The curious case of the Danish mask study | The BMJ - "It seems 2020 is Orwell’s 1984, where the boundaries of public discourse are governed by multibillion dollar corporations (in place of a totalitarian regime) and secret algorithms coded by unidentified employees... The problem is less that Facebook and other social media decide what is published on their platforms... It is more that Facebook in particular purports to allow freedom of speech on its platform but acts selectively, seemingly without logic, consistency, or transparency. That is how control of facts and opinions furthers hidden agendas and manipulates the public."
Exclusive: Facebook unblocks '#saltbae' after Vietnamese minister's golden steak - "Facebook's parent company said on Tuesday it had unblocked the hashtag for celebrity chef Nusret Gokce's nickname '#saltbae', having found the tag had been blocked globally days after a video was posted online of Gokce feeding a gold-encrusted steak to a senior Vietnamese Communist Party official in London. "We've unblocked this hashtag on Facebook and we're investigating why this happened," a spokesperson for Facebook operator Meta (FB.O) told Reuters, confirming the tag had been blocked for all Facebook users around the world, not just in Vietnam... Facebook said it had removed some groups identified by Reuters as being part of a government influence operation for "coordinating attempts to mass-report content"."
Facebook - "Likely evidence that Facebook's block / ban algorithm is more likely driven by mass reporting rather than any intelligent evaluation of content and nuance (which costs money since you need to pay articulate and competent >110 to 120 IQ humans to do it). Implications are that this is very advantageous to any ideology that is puritan and likes to run to authority to ask for bans of content they dislike. Possible counter is to mass report in retaliation - a variant of mutually assured destruction that causes Facebook to be flooded with reports and thus forced to lower sensitivity of its algorithm to such abuse."
Florida state government considers divesting state funds from Big Tech
Exclusive: Former Twitter Employee Blames Head of 'Trust and Safety' Del Harvey for Mass Twitter Lockouts - "A former Twitter employee blamed the company’s head of trust and safety, Del Harvey, after the platform locked out thousands of conservative users overnight, in what has been dubbed the “Twitter lock out.”... conservative users were inaccurately flagged as bots and locked out of their accounts. Locked-out users were asked to provide a phone number to regain access. Conservatives, libertarians, and Trump-supporters on Twitter reported losing hundreds, and occasionally thousands of followers overnight. My own follower count followed the same pattern — hundreds of accounts disappeared overnight, only to return next morning. One of my followers told me that he had been locked out of Twitter despite having already verified his phone number. A former Twitter employee said Trump supporters had been defined as bots, and that it wasn’t an accident. “It wasn’t a mistake,” said the former employee. “They defined Trump supporters as bots. The only reason they are backpedaling is [because] they got caught.”... Twitter flagging Trump supporters and conservatives as bots corroborates footage obtained by undercover journalists at Project Veritas last month, which shows a Twitter employee equating Trump-supporting accounts with bots. “Just go to a random [Trump] tweet and just look at the followers. They’ll all be like, guns, God, ‘Merica, and with the American flag and the cross,” declared the employee, DM engineer Pranay Singh, who was secretly recorded by Project Veritas reporters. “Like, who says that? Who talks like that? It’s for sure a bot.”... the examples cited by Twitter in their statements are all pro-Trump or right-wing, despite the fact that Robert Mueller’s investigation has found that Russian bots spread both pro-Trump and pro-Clinton material on social media. The Russians even organized pro-Hillary rallies, one of which was attended by the prominent left-wing activist Michael Moore."
Twitter cares more about mean tweets to Taylor Lorenz and Rachel Levine than death threats against JK Rowling - "Rowling posted a few screenshots from a music video about which the singer hoped for her death. "I'm afraid I can't give a shout out to everyone promising to murder me," Rowling wrote, "there are so many of you, and I'm a busy woman - but this one deserves a mention for the nineties rave vibe, @TrustFundOzu." The hateful comments and the account who made them were reported to Twitter by actor James Dreyfus and others, but Twitter said that the comments were not in violation of their safety policies. The tech giant responded to Dreyfus' report saying the threat hadn't "broken its safety policies." "Surprise, Surprise!" Dreyfus wrote, sharing the response. "So, death threats = Good. Saying 'women are women' = Bad. Congratulations Twitter Support. You’ve hit rock bottom. Seek help." Outspoken feminist activist Meghan Murphy was banned from Twitter for saying "yeah, him," in response to question about Jessica Yaniv, a biological male who took to suing aestheticians who refused to wax his genitals, saying that that they only serviced female clients... After Lorenz made false allegations of wrong-speak against Silicon Valley entrepreneur Marc Andreessen, she was lambasted as an online bully. She claimed the criticism was instead harassment."
