YouTube's decision to demonetize podcaster Bret Weinstein raises serious questions, both about the First Amendment and regulatory capture
Google owns YouTube. Three of Google’s five significant shareholders are BlackRock, The Vanguard Group and T. Rowe Price. The Vanguard Group is Pfizer’s highest shareholder. BlackRock is a major shareholder as well. T. Rowe Price and BlackRock are top shareholders of BioNTECH. BlackRock and Vanguard are top shareholders of Moderna. The largest shareholders of the MSM are BlackRock and Vanguard. I believe they own four of the six corporations that own the media. Big Pharma is a huge contributor of the CDC and the WHO. And let’s not get into how entwined these banks/corporations are with our “public servants” in DC.
It seems to me the conflicts of interest are never-ending and it’s why I don’t trust the government, the media nor big pharma. There is just too much money (and power) on the line. Of course YouTube and the other platforms including the MSM are not going to allow the likes of Weinstein, Malone, and many others to hurt their bottom line.
It’s scary how much power and control the 1% has over everything we read, hear and see. This explains why so many people are acting the way they do. I’m grateful to all those like Weinstein, Malone, McCullough, Kory, and all the other doctors, scientists and independent reporters etc… for having the courage to risk it all to save humanity.
Whether one agrees with the claims of these people or not, why would you agree with Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter censoring anyone’s opinions? I’m sick and tired of nameless, faceless “moderators” determining what all of us can read, hear, or see. That’s the point.
Regardless of whether one disagrees with Brett and Heather, they should absolutely have the right to discuss the topics that have gotten them demonetized. I think they are both very careful reasoned people who's contents is always interesting and worthwhile. I followed them over to Odysee. YouTube can suck it!
We should be thankful this Orwellian tactic by big tech wasn't available when blood letting and phrenology were "settled science."
How fascinating that Politifact has taken a position on whether the spike proteins are harmful. It's doubtful they similarly express positions for medical treatments for other illnesses.
It's an acknowledgement that the "science" regarding covid is, in fact, political.
I watched Weinstein's Youtube discussion of the mRNA vaccine with Robert Malone. As a physician, I didn't find his discussion particularly convincing, nor that of Dr. Malone. Three or four hundred million people have now been vaccinated and we are not seeing a lot of serious side effects, which we would almost have certainly seen by now if there really was a problem. The issue, as I see it, is that Weinstein is making a living with his Youtube channel and obviously, he is motivated to increase his income by generating controversy. There's a heck of a lot of content on Youtube and careful, well-reasoned discussion probably would generate less income than outlandish claims. As a physician, I'm used to reading medical journals and I have enough statistical training to evaluate the evidence. That's not true for the majority of people exposed to this kind of programming. I'd have found Weinstein's program a lot more interesting if he had brought on an active mRNA researcher to debate Dr. Malone. (I don't think Dr. Malone is "in his dotage" at age 60, but he's clearly not involved with this kind of work anymore.) Weinstein is a smart guy, but he's not a physician, and not a virologist. His show needs to be a little more balanced if he wants to be taken seriously.
You are an absolute treasure. I mean that.
I’ve been pummeling Bret and Heather through their Patreon accounts etc to look into the first amendment angle due to government involvement. Have you heard of any attorneys looking into the case? Is there anything to the rumor that the CDC is very actively involved in the ad hoc council that the tech giants set up to coordinate their responses?
The most important revelation by Brett Weinstein is that if Ivermectin and/or HCQ were granted the status of acceptable treatments for COVID then the "Emergency Authorizations" for the vaccines are null and void: use of the vaccine effectively becomes illegal. No wonder big pharma and their lackeys are defecating bricks trying to suppress the truth-tellers. Matt, I hope you will continue with this issue, it is a scamdal (no misspelling) of the first order, and it is just beginning.
"Make changes to your channel based on our feedback"
That sent a chill up my spine.
I love the complete anonymity that cloaks these decisions. It's like these fuckers think they're the CIA. Even cops are held to a higher standard of accountability. I've spent the majority of my life far more concerned about govt power and it's abuse because of the monopoly on force the govt tends to enjoy. But Snowden pointed out that the govt just wanted to do what the tech corporations already were doing; it isn't like they had some grand malevolent plan they cooked up all on their own. It seems that Section 230 is a rigged coin - every time it flips, it protects only the media corporations.
Matt, thank you for all your outstanding journalism -- I have been your fan for decades.
There is another huge outrage going on -- a brazen and huge SLANDER of Aaron Mate and Grayzone regarding well-documented OPCW fabrications at direct request by US government.
They are just coming out of huge 2.5 year long fake and just dismissed Syria-related lawsuit (with direct involvement of top pro-Israel lawyer).
TYT's Cenk and Anna have also been activated to slander and stop Aaron's work on US/Al Qaeda crimes in Syria -- the avalanche of slander and redirection by even inventing "me-too" is unprecedented. TYT is also on record of slandering the publisher of a century -- Julian Assange.
