Mediaboss Marketing

YouTube isnt just the biggest video platform in the world, its actually the second-biggest search engine in the world, after Google. Which, as it so happens, owns YouTube.

Google and YouTube are far more powerful than Facebook or Twitter, which get more press because a lot of journalists are on Twitter, and its a primary battleground for the political class to talk to itself.

But Google and YouTube not only control their own platforms, they control you access to all other platforms. Ill Google that is shorthand for Ill search for that most people dont even think of other search engines. But that in itself is a source of control what Google puts on its first page of results is often quite political. What it boosts versus what it suppresses. And even what it simply refuses to show you at all, even if you type it in precisely. And the same goes for its YouTube search.

For example, if you simply type the words Rebel News into the YouTube search engine, https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rebel+news you get very political results.

You do get a few actual Rebel videos. But one of the first hits is this one:

Trudeau slams Rebel News: I wont call it a media organization.

Its not the most current; it doesnt have the most views; its not by Rebel News but its an attack on us.

Under that is this old one, from years ago:

Environment minister tells Rebel Media reporter to stop calling her 'Climate Barbie

Four years old but its the CBCs attack on us.

There are two legitimate Rebel News results in the top ten results. The rest are attacks on us including obscure attacks with few views. But YouTube has made it that way.

It bugs me, but luckily millions of people have been able to overcome the built-in bias to find us and get their news from us directly.

So the censorship grows:

Updating our ads and monetization policies on climate changeOctober 7, 2021

...In recent years, we've heard directly from a growing number of our advertising and publisher partners who have expressed concerns about ads that run alongside or promote inaccurate claims about climate change. Advertisers simply dont want their ads to appear next to this content. And publishers and creators dont want ads promoting these claims to appear on their pages or videos.

Thats why today, were announcing a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change. This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change.

But what is this about? How is disputing astrophysics or the like a danger to the public?

I know the answer because its really about the danger of thinking for yourself. Thats what all of these things are about. And youll notice that, at least for the virus and global warming, the United Nations is taken as the global arbiter of truth. Thats right the place that puts the likes of Cuba and China on the human rights commission, the place that promotes the Taliban but condemns Israel thats the place that can decide what you can and cant say.

This really isnt surprising. And it really wont be surprising when the next subject is banned. The only surprise will be: what subjects are off-limits next? Me, Im guessing its transgenderism in womens sports. What do you think will be next?

GUEST: New Rebel News contributor Kelly Lamb (@LittleGoatCR on Twitter) to talk about her report on the Saskatchewan parents pushing back on school COVID rules.

FINALLY: Your messages to me!

Read more:
YouTube expands its censorship to global warming - Rebel News

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

It sounds like hyperbole, but its true: A progressive education association wants parents attending school board meetings to be treated like terrorists.

It has asked President Joe Biden to criminalize parent opposition to Critical Race Theory and COVID mandates, a burgeoning grassroots movement that has caught radicals by surprise.

The move to suppress First Amendment rights came from the National School Boards Association (NSBA), which organizes school board members. It wants the Biden administration to use "extraordinary measures" initially created to deal with foreign threats to now intimidate parents and "preserve public school infrastructure," according to the groups recent letter to the White House.

The group wants the Biden administration to invoke the PATRIOT Act and create a posse that includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Secret Service, and National Threat Assessment Center to protect them against parentsthe very people school boards are responsible for representing in their local communities.

KAROL MARKOWICZ: WHO DO YOUR CHILDREN BELONG TO -- YOU OR YOUR GOVERNMENT?

And the Biden Justice Department has quickly responded to the NSBAs request to criminalize political opposition and strong-arm Americans. U.S. Attorney Gen. Merrick Garland will meet with federal, state and local officials to "discuss strategies for addressing this disturbing trend."

Parents have a lot to say, however, and they should not be harassed.

Over the last year, parents have been attending school board meetings in large numbers to object to prolonged closures, as well as educators use of Critical Race Theory to promote racial prejudice. To most Americans, even those who may disagree with them, they are family, friends and neighbors advocating on behalf of their children. To the NSBA, theyre "current threats."

