YouTube Has Quietly Begun "Censoring" Journalists Who Criticize Government

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Alice Salles via,

Earlier this month, YouTube, the behemoth video-sharing website was accused of censoring users.

Claiming some of their videos had been barred from making money through the company’s ad services, YouTube hosts like Philip DeFranco spoke out against the policy, claiming over “a dozen of his videos had been flagged as inappropriate for advertising, including one dinged for ‘graphic content or excessive strong language.’

In a video entitled “YouTube Is Shutting Down My Channel and I’m Not Sure What To Do,” DeFranco called YouTube’s policy “censorship with a different name,” since users touching on what the company considers to be controversial subjects end up losing money. “If you do this on the regular, and you have no advertising,” DeFranco added, “it’s not sustainable.”

While YouTube has already confirmed its policy regarding what it considers unfit for monetization hasn’t changed, the issue might lie elsewhere now that the company seems more efficient in enforcing its own rules. As a matter of fact, the content policy changed in 2012, when YouTube first introduced its “ad-friendly” guidelines.

But while an algorithm is allegedly used to spot and “de-monetize” videos that break the company’s rules, many continue to accuse the company, currently owned by Google, of having “vague” descriptions of what its leadership considers ad-friendly.

YouTube rolled out its monetization tool in 2006, when ads consisted of videos that would pop up at the bottom of the user’s screen. If the user did not click on it, it would roll for about ten seconds before going away. But as ad executives pressured YouTube to “to do a better job at promoting its creators,” the relationship with its advertisers changed. As better and even more intrusive ads were added to YouTube videos, the company allegedly became more concerned with the content.

Those who are affected often complain about copyright claims, but some complain about another type of targeting — one that involves power players.

YouTube Content Creators Speak Out

Derrick J. Freeman, the host of FR33MANTV, told Anti-Media that he monetizes all of his videos, and every day some video — even much older ones — gets slapped with some kind of warning or another because of music playing in the background somewhere. Usually a public place.”

While Freeman’s work is often political in nature, he hasn’t seen any of his videos being flagged for breaking YouTube’s rules concerning subjects related to war or political conflicts.

Mat Bars, another YouTube user, also complained about copyright claims.

Asked about the alleged censorship problem, Bars told Anti-Media that “what it really most likely comes down to is advertisers not wanting their ads to be associated with certain things.” To the YouTube host, the company is “mostly blameless in this. The site isn’t even profitable, so letting advertisers push them around like this suits their best interests.” Instead of complaining about censorship, Bars added that what affects him personally is “the copyright system.”

But to more radical political figures who gather a considerable number of followers on YouTube, things are slightly differently.

To Luke Rudkowski, the man behind the popular channel We Are Change, YouTube’s policy of nixing monetization on some of his most popular videos has been a problem for a long time.

For years,” he told The Anti-Media, “I have monetized and still get f*cked from it.” Especially, he continued, “[when I launch a video about] Hillary, or war and foreign policy.” When his videos touch on drugs or guns, however, he says ads remain in place.


When the videos only have ‘Hillary Clinton’ they do fine,” he added, “however, when we add ‘FBI’, that’s when YouTube” springs into action.

Anti-Media journalist and senior editor Carey Wedler got her start on Youtube and has had a similar experience with her channel.

She explained the first time she realized the site had singled out her videos was “a couple of weeks” after she “posted a video about how America’s culture of militarism is an underlying contributor to domestic mass shootings.”

She continued:

The video was released shortly after the Orlando shooting, which occurred in June. By July 6, I had received an email saying the video was not ‘advertiser friendly.’ Two days later, I received another email about a video I released at the beginning of June — before I released the mass shooting video. This video, which pointed out inconsistencies in Bernie Sanders’s record and questioned his ‘revolutionary’ status, was also stripped of monetization.”

While the mass shooting video’s monetization has been restored without her appealing the company’s decision, her Sanders video remains ineligible. The Sanders video focused largely on his record of supporting war and the military-industrial complex.

