Silicon Valley Tightens Its Grip On Free Speech

Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Edmund Kozak via,

Alliance between progressives and tech is killing the unfettered exchange of ideas...

Political totalitarianism is coming to America, and it is being ushered in not by government thugs in jackboots but by progressive activists and their allies in Silicon Valley.

In a chilling oped published in The New York Times on July 14, Lisa Feldman Barrett, a professor of psychology at Northeastern University, argued that so-called “hate speech” is the same thing as physical violence because it may possibly cause emotionally fragile individuals stress — and should be made illegal.

Thankfully, the First Amendment prohibits the federal government from following such advice, but online companies are taking it upon themselves to stamp-out so-called “hate speech,” strangling free speech and the free exchange of ideas in the process.

A number of troubling actions by internet companies — Google most prominent among them — are making it increasingly clear that some in Silicon Valley have proclaimed themselves defenders of the progressive, politically correct faith, and that those firms will silence any and all heretics who challenge those beliefs.

"Silicon Valley lives in a politically regressive, exclusive bubble. They are not aware of their own biases in how they talk, have a limited understanding of the philosophy behind free speech, and find it difficult empathizing with other points of view," said Aaron Ginn, co-founder of the Lincoln Network, a think tank that seeks to promote libertarian ideas in the tech industry.

But Google not only has difficulty empathizing with other points of view — it is also actively trying to suppress them. Google recently made the controversial decision to fire engineer James Damore for authoring an internal memo questioning the company's ideologically motivated diversity practices and highlighting sound scientific research suggesting that possible biological differences between men and women, not discrimination, could be a factor in the tech field's high percentage of men.

In the aftermath of Damore's firing, a number of anonymous current and former Google employees have come forward to reveal the full extent of the company's efforts to silence right-wing voices. One anonymous employee identified as "Hal" told Breitbart News last week that some employees in Google's ad sales department are "openly encouraging Adwords customers to pull their ads from Breitbart and Rebel Media."

Another anonymous employee under the alias "Emmet" confirmed this with Breitbart News, and also revealed the existence of "efforts to demote anything non-PC, anti-Communist, and anti-Islamic terror from search results."

"Emmett says he personally witnessed efforts from leftists within Google to bias YouTube's algorithms to push anti-PC content off the platform's 'related videos' recommendations," Breitbart reported. "The software could just 'astroturf' your Related Videos section [an effort to hurt overall ratings], and you would be none the wiser," said Emmet.


"Sure, if you know what to look for, perhaps you'd notice," he continued. "But the vast majority of the viewership would never ever know. That's the whole point of such a disinformation program, right? If you can tell it's disinformation, you would never, ever believe it."

People familiar with the process have told reporters recently that YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, is also laboring to cleanse its platform of alternative voices that challenge the mainstream liberal narrative. The social media video-sharing site has in the past few months systematically demonetized videos of right-wing commenters and journalists, such as Infowars editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson and former Rebel Media reporter Lauren Southern.

But the latest commentators to fall victim to this practice are far less controversial: YouTube celebrities and vocal Trump supporters Diamond and Silk. The duo discovered last week that a number of their videos — including one that is two years old — were suddenly demonetized. They have vowed to fight YouTube's efforts to suppress conservative voices and have even raised the possibility of legal action.

"The same video that is being demonetized has been monetized for two years, so how was it suitable for our advertisers for two years and now all of a sudden there's an issue?" Silk told LifeZette in an exclusive interview.

The pair say the demonetization is a transparent attempt at censorship. "How can [YouTube] oust us and say [we're] not suitable for all advertisers?" said Diamond. "Have you spoken to each and every one of you hundreds of thousand of advertisers and said, 'Hey do you want to advertise around Diamond or Silk, yes or no?' or are you as YouTube making this decision for your advertisers?"

YouTube is "a social media platform, and a social media platform is a platform for ideas, for all ideas," said Diamond. It's a place "for people to be able to come together and collaborate with those ideas."

"So even though people want to call YouTube private, it's open to the public, so when it's open to the public, you cannot discriminate against conservative voices or against people that chose to support the president," she argued.