If anything, it is parents who sometimes must fear vindictive reprisals or censorship by school board members. In Loudoun County, Virginia, this year, members of the school board formed a Facebook group to investigate and dox parents who dared speak against CRT. Reports from Indiana, Minnesota, Virginia,and Wisconsin to name only a few, find that board members are no longer including time on meeting agendas for or are otherwise suspending public comment.

Both school board members and meeting attendees are responsible for keeping the meetings civil. NSBAs accusations that parents are a problem shows utter contempt for parents pouring into school board meetings to have their voices heard.

Censoring parents is sure to end badly. For parents to care about school children in their communities is a healthy, all-American development. Voter turnout for school board elections has been modest for years, hovering around 10 percent. The new interest should be celebrated, not criminalized.

Parents want to know what is being taught to their studentsas they should. School boards have the responsibility for directing important district operations, including curricular choices and other district operational policies. Yet board members have grown accustomed to "sleepy and ill-attended public meetings," according to USA Today, and are "reeling" to find parents upset at COVID-related policies and educators application of critical race theorys racially prejudicial ideas in K-12 classrooms.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

According to national polling, 70 percent of a nationally representative sample of parents say they do not want schools to teach children that their skin color is the most important thing about them.

State lawmakers around the U.S. agree and are considering proposals that say no public official can compel a teacher or student to believe or profess an idea that violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

School officials, on the other hand, are using discriminatory activities in schools based on critical race theory. This includes schools in Portland, Oregon, where videos of a public school critical race theory working group are available on YouTube.com; Evanston, Illinois, where a teacher is suing the district over mandatory racial affinity groups; and Hayward Unified School District in California, where school officials posted a note on the district website saying they would teach CRT.

NSBA promotes CRT and has urged the Biden administration to reinstate racially discriminatory workforce development programs that President Donald Trumps administration abolished last fall. Given the publics rejection of CRT and state lawmakers efforts to prohibit racial discrimination, its positions do not reflect the interests of families or policymakers.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Parents are not to be trifled with. According to Axios, more than twice as many board recall elections or campaigns were held or initiated between January and July 2021 than during all of last year.

NSBA should not be worried about parents attending meetingsthey should be worried about voters headed to the ballot box.

Mike Gonzalez is a senior fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for Foreign Policy and the Angeles T. Arredondo E Pluribus Unum fellow. His most recent book is "The Plot to Change America: How Identity Politics is Dividing the Land of the Free" (Encounter Books, July 28, 2020).

See the original post here:
Butcher & Gonzalez: Biden's Justice Department clueless that censoring parents is sure to end badly - Fox News

Perched nude and contrapposto at the Galleria dellAccademia in Florence, Michelangelos David is widely regarded as a masterpiece of Renaissance sculpture. Visitors to Expo 2020 Dubai now have the chance to see a 3D-printed reproduction of the chiseled marble statue, but only from the shoulders up. The replica stands 23 feet tall within the Italian pavilions octagonal two-story gallery, but only diplomats and VIPs will have exclusive access to the pavilions lower floorand unimpeded views of Davids undercarriage.

Italian media is decrying the decision. When the statue was uncovered and seen by the Emiratis, there was enormous embarrassment, an anonymous Italian source told La Repubblica. We even considered putting underpants on him or changing the statue, but it was too late. Art critic Vittorio Sgarbi describes it as an unprecedented, unacceptable, intolerable humiliation made in deference to Islamic tradition. While not stated outright, its believed that artistic director Davide Rampello reckoned with concerns over showing the heroic male nude in front of conservative Emiratis.

Rampello denied the allegations of censorship. According to him, the decision was purely functionalto allow visitors to see David from eye level, a vastly different and more personal perspective than what tourists typically enjoy in Florence. An Emirati tour guide, meanwhile, doesnt seem to mind: We look at nudity as something which shouldnt be displayed but in practice, when it comes to art, I feel people are opening up to it.

The censored David will be on display in the Italian Pavilion at Expo 2020 Dubai until March 31, 2022.

Original post:
Censorship of David Replicas Manhood Stirs Controversy in Dubai - Surface Magazine

How convenient that Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen just gave the social network another excuse to crack down on conservative content.

In her congressional testimony Tuesday, Haugen, a data scientist, called on Congress to enact more regulations on her former employer to combat misinformation on the platform, saying the company puts profits over public safety.