Her other videos affected by YouTube’s policy include “What Every American Needs to Know About Radical Islam,” a video “that challenged rampant Islamophobia and jingoism right after the Paris terror attacks last November,” and “Why I’m “Ready for Hillary!,” which the creator claims to be an “extremely sarcastic indictment of Hillary Clinton published before she announced her candidacy early last year.”

Other videos by Wedler that suffered the same fate include “How America ‘wins’ the wars in Syria & Iraq” and “How I became a “self-hating Jew.” All of the de-monetized videos contain anti-war sentiments.

According to the prolific writer and vlogger, YouTube only bothered to email her notifications regarding the changes in monetization for the Sanders and the mass shooting videos:

I noticed the [other] videos had all been stripped of monetization when I logged into Youtube to check out the two that had been officially flagged. However, when I checked my settings following receipt of the two emails regarding mass shootings and Bernie, my overall monetization setting had been switched off — meaning none of my videos were monetized.”

She claims to have “never selected that option” prior to learning about the issues with the videos mentioned previously, yet when she turned the monetization option back on, “the monetization reactivated — but only for videos that hadn’t been specifically flagged.”

“I also noticed that my videos before the self-hating Jew video hadn’t been rejected for monetization at all,”  she said.

In cases involving YouTube’s decision to flag her videos that included notifications, Wedler added, YouTube failed to give her “a specific reason as to why the videos were stripped of monetization. I’ve seen some screenshots of those emails from other Youtubers … and some contain reasons. Mine didn’t, though it’s pretty clear to me that in my case, it’s because they are considered ‘controversial.’ Some discuss war and some contain images of war, and they are always questioning military violence.”

While Wedler agrees that this type of policy is “not direct censorship … it does amount to an implicit attempt to discourage me and others from saying controversial things.”

She added that while YouTube is a “privately owned company that can decide which content is appropriate for its advertisers, … if they are deciding [which of] my videos shouldn’t be allowed to generate revenue, they are effectively removing much of my incentive to continue producing content on the platform.”

Despite the company’s policy, Wedler vows to continue making these videos simply because the message is what matters.

Google and Its Addiction to Buying Influence

As Wedler stated, YouTube is a private company and it has the right to set its own policies. But it’s undeniable that the site’s owner, Google, has, on a number of occasions, shown its favoritism through lobbying, prompting many to highlight the company’s appearance of favorable bias toward Democratic Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

Google went from spending $80,000 on lobbying in 2003 to over $16 million in 2014. After 2014, Google, Inc. became Alphabet, and in 2015, Alphabet invested over $16 million in lobbying. To date, the company has spent over $8 million on Washington politicians.

Alphabet’s top recipient this election cycle is, unsurprisingly, Hillary Clinton.

But despite its knack for influence buying, Google has, over the years, created relationships with think tanks that would have criticized the tech giant’s crony capitalist ways under different circumstances.

According to the Washington Post, Google has embarked on a quest to woo free market organizations by populating “elite think-tanks such as the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the New America Foundation” with its fellows, including “young lawyers, writers and thinkers paid by the company.”

From the Post:

To critics, Google’s investments have effectively shifted the national discussion away from Internet policy questions that could affect the company’s business practices. Groups that might ordinarily challenge the policies and practices of a major corporation are holding their fire, those critics say.”

Claiming to be defenders of privacy, Google successfully waged an aggressive lobbying campaign within Washington to defeat a congressional effort that could have put Google in the middle of a very nasty antitrust fight.

After supporting the European Union’s antitrust prosecution of Microsoft, Google found itself the target of the same type of scrutiny, being accused of unfairly discriminating against users.

With the excuse of going after companies like Google for antitrust law violations, Congress came up with the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), a bill disguised as an anti-online piracy fix that would have allowed the federal government to targetillegal copies of films and other forms of media hosted on foreign servers.” The bill would have hurt Google the most because the search engine would have several results deleted from its database, requiringISPs to remove URLs from the Web, which is also known as censorship last time I checked,” Google chairman Eric Schmidt said.

Just one month before SOPA was unveiled by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Schmidt appeared before Congress during a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) hearing where a Republican senator “accused the company of skewing search results to benefit its own products and hurt competitors.” As this hearing took place and Google was grilled by lawmakers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Motion Picture Association of America lobbies pushed Congress to pass harsh anti-privacy legislation, accusing companies like Google of giving users access to pirated music and movies.

