John Archer and Johnny Liu have pointed out that after a pro-censorship campaign by Vox Media, a sibling of Daily Kos, YouTube has just changed and escalated its censorship policies, it has been doing so for years, and it will continue to do so:
For example, the author brags:
Today, we're taking another step in our hate speech policy by specifically prohibiting videos alleging that a group is superior in order to justify discrimination, segregation or exclusion based on qualities like age, gender, race, caste, religion, sexual orientation or veteran status.Clearly, a majority of correct yet non-vacuous statements that one can make any group or groups of people unavoidably violates this would-be rule. Groups have different characteristics and different distributions of characteristics (some are superior and some are inferior in various respects) and are or need to be segregated or excluded in various situations. If the previous sentence were false, the groups wouldn't exist – wouldn't be well-defined by a criterion or a boundary – at all.
Does someone want to ask whether a country should fight against the Islamic State? You can't because the question would justify discrimination of some people based on their religion – the folks in the Islamic State are those who actually believe Islam, or "their" version of it, which happens to be the traditional one and the most important one, namely the understanding that everyone who doesn't surrender to the Mohammedan nonsense has to be murdered.
For some time, there has been a debate how to prevent the Big Tech companies – whose decision making process has been largely hijacked by far left sociopaths – from turning the U.S. and other Western countries if not the globe into their edition of Orwell's "1984" – the transformation already seems to be underway. One school of thought says that because they're censoring the content, they should be treated as publishers (as opposed to platforms) i.e. they should legally be responsible for the content.
But here I want to propose another thing.
If YouTube doesn't allow common-sense or conservative videos and only allows far left videos which (as YouTube admits above) are even being pushed down the users' throats, it should be classified as a propaganda server working on behalf of left-wing and especially far left-wing candidates in various elections that are relevant for the viewers. Everyone who pays YouTube to show his or her ads is funding an entity whose important goal – if not the most important goal – is to spread extreme left-wing political opinions, suppress all the other views, and intimidate their holders.
So the fees paid to YouTube (for ads that someone orders etc.) are mostly a donation to the candidates of the Democratic Party, Communist Party, Green Party, Feminist Party, ISIS party, and other groups on the same side – because YouTube is becoming a media department of these left-wing parties. According to the U.S. law, these donations are capped. These caps should be imposed on YouTube if it wants to continue with the political meddling.
Clearly, if this is imposed, YouTube will lose most of the income and it will become an almost worthless company (which is a part of Google). Maybe, the law could recognize that YouTube is 50% commercial and 50% propaganda server. With this counting, 50% of the advertisement fees are used for the political campaign which means that the cap limiting the individual client's fees to YouTube could double relatively to the limit on the purely political donations to parties.
The shareholders should be told in advance that the status is going to be changed in this way. They will have the opportunity to sell the Google stocks, accept the nearly complete loss of the YouTube part, or finally eliminate the employees such as the saboteur who wrote the terrifying aforementioned manifesto "Our ongoing work to tackle hate". The word "saboteur" is a euphemism. Rogue employees doing these nasty things are really robbing the shareholders of tens of billions of dollars (which may jump to hundreds of billions of dollars soon) – amounts that wildly exceed the combined market value of the world's left-wing activists. YouTube's demonetization should be used as a template for the financial liquidation of all companies whose goal is to undermine and compromise the democratic process and strip the citizens of their basic political rights, starting with the freedom of speech and expression.
Later, the very same approach – capping of the donations – could be employed against universities that indoctrinate the young people because those are also a part of the political campaigns.
In certain situations, it's not just about the money and the legitimacy of the election campaigns. Whenever YouTube blackmails people and apparently prevents them from saying basic and self-evidently true facts such as "the Western civilization is superior relatively to Islam", YouTube is really acting as a hired gun of the Islamic State that has the precisely identical goal, and YouTube or its parts responsible for this blackmail should be treated on par with the media wings of the terrorist organizations.
Lots of such events are taking place. A school board in Fort Worth, Texas has voted 8-to-0 and fired a teacher, Georgia Clark, because she "dared" to ask Donald Trump by a tweet that he should do something to remove the illegal immigrants at her school. Clearly, the school system over there – and not only over there, of course – has been hijacked by folks who are hostile to the U.S. and the fundamental pillars of its legal system and they represent a threat for the integrity and sovereignty of the U.S. They must be treated accordingly.