Common Sense Extremists on Twitter - "Sixty years ago if a company of any kind refused to let the President of The United States use their services while at the same time allow foreign communists to use their services they’d have been labeled a domestic enemy. Why should we feel differently now?"
WATCH: Tucker Carlson: 'How many insurrections have been planned on Google?' - "Big Tech's attempt to silence those on Parler, a free speech platform, by removing access to the app."
How Silicon Valley, in a Show of Monopolistic Force, Destroyed Parler - "Critics of Silicon Valley censorship for years heard the same refrain: tech platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter are private corporations and can host or ban whoever they want. If you don’t like what they are doing, the solution is not to complain or to regulate them. Instead, go create your own social media platform that operates the way you think it should. The founders of Parler heard that suggestion and tried... Parler encountered immense success... As Silicon Valley censorship radically escalated over the past several months — banning pre-election reporting by The New York Post about the Biden family, denouncing and deleting multiple posts from the U.S. President and then terminating his access altogether, mass-removal of right-wing accounts — so many people migrated to Parler that it was catapulted to the number one spot on the list of most-downloaded apps on the Apple Play Store... three Silicon Valley monopolies — Amazon, Google and Apple — abruptly united to remove Parler from the internet, exactly at the moment when it became the most-downloaded app in the country. If one were looking for evidence to demonstrate that these tech behemoths are, in fact, monopolies that engage in anti-competitive behavior in violation of antitrust laws, and will obliterate any attempt to compete with them in the marketplace, it would be difficult to imagine anything more compelling than how they just used their unconstrained power to utterly destroy a rising competitor... the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law issued a 425-page report concluding that Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google all possess monopoly power and are using that power anti-competitively. For Apple, they emphasized the company’s control over iPhones through its control of access to the App Store... With virtual unanimity, leading U.S. liberals celebrated this use of Silicon Valley monopoly power to shut down Parler, just as they overwhelmingly cheered the prior two extraordinary assertions of tech power to control U.S. political discourse: censorship of The New York Post’s reporting on the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop, and the banning of the U.S. President from major platforms... Not only did leading left-wing politicians not object but some of them were the ones who pleaded with Silicon Valley to use their power this way... liberals like Goldberg are concerned only that Silicon Valley censorship powers might one day be used against people like them, but are perfectly happy as long as it is their adversaries being deplatformed and silenced (Facebook and other platforms have for years banned marginalized people like Palestinians at Israel’s behest, but that is of no concern to U.S. liberals). That is because the dominant strain of American liberalism is not economic socialism but political authoritarianism... World leaders have vocally condemned the power Silicon Valley has amassed to police political discourse, and were particularly indignant over the banning of the U.S. President. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, various French ministers, and especially Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador all denounced the banning of Trump and other acts of censorship by tech monopolies on the ground that they were anointing themselves “a world media power.”... Even the ACLU — which has rapidly transformed from a civil liberties organization into a liberal activist group since Trump’s election — found the assertion of Silicon Valley’s power to destroy Parler deeply alarming... Yet American liberals swoon for this authoritarianism. And they are now calling for the use of the most repressive War on Terror measures against their domestic opponents... House Homeland Security Chair Bennie Thompson (D-MS) urged that GOP Sens. Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley “be put on the no-fly list,” while The Wall Street Journal reported that “Biden has said he plans to make a priority of passing a law against domestic terrorism, and he has been urged to create a White House post overseeing the fight against ideologically inspired violent extremists and increasing funding to combat them.”