Afraid of the backlash caused by the hearing, Google feared the Hollywood lobby would end up hurting many of its partners, as well as smaller organizations directly tied to Google. But the search engine giant had a way out — its aggressive lobbying and partnership building skills.

As SOPA appeared poised for passage, Google and several other tech firms stood in opposition and the bill finally failed.

While SOPA was, indeed, a farce — and privacy advocates in Washington were happy the bill didn’t see the light of day — it’s important to note how hard Google worked to keep it from becoming a reality, putting the Silicon Valley giant closer to powerful institutions that, in theory, are against crony capitalism.

But after SOPA, the FTC went back to the drawing board, threatening to investigate Google’s alleged antitrust violations further. At the time, the “company’s rivals, including Microsoft and Yelp, were aggressively pressing arguments that Google was exploiting its dominance in the search business.

Reaching out to another partner, George Mason University’s Law & Economics Center, Google and the university put togetherthe first of three academic conferences at the GMU law school’s Arlington County campus,” which, according to the Washington Post, helped to shape the FTC’s approach to the Google probe from then on.

At the third academic conference held at GMU, Google remained present as a silent partner. As “[a] strong contingent of FTC economists and lawyers were on hand for the May 16, 2012, session,” the Washington Post reported, research financially backed by Google was presented by GMU lawyers and economists. And “[i]n January 2013, after an investigation that spanned more than a year and a half, the FTC settled the case with Google, which agreed to give its rivals more access to patents and make it easier for advertisers to use other ad platforms.”

From the publication:

But when it came to the charges that Google biased its search results to promote its own products, the five FTC commissioners all voted to close the investigation, saying there was no evidence the company’s practices were harming consumers.

As Google became more involved with politics, other lobbying opportunities would arise.

More recently, Google got involved in yet another powerful lobbying effort, which started when the company hired the former administrator of the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to serve as the company’s Director of Safety for Self-Driving Cars, proving the revolving door that presidential candidate Barack Obama promised to nix is still alive and well. The effort paid off, and personal injury attorneys are now concerned that Google may try to push still more regulations, forcing regulators to stick the human driver with the blame for crashes and getting Google’s autonomous driving system off the hook.

Whether YouTube’s ad policy has anything to do with its parent company’s politics is impossible to determine. But as we analyze Google’s influence in Washington, it’s important to note that, whether you agree with the tech giant on none, some, or all issues, governments create the incentives for companies like Google to continue rent-seeking.

As the economist David R. Henderson puts it, individuals “are said to seek rents when they try to obtain benefits for themselves through the political arena. … licensed electricians and doctors [for instance] often lobby to keep regulations in place that restrict competition from unlicensed electricians or doctors.” Companies like Google are champions of this practice, which has helped to protect the brand’s popularity by keeping competitors at bay.

So it’s not a surprise to see many claiming their content is being censored by Google’s YouTube. After all, with the amount of power the company holds in Washington, it’s as if Google - or Alphabet - is an actual wing of the government.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Manipulism's picture

Stop using Joutube.

There are alternatives but all the idiots complain und do nothing.

VinceFostersGhost's picture



Just a little pin prick....there will be no more......AHHHHH  - Pink Floyd

Fizzy Head's picture

Speaking of a censoring meida thats bogus and manipulates the masses... 


Cramer Remix: The price of oil is manipulated and bogus


Good thing precious metals and all other "markets" are kenesianly legit..... ... .. . do you feel a little sick?

MillionDollarBonus_'s picture

Are we really supposed to believe that Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, and all of the established media companies are somehow collaborating to censor right-wingers? I'm trying to take this conspiracy theory seriously, but no matter how you look at it, it's just ludicrous! How would all of these companies coordinate with each other? Why would they expend so much time and effort to suppress an insignificant group of deplorables with extremist opinions? None of it adds up. The simplest explanation of why no credible media outlet takes you seriously, is that you're crazy!


DeadFred's picture

The FANG stocks that supported the market for so long are all great conduits for .GOV control. Full faith and credit of the NSA backs each of them so why not buy? (other than the stain on your soul if you do)

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Before, Youtube was promoting Flat Earth (no, I mean it, literally promoting it).