"We're being discriminated against because first of all, we're two black people, we don't fit the norm — we're black, Republican conservatives, and we support our president," said Diamond. "What they want to do is control the narrative."


"They're putting our videos in a category now as being extremist or 'hate speech,'" said Silk.


"And that's not fair because now that's defamation," Diamond added.

The duo, which gained even more recognition for their consistent support of Trump during the presidential race, wants YouTube to remonetize not just their videos, but also those of other right-wingers who have had their livelihoods altered in a similar fashion.

"We want to give YouTube the opportunity to make this right, to be inclusive instead of exclusive. We want them to include people and not leave out conservative voices," Diamond said.

But "if YouTube does not make this right, then we have to take this a step further," said Diamond. On Thursday the two tweeted, "We Smell A Class Action Lawsuit," and confirmed with LifeZette that they are prepared to follow through on the threat.

"Listen, they can regulate, but you can't discriminate while you regulate," she said.


"Because what they're trying to do is dominate, and that's unfair," Diamond said. "It's unfair that we allow Google and YouTube to team up together and really monopolize a sector of the internet."

Unfortunately it's not just Google. On Thursday, Watson of InfoWars posted a YouTube video titled "I Won't Be Around Much Longer," in which he revealed that "they banned me on Facebook because of a video I posted 18 months ago," and went on to posit that if digital platforms continue at the current rate, Silicon Valley will have soon entirely purged all right-wing voices from mainstream social media.

But although social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are already known among conservatives for suppressing even mainstream right-wing voices, despite allowing controversial content from the far Left and even radical Islamists to remain online unmolested — non-social-media sites have also begun to target right-wing dissidents.

A number of online right-wing commentators — including Southern and former Students for Trump director and independent journalist James Allsup — have even had their Paypal, GoFundMe, or Patreon accounts canceled because of their perceived "support" for "hate speech."

These attacks, not just on people's free speech, but also on their livelihoods, represent a fundamental and chilling acceleration of the progressive Left's attempts to control thought and debate within society.

"Liberals can't have this one-sided. This works both ways," said Diamond.


"We have a conservative voice, we support our president, we support our country, and we want our voices heard, and if we have fans we want our fans to hear our voices," she said.

Comment viewing options

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

Too late, they should have done it five years ago. Now every semi literate citizen is on to their game.

macholatte's picture



How is it that David Brock sleeps so well and has not a second thought for his personal safety?

Silencing ALL opposition voices: Inside The Media Matters Playbook


BandGap's picture

This is actually to their detriment. Entrepreneurs typically are more free spirited, and they used to be more open minded.

Creativity will wither and die.

BennyBoy's picture


There's a great business opportunity here for right-wing dissidents and online right-wing commentators.

Something like:




slwsnowman40's picture

There's already an alternate to Twitter:

pods's picture

Lisa (((Feldman))) Barrett

Of course they are all on the cutting edge of totalitarian thinking.

Hate speech should be illegal because it causes pussies to cry?  

Get over it. This is just another illustration of how good we have it here today.  The fact that people who have no business surviving are actually making it to adulthood is a sign of the good times.

Usually people are too worried about food, water and shelter to think about how bad their feelings got hurt.


Lost My Shorts's picture

Simply reporting things that actually happen is now considered potential hate speech at Facebook.  There was a case last month of black teenagers mob-robbing in Seattle, and several people described the incidents on Facebook, and Facebook deleted every reference.  As if it never happened.  It's the new Ministry of Truth.  News that promotes PC is fine, even if fabricated out of thin air, but real events that would be inconvenient to the PC narrative simply never happened.  On Facebook, you are already Winston Smith.

waspwench's picture

It did not take a genius to figure out, a long time ago, that the internet would become a tool of oppression and suppression for the libtards, progressives and assorted despots and tyrants.   The internet is any dictators wet dream.

Those at the other end of the spectrum ought to have had alternatives in place a long time ago and if they do not do so very soon they will find themselves forever unable to do so.   It will also be necessary to make certain that alternative sites can be made to work and cannot be hit with DOS or otherwise tampered with.   I have been trying to use Brave browser and find that I cannot do so - I can install it, but then find myself staring at a white screen of nothing.