... Parler was not founded, nor is it run, by pro-Trump, MAGA supporters. The platform was created based in libertarian values of privacy, anti-surveillance, anti-data collection, and free speech. Most of the key executives are more associated with the politics of Ron Paul and the CATO Institute than Steve Bannon or the Trump family. One is a Never Trump Republican... Of course large numbers of Trump supporters ended up on Parler. That’s not because Parler is a pro-Trump outlet, but because those are among the people who were censored by the tech monopolies or who were angered enough by that censorship to seek refuge elsewhere. It is true that one can find postings on Parler that explicitly advocate violence or are otherwise grotesque. But that is even more true of Facebook, Google-owned YouTube, and Twitter. And contrary to what many have been led to believe, Parler’s Terms of Service includes a ban on explicit advocacy of violence, and they employ a team of paid, trained moderators who delete such postings. Those deletions do not happen perfectly or instantaneously — which is why one can find postings that violate those rules — but the same is true of every major Silicon Valley platform. Indeed, a Parler executive told me that of the thirteen people arrested as of Monday for the breach at the Capitol, none appear to be active users of Parler. The Capitol breach was planned far more on Facebook and YouTube... And that’s to say nothing of the endless number of hypocrisies with Silicon Valley giants feigning opposition to violent rhetoric or political extremism. Amazon, for instance, is one of the CIA’s most profitable partners, with a $600 million contract to provide services to the agency, and it is constantly bidding for more. On Facebook and Twitter, one finds official accounts from the most repressive and violent regimes on earth, including Saudi Arabia, and pages devoted to propaganda on behalf of the Egyptian regime.... these Silicon Valley giants — Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple — donate enormous sums of money to the Democratic Party and their leaders, so of course Democrats will cheer them rather than call for punishment or their removal from the internet. Part of it is because Parler is an upstart, a much easier target to try to destroy than Facebook or Google. And in part it is because the Democrats are about to control the Executive Branch and both houses of Congress, leaving Silicon Valley giants eager to please them by silencing their adversaries. This corrupt motive was made expressly clear by long-time Clinton operative Jennifer Palmieri. The nature of monopolistic power is that anti-competitive entities engage in anti-trust illegalities to destroy rising competitors"
Censorship Goes Official: House Democrats are Now Urging FBI to Investigate Parler - "It’s fascinating that we didn’t get this kind of concern about foreign business ties when it came to the Biden family and their Ukraine dealings. It’s also strange that the left is now suddenly concerned about Hamas"
Abandoning free expression won’t solve America’s problems - "Much has been said in these chaotic days about various threats to American democracy. One particular threat to democracy, however, is largely ignored in the public outrage. That threat is the abandonment of the principle of free expression. Democracy doesn’t happen in places where voices are stifled and powerful levers are used to shut people up. Tech giants now believe they have sufficient wisdom to approve or deny which messages can circulate on social media. A major publisher cancelled a book contract with a sitting senator over his comments regarding election certification. The new social media site, Parler, has been booted off of Google Play and the Apple App Store. Consider the countries in the world that routinely stifle expression: North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba and Iran come to mind. Any society that starts to legitimize suppression of voices and allows certain entities to express while smothering others is heading down a dangerous path. It matters little which powerful entity is doing the stifling. Whether it is big government, establishment media, or tech giants presumptuously thinking they are smart enough to referee the public sphere, suppression is still suppression. Sadly, much of the pressure to restrict messaging is coming from on-line mobs or activist groups who have intimidated tech companies into compliance. During times of crisis, it is difficult for civilized societies to detach themselves from the intensity and circumstances of the moment... social media giants are actually political actors imposing their world views onto what were designed as public marketplaces. Absent the emotions of the now, most sensible Americans would disapprove of Twitter’s Jack Dorsey deciding which politicians’ messages get to circulate and which don’t. Seventeenth century English intellectual John Milton wrote about the dangers of censorship. He contended censorship weakens the character of a society, and ultimately, just doesn’t work... It is time to remember the rallying cries of past years when activists noted that “Dissent is patriotic,” and “No one is free when others are oppressed.” As the nation works to address its cultural and political problems, there must be a realization that muzzling people won’t help. That will only complicate the healing process."
Weird. How come John Milton was too ignorant to not know that free speech was only about the First Amendment, which only existed towards the end of the 18th century?
BREAKING: Twitter insider leaks video of Jack Dorsey saying ban is 'bigger than Trump' - "In the video, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey said "We are focused on one account [@realDonaldTrump] right now, but this is going to be much bigger than just one account, and it’s going to go on for much longer than just this day, this week, and the next few weeks, and go on beyond the inauguration.""