Now they have an even stronger flavor of idiocy they are promoting, called 'No Forests'.  Ay Caramba.  The basic premise is, any (geological) plateau you see was actually a tree, 6000ft tall, in some long past era.  And no, they don't have any thing such as proof or who 'cut these trees down', or 'how'.  Just 'don't trust geology'!

SWRichmond's picture

In a socialist or fascist state, the government is the one with the most money to spend, so if you are greedy, immoral and unethical you align yourself with government.  Simple.


MalteseFalcon's picture

The combination of google and YouTube never should have been permitted.

Google and anything at this point.

jeff montanye's picture

the maps aren't bad if you don't mind being photographed naked in your fenced in backyard.

but the search engine sucks.  not only is it politically manipulated and pretty obviously, it can't translate english into english.  isn't it about time a search engine understood what a sentence means instead of pulling up a million instances of occurences of individual words in the query?

and i don't know if google has a "knack for influence buying" since they put all their chips on hillary to win and it's starting to look like maybe she's more of a place.

GeezerGeek's picture

You want to use whole sentences for searches? Have you upgraded to Windows 10 yet, or have an iPhone? I hear Cortana and Siri understand sentences. And doesn't Amazon have some sort of similar standalone device?

As for me, if I want to talk to non-humans I have a cat and a dog. I've also been known to shout at my car and electronic devices, but they never talk back. (Well, almost never. I did have a 1984 Chrysler that kept telling me a door was a jar, and sometimes warned me about low oil pressure when the engine was turned off.)

As for your comment about Hillary being "more of a place": She's having trouble even being a 'show' these days.

oops's picture

Journalists are getting a taste of their own medicine. They've not been reporting the truth on many matters.

GeezerGeek's picture

.GOV broke up AT&T. Remember? Maybe the same should apply to Alphabet, but since Google, Youtube, etc. are so valuable to TPTB we will never see anti-trust applied to Alphabet while fascists run the government. Totalitarianism is trending, in modern newspeak. Liberty is falling from favor, since being free is too hard for most people.

cheeseheader's picture

Can't believe ES is still walking around loose on this planet.

vamsy's picture

Oh you started getting the promotions for Flat Earth too.  Looks like Google targeted the Zerohedgers.  Operation conspiracy loonies begins... 

vamsy's picture

Oh you started getting the promotions for Flat Earth too.  Looks like Google targeted the Zerohedgers.  Operation conspiracy loonies begins... 

Frito's picture

I saw one of those videos. Somewhat unconvincing to say the least. There is a lot (A LOT) of absolute bollocks being put out there and promoted. Some wants to sow confusion. The truth is coming out and the only way they can try to stop it is to bury it in a mountain of crap, then say it's all crap.

Hopefully we get through this and at least some of the truth gets out. If it goes poorly, there is much trouble in store for the good people of this world.

glenlloyd's picture

Perhaps people shouldn't treat youtube as a full time job? WTF people? Who said you should be able to do a video of something and post it up and get paid to do it?

For me it seems contrary to what I want from a social media site. I don't really want to watch videos from people who are being compensated because they did a video. Doesn't that seem like it might just be a conflict of interest? Also, I hate youtube and their 30 second commercials too, but if you just go to another video you don't have to watch the shit that is the stupid 30 second commercial. I mean really, how many Ford commercials can I stomach?

Do it because you have a message and not because there's money involved.

Temple of Truth's picture

How do you think Alex Jones funds himself? He has such good content that even the lamestream media is bashing him on air. He is providing a great service and I think it's perfectly fine to make money off youtube.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

How do TV channels exist, and prosper?  Same thing, except their content is worse than most Youtube video creators.  Better production values, yes, but that just means they are spending more money to create crap content (TLC channel, which used to show documentaries, decided it would show crap like HoneyBooBoo and other IQ-stripping content).