We have to be able to fight them with their own tools. 

waspwench's picture

Only socialist, commie, left-wing fanatics are permitted to have hurt feelings or to be upset about points of view with which they disagree.

If you are on the other end of the political/cultural spectrum your feelings are of no consequence.

Strange that, isn't it?

Raymond K Hessel's picture won't load on my browser. I'm using Safari.

It's being hit with a DDos attack

SixIsNinE's picture

safari?  seriously?   apple dropped that years ago.

try vivaldi or firefox


Four chan's picture


DavidC's picture

I'm trying to find an alternative to YouTube - for the last month or so (and despite no hardware, software or other changes to my computer) YouTube videos, buffer, hang and are basically unwatchable. Suggested 'remedies' are to clear the browser cache or reboot.

Really fucked off with it. And there's no recourse other than forums which post imbecilic stupid answers.


DavidC's picture

Forgot to say that various friends, when I've mentioned have said along the lines of 'I've had the same problems, I thought it was just me'.

Well done Google - fuckwits.


Friedrich not Salma's picture

The next computing wave will be decentralized distributed loads whereby billions of users will host and share striped data and videos. With CPU cycles plummiting in price there is no logic using hogs like Google. C'mon developers, get busy. Starve and kill the beast.

bob_stl's picture

Have you tried Vimeo?

Upset Your Worries's picture

I'm trying to find an alternative to YouTube...

Steemit are pushing DTube as an alternative:

And might be worth investigating.

Bigly's picture


Get the fuck off their platforms if you have not already.

Do not be part of the problem.


ejmoosa's picture


\>>>>>>>I support Free Speech(as long as I agree).

\>>>>>>>I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.

Juggernaut x2's picture

I'll pass on your kosher website, thanks

Saucy-Jack's picture

It's illegal to not bake cakes for certain people.

Totally legal to not run ads for certain people.

Ok. Got it. Makes total sense and is perfectly logical.

SixIsNinE's picture

don't know if anyone else has already posted this, but

REDICE radio/tv/creations  was hacked and disappeared from the net. 

Founder Henrik was going to the Charlottesville event to document it and getting near,

hear what happened:

Red Ice has been an important site for bringing attention to the attacks on caucasian peoples.


Other key people have given warnings to get as much as you can from the net NOW as dozens have been harassed and attacked for bringing truth out.


GoldHermit's picture

Tech in cahoots with fake media.  

Tallest Skil's picture

It’s quite simple:

1. Private institutions have no requirement to allow anything on their own creations that they do not want. First Amendment: freedom of association clause.
2. ANY institution that receives government funding in ANY capacity, amount, or for ANY purpose is required, by law, to be unbiased in its allowance of thought.

And they all receive government funding.

Shitonya Serfs's picture

Also, let's not forgot the Cakes vs. Fruities court decision. (Masterpiece Cakeshop)

As noted by Judge:
“However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, [the law] prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation.”

Extrapolate this ruling to speech/political beliefs.

This decision swings both ways.

Fingers crossed SC holds the CO decision, then Goog/FB can't discriminate.

Creepy_Azz_Crackaah's picture

The interesting thing is that the baker didn't pick and choose customers based on what they had sex with. He was happy to bake anything for anybody who gets off in any (legal) manner but didn't want to celebrate fake marriages. The judge ordered him to celebrate.

GeezerGeek's picture

Homosexuals are a legally protected category. Conservatives aren't.

Creepy_Azz_Crackaah's picture

Mainstream religious freedom is protected.  It's about the Constitution, not conservatives.

ejmoosa's picture

Sounds good and true, but is it really?

You certainly have other constitutional rights that follow you into the work place, don't you?

GeezerGeek's picture

The Constitution is supposed to be all about what the Federal Government can and can't do. The 1st starts with "Congress shall pass no law..." Properly construed, the Constitution does not grant anyone any basic rights, it merely provides a wall of separation between your inherent/natural/God-given rights and the government. Your right to free speech, to carry a gun, etc. should stop when you enter upon or into private property.