Meme - "Whistle-blower claiming fb allows hate speech"
"person who got a 7 day ban for calling someone a potato"
Meme - "Our standards on nudity or sexual activity. We have one set of standards because we want everyone on Facebook to feel welcome. Nudity or sexual content includes.. Female nipples (except in the context of breastfeeding, after-birth moments, health and acts of protest)...
'Protesting is patriotic. Let's get on the bus.'"
Google Scrubs Mike Cernovich Report on SPLC Link to Mass Shooter from Search Results - "A report from independent journalist, author, and filmmaker Mike Cernovich detailing the link between the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a group that demonizes and dehumanizes conservatives, and a far-left mass shooter appears to have been scrubbed from Google search results. Searching for the title of Cernovich’s report, “How a Convicted Terrorist used the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Website to Identify Targets,” does not bring up a link to the report on the first page of Google results, which instead returns results for the SPLC’s own website. The report details the story of Floyd Lee Corkins, a far-left activist who attempted to carry out a mass shooting at the headquarters of the Christian conservative Family Research Council in Washington DC. As detailed in Cernovich’s report, the FRC was just one organization on a list of four targets possessed by the shooter, who admitted to the FBI that he planned to carry out shootings at each of the targets, one by one. He also told the FBI that he identified the FRC as a target because he read an item on the SPLC’s “hate watch” list calling it an “anti-gay organization.”... Breitbart News has experienced similar censorship from Google, with the exact wording of Breitbart headlines failing to generate results on the first page of Google. Instead, the searches bring up results for websites that plagiarize the headlines and content of original Breitbart News stories... Cernovich noted that the SPLC is a discredited organization, having been forced into a multi-million dollar settlement with the secularist campaigner Maajid Nawaz after it added the moderate Muslim to a list of “anti-Muslim extremists.”"
Meme - Zuckerberg: "i receive: personal data"
"You receive: Your post goes against our Community Standards so only you can see it. See options.
Your post goes against our Community Standards so only you can see it. See options.
Your post goes against our Community Standards so only you can see it. See options.
Your post goes against our Community Standards so only you can see it. See options.
Your post goes against our Community Standards so only you can see it. See options."
Perma Banned - Posts | Facebook - "I heard about Chowder being suspended in YT for....reading the news about what allegedly happened to a man's daughter [TWICE] in a specific lavatory in a specific highschool... Apparently the "reason" YT gave to justify the suspension was because...Chowder was not allowed to say or express anything that COULD be perceived as insulting, or mean towards a very specific group of 'oppressed' individuals [even if its news] (weird how these group of people can claims themselves to be oppressed when entire institutions and corporations quite literally oppress others who AREN'T them as a means to protect this supposedly 'oppressed' group of people). In other words in America - you can quite literally READ THE FUCKING NEWS, and you can get banned because some people in a corporation/institution think that the reading of actual news can be "offensive" to the people who MIGHT be affected? It also got me thinking... So what's YT implying exactly?
1. that YT believes someone reading the news about an incident revolving a specific alleged perpetrator...is representative of an entire group of people?
Or
2. is it because of specific people's identity, that they are above any form of reproach or criticism, EVEN when they have been allegedly caught doing some of the most heinous things imaginable...thereby perpetuating systemic injustice that suppresses the voice of victims if the politics is inconvenient?"
Criticising someone who is trans is transphobic
Blue Lives Matter - Posts | Facebook - "Facebook has started cutting our reach by 99% to all articles posted in the past 14 hours. We don't know what they're doing to our page now. We're on Twitter and LinkedIn, and have a newsletter on our website if you don't want FB to shut you out from seeing our content. Unfortunately, we can't give you the links to any of those things or FB will cut the reach on this post too."
Facebook - "Anatomy of a conspiracy: With COVID, China took leading role"
"I literally reported on this EXACT story and was CENSORED for it. My post was REMOVED from both facebook and Instagram and my facebook account has been limited. Yet...today the Associated Press is allowed to report on it? At what point in the past few days did my “harmful content” “rooted in falsehoods” become safe?"
