Google Has An Actual Secret Speech Police Promote ANTIFA Nazi-Like Politics

Photo of Peter Hasson


Associate Editor


















More than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies around the world help police YouTube for extremist content, ranging from so-called hate speech to terrorist recruiting videos.

All of them have confidentiality agreements barring Google, YouTube’s parent company, from revealing their participation to the public, a Google representative told The Daily Caller on Thursday.

A handful of groups, including the Anti-Defamation League and No Hate Speech, a European organization focused on combatting intolerance, have chosen to go public with their participation in the program, but the vast majority have stayed hidden behind the confidentiality agreements. Most groups in the program don’t want to be publicly associated with it, according to the Google spokesperson, who spoke only on background.

YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program goes back to 2012, but the program has exploded in size in recent years amid a Google push to increase regulation of the content on its platforms, which followed pressure from advertisers. Fifty of the 113 program members joined in 2017 as YouTube stepped up its content policing, YouTube public policy director Juniper Downs told a Senate committeeon Wednesday.

The third-party groups work closely with YouTube’s employees to crack down on extremist content in two ways, Downs said and a Google spokesperson confirmed. First, they are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the partner groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers who design the algorithms policing YouTube but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.

It’s not just terrorist videos that Google is censoring. Jordan B. Peterson, a professor known for opposing political correctness, had one of his videos blocked in 28 countries earlier this month. A note sent to Peterson’s account said YouTube had “received a legal complaint” about the video and decided to block it.

The censors are at it again. No explanation — and no reason: Why in the world would this be blocked?

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 2, 2018


Here’s some more “explanation” for the censorship: incitement of hatred, terrorist recruitment, incitement of violence, celebration of terrorism. Even to fall briefly and erroneously into such a category is a chilling event….

— Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) January 2, 2018


Peterson used his large social media following to push back, calling out YouTube on Twitter, where he has more than 300,000 followers. YouTube reversed Peterson’s block after another popular YouTuber, Ethan Klein, demanded an explanation on Twitter, where he has more than 1 million followers. Although the original notice said that YouTube was responding to a legal complaint, on Twitter the company gave the impression that the block was erroneous.

Hi Ethan, this is fixed now, thanks for bringing it to our attention!


— Team YouTube (@TeamYouTube) January 2, 2018


The overwhelming majority of the content policing on Google and YouTube is carried out by algorithms. The algorithms make for an easy rebuttal against charges of political bias: it’s not us, it’s the algorithm. But algorithms are designed by people. As noted above, Google’s anonymous outside partners work closely with the internal experts designing the algorithms. This close collaboration has upsides, Google’s representatives say, pointing to advances in combatting terrorist propaganda on the platform. But it also provides little transparency, forcing users to take Google’s word that they’re being treated fairly.

YouTube’s partnership with outside organizations to combat extremist content is just one part of the company’s efforts to prioritize certain kinds of content over others. YouTube also suppresses certain content through its “restricted” mode, which screens out videos not suitable for children or containing “potentially mature” content, as well as by demonetizing certain videos and channels, cutting off the financial stream to their operators.

Prager University, a conservative nonprofit that makes educational videos, sued Google in October for both putting their content in restricted mode and demonetizing it. Prager faces an uphill battle in court (as a private company, Google isn’t bound by the First Amendment) but the lawsuit has forced Google to take public positions on its censorship.

The Google representative who spoke with TheDC said that it is the algorithms that are responsible for placing videos in restricted mode. But in court documents reviewed by TheDC, Google’s lawyers argued otherwise. “Decisions about which videos fall into that category are often complicated and may involve difficult, subjective judgment calls,” they argued in documents filed on Dec. 29.

In her testimony before the Senate committee on Wednesday, Downs described some of the steps Google has taken to suppress “offensive” or “inflammatory” content that falls short of actual violent extremism.

“Some borderline videos, such as those containing inflammatory religious or supremacist content without a direct call to violence or a primary purpose of inciting hatred, may not cross these lines for removal. But we understand that these videos may be offensive to many and have developed a new treatment for them,” she said.

“Identified borderline content will remain on YouTube behind an interstitial, won’t be recommended, won’t be monetized, and won’t have key features including comments, suggested videos, and likes. Initial uses have been positive and have shown a substantial reduction in watch time of those videos,” she added. (RELATED: Snopes, Which Will Be Fact-Checking For Facebook, Employs Leftists Almost Exclusively)

YouTube’s demonetization push, which is affecting some of the most popular non-leftist political channels, is meant to accommodate advertisers who seek to avoid controversial content, the Google spokesperson said.

Dave Rubin, a popular YouTube host, has seen his videos repeatedly demonetized. Rubin posted a video, “Socialism isn’t cool,” on Wednesday. The video was up a little over 24 hours before YouTube demonetized it on Thursday.