Government overreach, often achieved through the "commerce clause", distorted the Constitution beyond recognition when it allowed the Feds to regulate businesses, particularly ones that were considered "public accommodations". That's how they went after segregated lunch counters, if I recall correctly, even if they never directly engaged in actual interstate commerce.

If gun rights followed you into your workplace, or where you did business, there would be no gun-free zones. But to get back to your question: forget the Constitution. It means what the guys with the heavy artillery want it to mean. Until you outgun them, you're at their mercy.


Uncertain T's picture

Tell that 'no requirement' baloney to the wedding bakers who wont do same-sex couples.

Blue Steel 309's picture

1) There is no requirement to allow anyone to incorporate.

2) It should be required that corporations demonstrate some public good.

3) Corporations shown to be working against the public good should have their charters revoked.

4) This is the purpose of establishing a government - to keep the strong from preying on the weak.

There is no such thing as a private corporation, nor is it logically possible to grant them rights of individuals, because they can not suffer the same accountability as individuals.

Mr. Universe's picture

There should be no corporations, corporate personhood or charters. It's all based on a lie in order to receive special treatment and exert influence over governments.

Conscious Reviver's picture

The government created Google which owns YouTube.

hooligan2009's picture

what government funding do FANG stocks receive or are you including free money via the banks from the Fed?

Conscious Reviver's picture

How the CIA made Google
Inside the secret network behind mass surveillance, endless war, and Skynet—

"INSURGE INTELLIGENCE, a new crowd-funded investigative journalism project, breaks the exclusive story of how the United States intelligence community funded, nurtured and incubated Google as part of a drive to dominate the world through control of information. Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’

poeg's picture

Kill the American aesthetics patent and watch the lot ball like babies. The US gov has more patent leverage than any company ever had and Trump and Co just haven't recognized that shining fact but if they do... silicon valley will smell like a cattle station after a summer shower.

Grandad Grumps's picture

Silicon Valley is siding with pedophiles ... there is an implied connection.

Interesting and revealing.

LawsofPhysics's picture

Moral hazard can be a real motherfucker...

...just ask Hank "tanks in the streets" Paulson.

The Cooler King's picture

What has 'SILICON' ever done but produce fake tits & fake news?

ParkAveFlasher's picture

Fake money.  Sand and voltage.  Djinn.

The Cooler King's picture

oops, forgot about that one. (but then, I never thought of that as money anyway ~ More like ~ glorified POKEMON GO that you can order out at GRUB HUB with because you're too busy to cook on account that you're seriously involved in a WORLD OF WARCRAFT fight to the death with your bro against Jay & Silent Bob trying to see who can truly lay claim to the title of 'Master of the Universe').

aloha_snakbar's picture

Fuck Silly-Con Valley; here is yet another reason to dislike Indians who come over here to do American jobs; they do not like to use indoor plumbing because it is 'unclean'...I wonder how they keep them from shitting in the employee parking lot in California...LULZ...

And the parents in the pictures just leave their spawns downloads lying where they land... at least I pick up after my fucking dog...

pitz's picture

I've heard that there's a lot of defecation in urinals where H-1Bs are concentrated.  Poor janitors have to clean that shit (literally) up :(.

Cluster_Frak's picture

Diversity does not include the white man. White man must perish to achieve diversity. 

Akzed's picture

Political totalitarianism is coming to America, and it is being ushered in not by government thugs in jackboots but by progressive activists and their allies in Silicon Valley.


Ha ha. Silicon Valley is CIA, at the very least.

swmnguy's picture

When I was an employee, I had to support their stances and objectives.  I quit because I couldn't.  Now that I'm self-employed, I can't criticize or disparage my clients' stances and objectives or they won't hire me anymore.  I don't have to agree with them.  I just can't say anything about it.  Not by law; I can say whatever I want.  I also have no inherent right to be employed or hired as a contractor or vendor to them.

They have as much right to free association as I do.  That's not without potential consequences.  As has always been the case, freedom never comes without responsibility.  And as has also always been the case, we all have many freedoms we're not wise in our situations to exercise.

If you work for a company whose goals and policies you can't support, whose fault is that?  Why would one persist?