DuneCreature's picture

I'll say this; I don't honestly know how much of MSM is advertiser funded and how much of it is 'Intelligence Community' black budget propaganda and manipulation. ... I remember seeing as many 'CeyeA types' at the Time / Life / Warner building headquarters as you would see at Langley on a typical day. .. You think you are getting the 'news' and you may be getting the empty pizza box instead. .... It looks good and smells edible and maybe has a little olive oil dripping down the side but you open it up and 'she be empty' of all useful content.

I'll link back to a little story I related on another thread yesterday that maybe you missed. .. For Entertainment Purposes Only

I think our overlords use media mainly to blow smoke up our ass and then tell us we're all on fire as they hose us.

Live Hard, Watch The Carnival Freak Show Peeking Under The Tent, Die Free


Black Helicopterz's picture

As a YouTube content creator, I appreciate the support.

I do independent journalism from an admittedly conspiratorial point of view and my entire channel is ineligible for monetization regardless of what the individual video is about. In addition to videos exposing false flag / hoax events like the San Bernardino & Brussels "terrorist" attacks, I also have videos where I read poetry, talk about economics and do the regular news. One of my videos about the Moon landing was even referenced on ZeroHedge about a month ago.

I think I should be able to make a living at what I do since it's my full time job, but I have to rely exclusively on donations (and merchandising, if I ever sink to that level) and, believe me, that's not enough to pay my bills yet. Is Google completely rigged? I can tell you from lots of experience and research that it most certainly is. Along with most everything else on the Internet.

If you want to see what I do, all my videos are on my website: This is my favorite comments section on the web, so keep up the good work!

Actually, I forgot for a second I made a video explicitly about this topic and how the de-monetization also crushed my placement ranking, making my views collapse catestrophically.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

WARNING: Flat Earth nonsense detected...

Crawdaddy's picture

Thanks for the link. Listened to three shows so far. I am interested in Mile Mathis as well.

Grumbleduke's picture

he has a warehouse full of his boner pills and seeds and books and videos etc. He empoys almost 60 people there, what I heard.

And, he has some prime real estate in Austin.

Yes, he obviously needs youtube...

JuliaS's picture

I'm a Youtuber. I do engineering and mathematics tutorials and collaborate with some musicians who restore antique instruments. I do not advertise myself. I do not monetize content. The channel is small, only couple of hundred subscribers. I make videos I would want to watch myself and explore subjects that haven't been approached. I do not like ads, so I don't allow ads. I don't like social media, so I don't have links to anything other than related material within the same channel. I don't like people who beg for subscribers or likes. I don't think Youtube is or should be a profession. A full time Youtuber is like a full time politician. Money comes into one end, mass produced garbage goes out the other.

I started long before Youtube. I had a journal in BBS days. I had an IRC channel. I even had a sort of media publication distributed on floppies when that was feasible. I've tried it all. I have a primary site, that acts like a portfolio / resume and Youtube is there for support. When applying for actual jobs, I know the headhunters will be researching who I am and what I do. I know that Youtube channel will pop up at the top of the list. They'll look through it, write up a summary and send it over to their superiors. I want to control my internet footprint. I don't want gossip. I don't want to compete with show-offs for attention. I don't want to do makeup reviews - something that every single one of my friends is trying to do, inspired by a sea of carbon copy product pushers who are successful. The reason I don't want to do it is because I hate people who take pride in consumption and I don't think the internet needs yet another person doing what millions are doing already. I go for the niche crowd of misfits such as myself, looking for friends and associates.

I do not like this article and how it tries to bridge channel de-monetization with political acts such as the SOPA bill. One has nothing to do with the other. I fully support Youtube in its decision to control its financial aspect. I do understand and sympathize with people who pay money for ads, when they consciously decide to not be associated with people whose views they don't necessarily share. I can understand the use of their dumb tag tracking algo that auto-flags content. What else do you expect? A living person having to sit through billions of hours of "let's plays" to find an occasional curse word? No! The system does what it's supposed to. It filters content and forces the user to do some leg work.

De-monetization is not censorship in my opinion. SOPA is. One is a private sector initiative. The other is a government act. One is designed to protect business model and ensure profitability with least exposure to political issues. The other is a political tool designed to intrude into the private sector to mess with the business model and prevent companies like Google from flexing their muscle. It's a power struggle between 2 entities. Not a unilateral move designed to shut up shit-talkers who happened to acquire an audience through online exposure.