And of course, @TeamYouTube has demonetized my video on socialism. Guaranteed a critique of capitalism would’ve been just fine.

Join us via Patreon/PayPal/Bitcoin:

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) January 18, 2018



Hey @TeamYouTube, can you let me know which part of this video isn’t advertiser friendly? Just trying to understand your official policy!

— Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) January 18, 2018


The video was later remonetized, a Google representative told TheDC. But users can’t recoup the advertising dollars they lost while their videos were erroneously demonetized.

“I suspect that there is some political bent to it but I don’t think it’s necessarily a grand conspiracy against conservatives or anyone who’s not a leftist. Part of the problem is their lack of transparency has created a situation where none of use really know what’s going on,” Rubin told TheDC. “Does it seem that it is more so affecting non-leftist channels? Yeah, it does.”


Google Has NAZI-like “Re-Education” Camps for Its Conservative Employees


 Share Tweet Email Print

It’s a sure sign of a totalitarian system.

Those who don’t toe the party line on any politically sensitive topic tend not to last very long – they’re either removed or forced to change their way of thinking to match the prevailing power until diversity of thought is a thing of the past.

And when it comes to one of the world’s best-known companies, it’s a system that’s in full swing, according to an attorney suing the technology giant Google.

Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer suing Google on behalf of James Damore, an engineer who was ousted in August after a memo he wrote criticizing the company’s “diversity” efforts went public, was a guest Thursday on “Breitbart News Tonight” on Sirius XM’s Patriot channel.

She outlined the lengths Google she said was prepared to go to enforce orthodox thinking among its employees when it comes to liberal attitudes toward the workplace.

TRENDING: Perverted: NBC Says the Apostles Were Gay Friends

“From top to bottom there’s this bubble of very, very liberal groupthink that is at the same time very intolerant of people who have more traditional values,” Dhillon said.

“So, James is somebody who I would call — he calls himself a classical liberal, not necessarily a conservative, more libertarian, free-thinker type, guy who was in a Ph.D. program at Harvard after getting his master’s and decided to join Google — he was recruited there. He worked there for a few years and he got tremendously good reviews throughout his entire tenure there.”

But Dhillon said there is more to advancement at Google than technical ability.

“To get promoted at Google you have to check off the boxes prescribing to their diversity policies by attending diversity training, etc.,” she said.

“So, he went to one of these and you know it was all groupthink and it was all about how the fact that Google has fewer female engineers than male is because of bias and how everybody needs to get rid of their biases so we can achieve 50/50 parity. He [James] said ‘well wait a minute, why are we only looking at gender and these sort of characteristics? Are we thinking about diversity of thought here or are we thinking about anything else? And, you know, is your model really true?’”

After that “diversity training,” Damore and others who participated were asked to write down their reactions, Dhillon said. That’s when Damore composed the draft of what became the memo on diversity that put his name in the news – and cost him his job at Google.

As Dhillon explained it, Damore was simply asking questions – like how Google could seriously have a goal of making 50 percent of its engineering hires female when only 20 percent of computer engineering graduate are women.

“It’s their right to have that goal if they want,” Dhillon said. “They cannot achieve their goal legally by quotas, by putting men down, by shaming them, by refusing to promote them, by booing them in companywide meetings, which has been done and is described in our complaint …”

Breitbart Senior Editor-at-Large Rebecca Mansour interrupted to ask who was involved in the “carnival atmosphere.”


And that’s when Dhillon summarized the situation in language so strong it’s almost frightening.

“I wouldn’t even call it carnival, Rebecca, I would call it re-education camp,” she said.

(Listen to the full interview here. The “re-education camp” line comes about the 6:15 mark.)

“Re-education camps” aren’t the kind of thing we’re used to in the United States. They’re more associated with the Chinese communists of Mao, the Cambodian communists of the Khmer Rouge, or the Soviet communists under Lenin, Stalin and their successors.

They’re what totalitarian systems resort to in order to dictate the inner thoughts of the unfortunate people who are unable to escape them.

Fortunately, Google employees have a means to escape.

If the liberal machine that tried to perpetuate the Barack Obama presidency by pushing Hillary Clinton into power back in 2016, it’s a good chance American society at large would be seeing the kind of “re-education camps” being fostered that Dhillon claims Google is forcing on its employees.

And there would be no escape for Americans then.

Please like and share on Facebook and Twitter to let everyone know what this lawyer is saying about Google.

What do you think of the claim that Google is stamping out diversity of thought among its employees? Scroll down to comment below!


Tags: CensorshipGoogleYouTube



They posted on the same topic

Trackback URL :

This post's comments feed