Google: Missing Churchill photo mystery explained - "Google has explained why search results information about Sir Winston Churchill was missing a photograph for several weeks. His image was replaced by a grey silhouette. There was concern Google was censoring the image following controversy over the former PM's statue, and culture secretary Oliver Dowden contacted the tech giant about it. Google said the error had occurred when it tried to change the photo."
Bret Weinstein on Twitter - "I have been evicted from Facebook. No explanation. No appeal. I have downloaded "my information" and see nothing that explains it. We are governed now in private, by entities that make their own rules and are answerable to no process. Disaster is inevitable. We are living it."
Google's YouTube Shuts Down Dilbert Creator Scott Adams - "Adams, a comic-turned podcaster who describes himself as “extra provocative,” published the 1,213th episode of his show titled, “Biden COVID Plan, Swalwell’s Chinese Spy, Pelosi Still a Steaming Pile,” on YouTube before it was taken down by the internet giant. YouTube wrote in an email to Adams the episode violated its guidelines pertaining to “spam, deceptive practices and scams policy.” YouTube’s censorship of Adams follows a recent company announcement that it would be removing any content critical of the 2020 election process alleging widespread voter fraud tipped the outcome of the November contest. After preemptively declaring Republican claims of deceptive voter fraud as a conspiracy remaining to be proven in court, YouTube is still host to a wide range of other dangerous conspiracies across its platform, from ideas that President Donald Trump is a Kremlin agent to the idea that aliens build the Egyptian pyramids."
Buck Sexton on Twitter - "Not a single journalist or politician was ever kicked off Facebook for trying to negate the result of the 2016 election with 4 years of absurd, reckless Russia collusion lies In case you were wondering about the ethics of our internet overlords"
Stew Peters on Twitter - "Imagine living in times where every tweet must be fact checked... But not every ballot."
Facebook - "This page is now at risk for being unpublished and its distribution is now being limited by Facebook for sharing this image lampooning Godwin’s Law two years ago."
The Babylon Bee - Posts | Facebook - "Facebook is keeping us all safe from harmful satire by removing our post about Senator Hirono weighing ACB against a duck."
Facebook and Twitter's Intervention Highlights Dangerous New Double Standard - "facing intense public pressure and threats of Senate inquiry, the company relented and said it would change its policy. Twitter’s legal chief, the New York Times said, was worried that the firm “could end up blocking content from journalists,” implying that it hadn’t already done just that. The company said it would henceforth allow similar content to be shared, affixed to a label about the source of the information. The intervention by the two platforms resulted in a predictable Streisand effect, in which an effort to censor results instead in increased attention. Conservatives lost their minds... The near-universal reaction among mainstream press outlets, meanwhile, was to denounce the Post story as dangerous, and probably foreign, misinformation. The expose “rings all the foreign-disinformation alarms in the book,” said Axios. “[Rudy Giuliani] and the New York Post Are Pushing Russian Disinformation,” sneered Mother Jones, the publication which introduced the raunchiest parts of the unverified Steele Dossier to the American public. “B.S. Ukraine Smear,” chirped Salon. Of the outlets who bothered to cover the story, nearly all of them weighed it not according to its truth or untruth, but in terms of its potential impact on the coming presidential election... Times writer Kevin Roose noted that “politicians and pundits” have hoped for a stronger response from tech firms ever since “Russian hackers and Wikileaks” injected “stolen emails from the Hillary Clinton campaign” into the public discourse in the last election cycle. “Since 2016,” he wrote, “lawmakers, researchers and journalists have pressured these companies to take more and faster action to prevent false or misleading information from spreading on their services.” Roose neglected to mention that the “stolen emails” in 2016 were real, and not “false or misleading misinformation.” That they may have damaged the Democratic Party was not great for them, but as Bill Clinton-appointed federal judge John Koeltl ruled in the Democrats’ failed lawsuit against Wikileaks, the Trump campaign, and Russia, those documents were of “public concern” and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The only thing that should matter, when it comes to stories like this, is whether or not the material is true and in the public interest. This disturbing new confederation of media outlets and tech firms is rewriting that standard. The optics of a former Democratic Party spokesman suddenly donning a Facebook official’s hat to announce a ban of a story damaging to Democrats couldn’t be worse. Moreover, the Orwellian construct described in papers like the Times suggests that for tech executives, pundits, and Democratic Party officials alike, the lines between fake news and bad news, between actual misinformation and information that is merely politically adverse, have been blurred. It’s no longer clear that some of these people see a meaningful distinction between the two ideas. The public can’t help but see this. While papers like the Times denounce the true Podesta emails as “misinformation,” and Facebook says the New York Post story must be kept out of sight until verified, the standard for, say, the Steele dossier was and is opposite. In that case, we were told “raw intelligence” should be published so that “Americans can make up their own minds” about information that, while “salacious and unverified,” may still be freely read on Twitter and Facebook, reported on in the New York Times and Washington Post, and talked about on NBC, so long as it has not been completely “disproven.” As Erik Wemple of the Washington Post points out, even that last point is no longer true, but the Steele dossier and plenty of other products of what Axios calls “hack and leak” journalism continue to be embraced and freely distributed. The obvious double-standard guarantees that the tech platforms will henceforth be viewed by a huge portion of the population as political censors instead of standards enforcers, and moreover that mainstream press pronouncements about such controversies will be deemed automatically untrustworthy by that same population."