I think that modern content production is like modern music. It is soulless. Henry Rollins said in an interview that he sees the modern musician as a fast food clerk - a person who hates his job and can't wait for his shift to end so he could go home. There is no soul in music and no passion. All conveyor belt garbage. Likewise with Youtube. When money is involved it helps a tiny portion of content creators get better. The rest it destroys and they're the ones putting up all the fuss.

DuneCreature's picture

Nicely thought out comment, JS.

Live Hard, Everyone Has An Agenda Or A Business Model And There Is Nothing Wrong With Have Either Or Both Together, Die Free

~ DC v2.0

GeezerGeek's picture

On a theoretical level I agree with you. To the extent Youtube is a private (as in non-governmental) entity is should be free to have its own policies. In the real world, there are endless examples of government interfering with the rights of private companies. Were the lunch counters that refused service to blacks back in the 1950s entitled to their own policies? Can bakeries decide who they want to bake cakes for?

Unfortunately, the rights of private entities that we both support in theory are not applied evenly. Said rights are often suspended when applied to what are generally considered conservative entities and permitted when applied to what are generally considered progressive entities. We all know that there is a serious double standard. That Youtube can do as it wishes when it is totally reliant on a (they didn't build that!) public/private infrastructure we call "the web" could perhaps be construed as their being involved in interstate commerce, so they could be regulated by Congress. (I'm not necessarily happy about that possibility.)

Regardless, yours was a thoughtful post. I just don't see Youtube (or Google, Facebook, etc.) being quite as "private" as you do.

JuliaS's picture

To your correct observation I would also add that politicians typically don't invent laws. They work on behalf of other private business. If someone cannot compete economically, they invest into lobbying that, as practice has shown, is a worthwhile gamble that can produce significant returns. Politicians are used as conduits by the corporations who want to keep small business out. They're also used by the underdogs, who cannot challenge companies like Google directly, so they put their political donations towards candidates who promise to tax and censor corporations. We've seen Google pull the plug on many countries when faced with opposition. Consumer is worse off when that happens, but those who sponsored the laws get to have a field day.

Each case is complex. All I'm saying is that in this specific scenario I support Youtube. Doesn't mean I'm with them 100%. Their policy changes create uncertainty and make the platform less appealing, but despite being able to host my own content elsewhere, I still utilize their service as it allows me to reach people whom I would otherwise wouldn't be able to find. I don't make money though them, but then again, I'd likely be paying a significant fixed rate myself to get the same type of service elsewhere.

People complain about monetization of their popular content. Well, I get to pay for my servers regardless of whether I make a return or not. At least Youtube doesn't charge people for posting garbage (and sometimes I wish they did).

Temple of Truth's picture

Youtube just demonetized our coughing Hillary video without any warning or chance to respond. We didn't use any "offensive" keywords to make sure it's "family friendly" so they're mannually flagging videos now because it touched Hillary's health. And it's only a parody channel ffs. Yes I want to get the hell out of youtube (Google) but that's where the audience is. Like Facebook, it's essentially a monopoly. But even channels not related to politics are being automatically flagged by algorithms so if this continues people will eventually move elsewhere.

larz's picture

You tube = Google. Credibility aaaaand it's gone

crossroaddemon's picture

Move where? As you said, there's exactly one video hosting site that has an audience.

jeff montanye's picture

maybe zero hedge ought to take a look at this.  controversial content our specialty.

it's not like you have to build another rouge river plant to compete with ford.

GeezerGeek's picture

In view of recent manufacturing movements, should we call it the Rio Rojo plant?

TheMeatTrapper's picture

Exactly. I wonder how many of the rock throwers here refuse to watch videos embedded in stories here at ZH because the videos are hosted on YouTube. Perhaps the perfect people criticizing people who post to and use YouTube should step up to the plate and create their own video hosting platform. I'd be happy to give it a try. Any takers? Just let me know.

crossroaddemon's picture

Believe me, I'd be thrilled to have an alternative. Trouble is I need the built in audience; I can't wait however many years it takes for a new site to build one.

