nobel Peace Prize, when you consider that his goal was to have a war to end all wars (intent is for peace in Europe) and he was actually successful as it took 50 years from ending of WW2 to the next large scale war on European continent, and even that one was peanuts compared to WW2 (outcome is peace in Europe).
With both intent and outcome being this peaceful, how could you not give him a Nobel Peace Prize?
See, it's all ab
Re: (Score:3)
And that's something that modern marxist left is exceptionally good at,
You seem weirdly up to speed on what the three remaining actual Marxists are up to. Unless of course "Maxrist" is the new "SJW", i.e. a shorthand for "shit I hate".
or example mindset of MLK of judging people by their character rather than their skin colour is racist in today's left's view.
No it isn't. The thing they view as racist is ignoring a few hundred yeas of structural racism (which still hasn't gone). Idiots interpret that as "rac
Re: (Score:2)
Marxists are people who believe in Marxist ideology, that people are fundamentally to be described by their status as oppressors or oppressed rather than any other category.
WHICH marxist ideology? Because Marx himself spoke specifically of the capitalist (owners) and the proletariat (producers) not a generalised conception of oppressor and oppressed. So clearly you're speaking about one of the many many variants, so would you mind telling me which?
And thank you for confirming that it is indeed reframing tha
Re: (Score:2)
>Because Marx himself spoke specifically of the capitalist (owners) and the proletariat (producers) not a generalised conception of oppressor and oppressed.
And Lenin specifically spoke only about the workers and not the peasants until 1920s. You appear to be trying to make a point and failing miserably.
>And as for structural racism, this is actual racism, and actually does exist, unless you think it's natural justice that, say, black offenders get harsher sentences.
Does your chosen "oppressed group":
M
Re: (Score:2)
Does your chosen "oppressed group":
More violent crime?
Apply more violence in similar crime?
Thing is black people get harsher sentences for the same crimes. What you seem be saying that because you think black people in general commit more violent crime then it's OK for an individual to get a harsher sentence simply because they're black.
Because that is what happens. So either you're denying well established facts or you're advocating for black people to be treated more harshly.
Then of course you accuse me o
Re: (Score:2)
>Thing is black people get harsher sentences for the same crimes. What you seem be saying that because you think black people in general commit more violent crime then it's OK for an individual to get a harsher sentence simply because they're black.
Bingo. It is only logical that if you complain about discrimination based on GROUP BEHAVIOUR rather than INDIVIDUAL BEHAVIOUR ("structural racism" vs racism), then you have to take in account ENTIRE GROUP'S BEHAVIOUR when deciding on punishment.
Which is indeed
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not, You don't understand what structural racism even is.
Whoever taught you about "structural racism" is a Marxist
You also don't understand what a Marxist is. I've explained twice, you have completely ignored me twice. Being ignorant is understandable. Remaining ignorant is inexcusable.
Re: (Score:1)
With both intent and outcome being this peaceful, how could you not give him a Nobel Peace Prize?
Well, for one thing, the Nobel Peace Prize is never given posthumously. And that's not even the best reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Free Expression .. except when it doesn't fit [wikipedia.org] our corporate narrative! /s
Susan W: The most undeserving person (Score:3)
And in other news, (Score:2)
Meh (Score:2)
A lot of stuff will get you demonetized, but you'll still be allowed to keep your account and uploaded videos in most cases.
Re: (Score:2)
I watch a lot of YouTube so I'm well aware of how much stuff will get you demonetized, but even with all the restrictions YouTube has it's about 100x more permissive than sites like Twitter, so I'm ok with it. A lot of stuff will get you demonetized, but you'll still be allowed to keep your account and uploaded videos in most cases.
You dismiss demonetization as if it's nothing.
For the beggars on YT desperately trying to make a click-buck, this is akin to walking up to the beggar on the street corner, and taking their money and cup away. Quite a few out there, rely on that income. And were able to rely on that income for years. Up until YT, like many others, got Woke. (which I'm certain will be the next word that triggers demonetization)
And comparing Shit to Shitter to make me feel better about Shit, ain't working. Still stinks.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought it was convenient that Youtube pulled its bait and switch after they had reached the critical mass to become a vertical monopoly. There is probably a lesson in there about letting corporations get too big or too influential. Probably.
The silver lining is that leaves a niche open for another platform to grow that isn't so ideologically driven and isn't striving to make itself just another outlet for cable television and the politically correct. One can hope that it doesn't get strangled in the crib
If this wasn't so pathetic and unfunny... (Score:2)
I might even laugh.
The New Media Award Shows (Score:2)
Just like the Old Media Award shows. In years past you didn't expect heathen viewers to nominate the Glitterati for Acadamy Awards, did you? Of course not. So obviously the Anointed are going to award their fellow Anointed online as well, because otherwise it's all heathens.
So there is no one level headed at Youtube (Score:2)
about as meaningful as all of (Score:2)
Most literal non-literal circle-jerk... (Score:2)
Just like the "communities" YT creates. ;)
Which one of you will be first... (Score:2)
to file a DMCA take down request on the video? Let's see how free expression is when it gets automatically approved.
They laughing in your face (Score:1)
In other news... (Score:2)
...China is set to award its president the acclaimed title "Protector of Human Rights and Freedoms," which they just made up, for his outstanding handling of "undemocratic" feelings among the Uighur population.
That'll be the best award ceremony since The First Annual Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence.
Sadly... (Score:2)
Sadly, among the mainstream social platforms, YouTube actually is the most egalitarian and liberal in the original sense, meaning they censor the least. I wouldn't give an award for that very very low bar, but it's worth noting.
Meaningless Bullshit Award (Score:2)
Susan says EXACTLY what she thinks of independent content creators @1:59 [youtu.be]:
YouTube: Look at how great we are at Free Expression! We even got an award from ourselves!
Viewers: You just going to ignore the List of Demonetization Words [google.com]
Also: Hypocrites, much Susan? [wikipedia.org] So how is that "Free Expression" working out for the people that were "de-platformed" such as Alex Jones, David
these guys silence A LOT of voices (Score:2)
They are trying to get people away from the indie stuff as well. Lesser known bands. Smaller budget films.
YouTube wants to steer you toward the stuff IT likes. Not the stuff you like.
Re: YouTube alternative (Score:1)
Weirdo content?
You're the weirdo, goosestepper. Stay in your safe space and jerk in a circle.
Re: (Score:1)
Bitchute started well, but is full of ghoulish content that frightens normies away. Odysee.com doesn't have that plastered all over the front page.
With all human cesspools, the key words here are started well.
Unfortunately, we as a society have fallen off a cliff when it comes to defining "normal". It used to be normal to argue that women should not be forced to compete against men in sports. It used to be normal to argue that toddlers should not be trying to define and choose a gender before they even hit kindergarten. Hell, it used to be normal to argue, and have a healthy discussion on any topic.
Now, normal will get you cancelled, demonetized, o
Re: (Score:2)
I notice when "free speech platforms" like Youtube grant notorious religious advocacy groups like the ADL "trusted flagger" status for the purpose of censorship.
It's really hard not to notice every four years the candidates for the job of "leader of the free world" go and bow and prostrate themselves before a panel of this tiny but extremely influential minority.
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Really does seem like something Voltaire would say