If ‘unreliable’ is the issue, why did social media never block anti-Trump stories? - "This is what totalitarianism looks like in our century: not men in darkened cells driving screws under the fingernails of dissidents, but Silicon Valley dweebs removing from vast swaths of the Internet a damaging exposé on their preferred presidential candidate... Hunter introduced the firm’s executives to his father — just when Joe Biden was the second-most powerful man on earth, with outsize influence over the fate of the embattled Eastern European country. That information is squarely in the public interest as we head into an election, right? Yes, but it’s also extremely embarrassing for President Trump’s opponent, and so social-media executives went into action...
the past four years have seen left-of-center outlets devote millions of column inches to anti-Trump stories that turned out to be utter bunk — yet neither Facebook nor Twitter took similar action as part of any “standard process”:
Remember when four CNN reporters claimed, in June 2017, that James Comey was about to dispute in congressional testimony Trump’s claim that the FBI director had reassured the president he wasn’t under investigation? Comey did no such thing, but did Twitter and Facebook censor the story? Nope.
Or recall when The Guardian newspaper concocted a story, seemingly out of thin air, about Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort and WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange meeting at Ecuador’s embassy in London? There was no such meeting, as the special counsel’s report confirmed. So did Facebook or Twitter block that story? Nope, you can still post the debunked nonsense on either platform.
Or remember when The Atlantic published a several-thousand-word story suggesting that then-Sen. Jeff Sessions had lied when he said he didn’t meet the Russian ambassador as a Team Trump surrogate, but as a routine matter? The Mueller report debunked The Atlantic decisively with its finding that the meeting in question didn’t “include any more than a passing mention of the presidential campaign.” So is The Atlantic story blocked as misinformation? Nope.
Or how about when the McClatchy news agency claimed that Trump attorney Michael Cohen had secretly traveled to Prague to meet with his Kremlin handlers? “Cohen had never traveled to Prague,” the Mueller report found. So is the McClatchy report blocked? You know the answer — of course it isn’t.
Then there was BuzzFeed’s big bombshell that fizzled: a major story claiming that Trump had ordered Cohen to lie to Congress. The Mueller report’s verdict: “The president did not direct [Cohen] to provide false testimony. Cohen also said he did not tell the president about his planned testimony.” Did Facebook and Twitter block the link or otherwise “reduce distribution” pending fact-checking? Of course not. You can still post the lies freely.
Then there was the biggest of whopper of all: the salacious — and utterly discredited — Steele dossier, first reported by David Corn of Mother Jones and later published by BuzzFeed. Blocked by Big Tech? Ha!"
Meme - "Ummmm, ackchually it's a private platform so there's nothing wrong with a handful of private megacorporations controlling what opinions we're allowed to have on social media."
Kevin Sorbo on Twitter - "Orwell called them thought police. Twitter and Facebook call them “fact checkers.”"
Meme - "Mark Zuckerfuck using the time stone to ban me for shit I posted 3+ years ago"
Facebook - "Oh look, @TeamYouTube / @SusanWojcicki has demonetized my latest SAAD TRUTH clip wherein I simply read and commented about published articles by a black man and an Asian-American woman. Is @YouTube trying to erase voices of color (including mine)? The clip has 99.8% approval."