At issue for Haugen is Facebooks algorithm, which in 2018 the company changed to prioritize high-engagement content, thereby contributing according to Haugen to increased divisiveness and polarization among users. Haugen even went so far as to say that Facebooks switching off of safeguards after the 2020 election led to the Jan. 6 US Capitol riot.

Fast forward a couple months, we got the insurrection, she said in an interview with 60 Minutes on Sunday.

Whatever you think of the Capitol riot, Facebook did not cause it. The way Haugen used the word insurrection hinted of her likely progressive-lefty politics revealing her true motives. And what Haugen means by safeguards is no doubt censoring of conservative content, in a way Post readers know all too well.

Thats her main objective: censorship. She wants a complete overhaul of the content-moderation rules on Facebook, including an independent governmental body overseeing such changes. And as a good progressive, she pushes these new regulations under the guise of safety.

Facebook has demonstrated they cannot act independently, Haugen told 60 Minutes. The company over and over again chooses its profits over safety. It is subsidizing it is paying for its profits with our safety, and Im hoping that this will have a big enough impact on the world that they get the fortitude and the motivation to actually go put those regulations into place.

Like clockwork, a couple of hours after Haugens congressional testimony, Facebooks Director of Policy Communications Lena Pietsch jumped on Haugens push for more regulations.

We dont agree with her characterization of the many issues she testified about, Pietsch said in a statement. Despite all this, we agree on one thing; its time to begin to create standard rules for the Internet. Its been 25 years since the rules for the Internet have been updated, and instead of expecting the industry to make societal decisions that belong to legislators, it is time for Congress to act.

It seems like Haugen and Facebook have been on the same side this entire time. And it makes sense, as Haugen doesnt actually want to break up Facebook.

Instead, shed like the company to remain a billion-dollar monopoly imposing extreme-content regulations on its users. All while this is overseen by a federal agency created at her behest and staffed, no doubt, by former Facebook employees.

Haugen did leak some important information on Facebooks coverup of Instagrams negative effects on teen girls mental health (although who doesnt know this to be true?) and its lax treatment of drug cartels and human traffickers on its platform. But her drive for censorship wont remotely fix those issues.

Her objective is censorship. She wants Facebook and Instagram and all social-media companies, for that matter to enact safeguards to combat misinformation and hate.However, given the hyper-politicized arena and the Democrats past form for weaponizing supposedly impartial government agencies to push a progressive-elitist agenda, many will assume thismeans banning of conservative content or that which is negative to the Democratic Party.

It is one thing to propose an independent body to force Big Tech platforms to reveal the mechanics behind their algorithmicmachines of virality to spark a transparent discussion about how information is distributed and controlled. But it is far more perilous to police what is acceptable or fact. Without proper independence and rigor, it has been proven time and again that what is deemed fact and what is not merely depends on whether the person in charge wants it to be.

In this case, without once defining either misinformation, or hate, (again, the subtext was clearly right-wing content all along), Haugen opened the door for all content Silicon Valley dislikes to be banned.

If that happens, say goodbye forever to stories like The Posts expos of Hunter Bidens e-mails, which Facebook banned. Or suggestions that COVID may have originated at the Wuhan lab the theme of another squelched Post column long before the idea gained broader acceptance.

Some whistleblower, Frances Haugen. She just gave Big Tech and its progressive buddies the go-ahead to ramp up its censorship and control of the American public.

Victoria Marshall is the Collegiate Network Fellow atThe Post.

More here:
What Facebook 'whistleblower' Frances Haugen really wants: more censorship of conservative views - New York Post

By Melissa Angell (October 7, 2021, 9:55 PM EDT) -- A Florida federal judge on Wednesday granted YouTube's request to transfer former President Donald Trump's censorship lawsuit against the tech company to the Northern District of California, finding that a forum-selection clause within YouTube's terms of service is enforceable.

U.S. District Judge K. Michael Moore ruled in a 24-page order that YouTube's forum-selection clause, which requires any claims that relate to its terms of service to be governed by California law, can be enforced since Trump brought the lawsuit as a private citizen rather than in his capacity as president.

When creating a YouTube account, all users must accept an agreement...

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know whats happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

Read this article:
YouTube Gets Trump's Censorship Suit Transferred To Calif. - Law360