Frito's picture

Is it possible to upload your videos to other platforms aswell, then when embedding them in articles (or others asking permission to embed them in articles), link to the alternative platform? Not sure if there are any negative ramifications of this approach as uploading videos to YouTube or any other platform is not something that I do.

BabaLooey's picture

How sad are you?


There you go again with this "credible media" horse shit again.........


jeff montanye's picture

credulous maybe.  

nah, coconspiratorial.

Praeda2's picture

Shitbag got a new picture. You don't even know how to turn your character into a brand. Probably because your troll character is the closest you ever came to building something and have no idea how anything really work.

stacking12321's picture

This comment is characteristic of "alt-right" ad hominem attacks, you cannot refute MDBs message with logic, so you attack him personally.

If you really want to understand how the world really works, click on the link in MDBs comment, you'll find actual accredited writers on the site, no subscription required, it is a public service.

Balanced Integer's picture

"Accredited writers..."

Trolling at its finest. If you take these "accredited writers" at face value, you need to put the dick down and come up for air.

WTFUD's picture

It's shameful MDB that you can defend the working man/woman having their face ripped off by the crony Elite and then backed-up by the MSM Propaganda Wing who rub salt into their own client's/customer's wounds by informing them of their worthlessness.

Yes it's particularly sad that the Sheep continue to support their own demise and not instigate a mass boycott of FaceShit, Twatter, Gabble . . .

jeff montanye's picture

yes it is a dirty shame what, essentially, the clintons and obama have done to what was once, to a degree, the party of the working class.

that the possibility of pushing back against zionist warmongering and, most particularly, banksterism is coming out of the republican party should make any real progressives in the democratic party cry in shame.

Weisshaupt's picture

Exactly the same way the IRS targets conservatives for Audits and denies thier applications.Exaclty the same way politcally correct policies persecute conservatvies on college campus and in large employers.  Co-ordination of these efforts is not needed - anyone who expresses an opinion tey disagree with has identieifed themselves as a personto be silenced and punsihed.

The left is totalitarian by nature and its adherants have no problem at all in attacking irredeemable individuals in a basket of deplorables- so if the people running those companies see something as deplotrable, they will censor it - because they can.

They spend the time doing it because the left is so dependant  upon lies that htey feel they must silence anyone who disagrees with them lest anyone discover a different way of viewing the world  - which is why Hillary Clinton felt the need to engage the Alt-Right in her campaign and  called for shutting down sites like Breitbart and Drudge as any fascist would against anyone who opposed them.  The left doesn't  debate - they call names and bully like grade schoolers. Heck most peole on the left can't even come up with a hypothetical situation in which they would admit they were wrong. INstad anyone who disagrees with them is hateful, sexist, homophoic, racist etc, and no one cares anymore. The words are meaningless, because the left uses them no matter what the facts are.  A person who simpoly wants the Nation's immigration laws followed, is now a racist to the left,  because at the moment, the left doesn't want to obey the immigration laws, and instead want to import more people who will vote Democrat and commit terrotr attacks against the UNited States. Democrats WANT terror attacks because eac one lets them push tier agenda to disarm the American people and violete thier rights. After all, the Left doesn't beleive anyone should have any rights unless they are granted by the collective. Which is pretty much what Hitler princted round every Reichmark.


Tallest Skil's picture

When the next collapse comes, you'll be lined up against the wall and shot.

We Are The Priests's picture

"Why would they expend so much time and effort to suppress an insignificant group of deplorables with extremist opinions?"

If we're so insignificant, then why would Hillary even feel the need to address us?  Could it be that she's suffering from swamp fever?

Uzda Farce's picture

"How would all these companies coordinate with each other?"

Google chairman Eric Schmidt and his "senior advisor" Jared Cohen are members of the Rockefeller/CFR. Cohen also worked as an "advisor" to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Other CFR members include Michael Bloomberg, Time-Warner/CNN chairman Jeffrey Bewkes, HBO chairman Richard Plepler (CFR director), CBS News executive producer Stephen Capus, and ABC president Ben Sherwood. Also Robert Rubin, Lloyd Blankfein, Jamie Dimon, Laurence Fink, and George Soros. See member lists at cfr dot org.