Grayzone -- Ben Norton, Aaron Mate, and Max Blumenthal need maximum support -- including yours !!
I very strongly disagree with some of the things Bret and Heather say about the vaccines, and I think they are at times not evidence-based but rather fear-based or in a few cases, flat-out ignorance-based. They don't know what they don't know. But I wholeheartedly support their right to say anything they want to say about the vaccines.
Theirs is not even a marginal case. I might really take issue with some of their statements and conclusions, but they seem to be operating in good faith, so it's just especially egregious for YouTube to do this. (We can't be the good-faith police and decide whether people are for real before letting them speak, but in Bret and Heather's case, it's so obvious they're in earnest that it's particularly horrible that they've been silenced. If they can be silenced, literally anyone with an unpopular opinion might be.
So...suck it, YouTube. We all need to create a huge fuss about this.
Someone in this comments section supposedly named Brian Hanley is claiming that Robert Malone is insane from dementia.
Dr. Malone has had three scientific publications in the last year. He has thousands of research citations on Google Scholar. https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=Jf1bApYAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate
When opponents of a scientific claim find it necessary to claim that an eminent scientist is insane, demonetize their critics, and remove Nobel Prize-winning scientists' videos, something is deeply wrong.
So, real question here: pre-internet, it was much harder to make a living writing or speaking unpopular speech. Something like the Turner Diaries was hard to find because bookstores just wouldn't carry garbage like that. This didn't infringe on the author's rights as there's no right for your bad novel to be distributed. You have the right to *say* it but you don't have the right for it to be in stores.
The Turner Diaries is obviously a less objectionable case but where's the line here? The laws we have in place for speech on the internet are woefully inadequately and, considering congress is made largely of technological illiterate great-grandparents, it's hard to see how this changes.
But given your druthers: what's appropriate? How do we thread the needle? Because, even though I don't agree with what they're doing in this case, YouTube *doesn't* have a responsibility to let you make money on anything you say. Not running ads against your content on a video platform isn't the same thing as being thrown in jail for criticizing the government. These aren't the same level of speech. While we all understand that Google has an outsized ability to determine who sees what information, what's the actual *solution* here? I've yet to see one that felt satisfying. Maybe someone else has.
These two paragraphs in the story point to a troubling lack of due process and accountability.
In the last two weeks, he emailed back and forth with the firm, at one point receiving an email from someone who identified himself only as “Christopher,” indicating a desire to set up a discussion between Weinstein and various parties at YouTube.
Over the course of these communications, Weinstein asked if he could nail down the name and contact number of the person with whom he was interacting. “I said, ‘Look, I need to know who you are first, whether you’re real, what your real first and last names are, what your phone number is, and so on,” Weinstein recounts. “But on asking what ‘Christopher’s’ real name and email was, they wouldn’t even go that far.” After this demand of his, instead of giving him an actual contact, YouTube sent him a pair of less personalized demonetization notices.
These are the people I look to about COVID. The front line health providers, Doctors and Nurses:
Why are 75% of healthcare workers resistant to taking the vaccine
Doctors and nurses, other health professionals—E.M.T.s, home health aides, therapists—are generally less likely to say that they’ll get immunized, and a recent survey of C.N.A.s found that nearly 75% were hesitant to get the vaccine.“In many cases, vaccine hesitancy is not a lack-of-information problem, it’s a lack-of-trust problem,” David Grabowski, a professor of health-care policy at Harvard, told me. “Staff doesn’t trust leadership. They have a real skepticism of government.
They were also aware of the "FALS POSITIVE TEST" that the WHO & CDC knew about in May 2020 but used until January 2021 before removing. You can see the effect of removing that test by looking at the WORLD O METER chart.
WHO (finally) admits PCR tests creat false positives...
The disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2).
With a false positive rate of 0.8% - a figure used by Ms Hartley-Brewer and within the broad range of what we think might be the actual rate for community testing - you would get eight false positives. So in that context, it's true that roughly 90% of positives would be false.
The False positive was used for the INFLATED Death count. Many of those people would have died from their primary problem like Heart Attack, Cancer and Flu (flu was not recorded during COVED because no one was reporting it.)
CDC went back and added what they thought would have been the average deaths from flu but that was already recorded as COVID which inflates the death count and they did it with cancer, and heart attack and stroke. Also not mentioned is that 90,000 people die a year from Hospital Infection. My sister died of a simple hospital infection after a bone marrow transfer the we did not order an autopsy but should have. The hospital gave us the choice so hospital infection was not listed as the cause of death.
ALL these numbers should be looked at more closely especially NYC where the Hospital Boat left for lack of patents and yet they have the highest death count.
Hospital ship Comfort departs NYC, having treated fewer than 200 patients.
Search domain navytimes.comhttps://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2020/04/30/hospital-ship-comfort-departs-nyc-having-treated-fewer-than-200-patients/
The Navy's hospital ship Comfort departed New York City today