60 Minutes Accuses YouTube CEO of Not Banning Enough of Their Conservative Competition

329

Despite the nine million videos removed by YouTube in just this last quarter, the narrative at ’60 minutes’ is that this doesn’t go far enough in banning “dangerous” people and messages.

On a December 1 ’60 minutes’ segment hosted by Lesley Stahl, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki was interviewed to discuss how YouTube is handling “the site’s misinformation, conspiracy theories, and hate.” 

Stahl claims that YouTube isn’t held to and legal standard of freedom of speech. This completely ignores several lawsuits that have been filed against YouTube.

Despite the allowances permitted to platforms such as YouTube in Section 230 of the communications decency act, they are still very much open to lawsuits concerning their blatant violations of peoples freedom of speech.

In 2017 Prager University launched a Facebook fundraiser for a lawsuit against YouTube for the restriction of over 200 videos. As previously reported by the National File, the Facebook fundraiser refers to the last round of fundraising to pay for legal expenses brought on during the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 27th. 

“On August 27th, PragerU is taking YouTube and Google to court! PragerU has sued the tech giant for restricting over 200 videos and demonetizing many others,” the Facebook fundraising page reads.

“Our federal lawsuit before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is critical for the freedom of speech, as it will determine whether conservatives can freely share their ideas online.”

During the ’60 Minutes’ interview with YouTube CEO Wojcicki was met with an accusation concerning the legal accountability of YouTube, under the false premise that as a platform for independent content creation that they aren’t held to any legal standard of freedom of speech. 

’60 Minutes’ host Stahl puts pressure on YouTube CEO Wojcicki to further censor commentators such as Lauren Southern, Steven Crowder, and Nick Fuentes.

It’s no coincidence that Stahl would feel this way considering how independent and alternative news reporting is on the rise with the same velocity that network TV is plummeting. 

As reported by AdAge, “premiere Week deliveries were down 25 percent compared to the analogous period in 2018, this during what historically has been the highest-rated week on the broadcast calendar.

In another undesirable first, none of the broadcast networks last week managed to average a 2.0 in the demo, and while NBC (1.8) and Fox (1.7) may have been in the neighborhood, CBS (1.0) was off with ABC in another zip code.”

The motive for Wojcicki doing an interview on the subject of censorship and legality of the content availability with someone at ’60 Minutes’ may be considered suspicious if only for the simple fact that the staff at network television would obviously oppose any news content creator that contributes to the ever declining popularity and viewership among younger generations and even boomers who are finding newfound convenience in the newer styles of news reporting.

When you look at the examples of content creators shown, the pattern of big tech censorship and misrepresentation of character utilized to defame and discredit become more evident.

Lauren Southern, now retired, use to make documentaries that rivaled the same style as CBS’s own ’60 Minutes.’

Similarly this principle can be applied to Steven Crowder and Nick Fuentes, who much like Southern had done prior to her sudden retirement, produce consistent news commentary and host debates between influences.

Fuentes more so than these other content creators is compared to Richard Spencer despite the fact that he does not support the idea of an “ethno state”, which is pushed by Spencer, or the supremacy of the white race. Fuentes describes himself as Afro-Latino with his political ideology as Paleoconservatism.

In this situation, Stahl uses the same methodology as the rest of the mainstream media by listing Richard Spencer Stahl and maligning the first three examples by association.

Contradicting the program’s seeming suggestion that YouTube allows Spencer to grow and thrive on their platform, in a lengthy interview of Spencer on JFG Livestream, Spencer admits his lack of relevance and the waning of his Alt Right movement, and resigns himself to living as a normal person, for now.

It seems to many that ’60 Minutes’ is merely attempting to ensure its Internet competition is not allowed to grow.

Understandably, Wojcicki is making her rounds in the mainstream media to put a kind face on a company in the midst of the public relations nightmare caused by the censored individuals and advocates of free speech primarily on the right, but fundamentally along the entirety of the political spectrum.

Wojcicki insists that the reason that these “hateful” political and commentary based videos don’t get removed under the guidelines of their policies is because the United States does not have laws that police the American people of their thoughts and opinions the way that they do in hellish socialist and communist countries, such as China. China, where as we saw in a shocking video just days ago, one case be arrested for even the smallest public critiques against the Chinese Police.

Furthermore, Wojcicki implies that not only would these laws be supported by YouTube, but she would happily implement new censorship laws to further remove channels and videos.

Wojcicki seems to be in good company with a great deal of individuals of the political left willing to sign over their personal freedoms just to see the movement has enough power to silence those they find too opposition.