What was the significance of the year 1984? This was the year set in the dystopian novel by the same name, 1984, by author George Orwell. For those not in the know, 1984 (published in 1949) describes a futuristic society where omnipresent mass surveillance, totalitarian governments, brainwashing, and the thought police were in vogue. Many words from the novel entered common usage including “Big Brother,” “doublethink,” and “thoughtcrime.”
In 1984, totalitarian super-states rule the world (like today’s United Nations or European Union). One of the ruling parties was under the ideology of “Ingsoc” (a shortened form of English Socialism). Any individuals who thought differently from the party-perspective were persecuted and “disappeared.” History is constantly rewritten (like in our present communist nations throughout the world and those that want to be communist) to fit in with the agenda.
1984 is a highly reputed work of fiction that is slowly, but steadily, evolving into reality. History is rewritten in today’s classrooms to suit a specific ideology, namely socialism. The news media is replete with one-sided viewpoints that label any other perspective “deplorable.” Online platforms that masqueraded as “public squares” now don the roles of fact-checkers and publishers.
YouTube, owned by a company that used to have as its motto “Don’t Be Evil,” is a prime example of doublethink. It censors in the name of truth; it employs extremely biased fact-checkers in the name of providing certified, evidence-based content.
Since the beginning of Trump’s presidency, online tech giants have colluded to misinform the public, provide half-truths that disinform, censor authorities when it doesn’t suit their narratives, and now outright censorship of content it deems irrelevant.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
On Dec. 9, YouTube released an official post which states:
“Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, in line with our approach towards historical U.S. Presidential elections. For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. We will begin enforcing this policy today, and will ramp up in the weeks to come. As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there’s sufficient education, documentary, scientific or artistic context.”
This happened at almost the same time that the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies voted down a resolution that officiated Joe Biden as the President-Elect. The JCCIC claimed that there were numerous pending election-related issues and lawsuits, and it did not want to “get ahead of the electoral process and decide who we are inaugurating,” according to a statement by Sen. Roy Blunt.
Youtube has essentially told its viewers that it will be the sole arbiter of truth. No matter the cases pending before the courts or the thousands of witnesses who have come forth alleging voter fraud, Youtube has “decreed” that Joe Biden is the next president of the United States. And any one who disagrees will be sent to the gulags. Not yet, but at least, they will be kicked off the platform.
Keep in mind that all this does not apply to corporate media entities that fall in line with the narrative. As long as they comply to show videos that showcase what YouTube agrees upon, they can show all that they want. YouTube will promote them; more views means more revenue, and YouTube will suggest these videos to those that browse the platform, even if it means they falsely claim (again and again) that Trump colluded with Russia or Ukraine. This kind of reporting, without facts or evidence, can run well on YouTube because it fits in well with their agenda.
Videos that are promoted, monetized and “suggested” according to YouTube:
- Glorifying socialism and communism
- Threatening Trump supporters and conservatives
- Supporting non-evidence-based leftist theories on climate change
- Supporting vaccinations (if you don’t support vaccines, you get censored)
- And, of course, coverage of non-violent protests
So if you are part of the select few “authoritative sources” chosen by YouTube to make videos, you are safe and will be promoted.
“While only a small portion of watch time is election-related content, YouTube continues to be an important source of election news. On average, 88 percent of the videos in top 10 search results related to elections came from authoritative news sources (amongst the rest are things like newsy late-night shows, creator videos and commentary). And the most viewed channels and videos are from news channels like NBC and CBS.” -YouTube blog.
For the rest, the future is murky. Say the wrong word, and you risk being demonetized, censored and deplatformed. A question keeps popping into mind: “Is this still an American company?”
The Epoch Times @EpochTimes
#YouTube announced it will immediately start removing content pertaining to alleged “widespread fraud or errors” that took place in the #2020Election, a move causing experts to warn that such #Censorship could trickle into every other major platform.
Paul Gosar @DrPaulGosar
YouTube: A Chinese asset
Is YouTube now a Chinese asset? It certainly has adopted Maoist censorship.
Steven Crowder @scrowder
Sorry @YouTube. You CANNOT allow #FakeNews “Russia Hoax” videos to flourish on your platform while removing legally defensible, factually sourced content on widespread election fraud and enjoy the protections of a “platform”. Nope.
Tom Fitton @TomFitton
.@Google/@YouTube, under false and nonsensical pretenses, doubles down on election intervention and political censorship against @RealDonaldTrump to help Joe Biden — the day after President Trump officially threatens veto over Section 230 reform.
