YouTube censors Senate testimony
-
YouTube removed two videos from a December 8th hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. It featured Kory who discussed the use of Ivermectin as a potential treatment for Covid-19, particularly in the early stages. It is a drug that treats tropical diseases caused by parasites. Kory was calling for a review by National Institutes of Health on trials for the drug. Ultimately, it does appear that the NIH did change the status of the drug.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) has said that the videos were blocked on his account, including Kory’s testimony. The Federalist maintained that YouTube removed the videos to the platform’s COVID-19 Medical Misinformation Policy. That policy stipulates that anything which goes against “local health authorities’ or the World Health Organization’s (WHO) medical information about COVID-19” will be removed.
I can hardly shed light on the merits of the medical debate but this is the censoring of an actual Senate hearing that is so disturbing. YouTube is preventing citizens from watching testimony on an issue of national importance. It is an example of the slippery slope of censorship and how such speech regulation becomes an insatiable appetite for many.
-
Holy hell. Yeah, regulation is needed.
Please love yourself.
-
@aqua-letifer said in YouTube censors Senate testimony:
Yeah, regulation is needed.
I get your frustration, but, I have to wonder, drawing the print analogy...
If the WaPo didn't print an article because it didn't fit their agenda, would it be censorship? As a private business, don't they have the right to print, or not print, whatever they choose?
How is this different?
Platform vs Publisher, I guess.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@george-k said in YouTube censors Senate testimony:
Platform vs Publisher, I guess.
Yep. WaPo doesn't let you publish articles on their platform, let alone actively encourage it. The two businesses are completely different.
A better (but still imperfect) analogy would be if Curtis were to suddenly stop distribution of paper to WaPo because what they wanted to print was against Curtis' content guidelines.
-
If only the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs had a way to distribute video!
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/templates/watch.cfm?id=A2799417-5056-A066-603E-071130062C89
-
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@george-k said in YouTube censors Senate testimony:
@copper of course.
But, if you're
PlumberJoe Sixpack, are you really going to go to the gummint's site to seek this out?Or...YouTube?
But, here we are. A private company censoring a public government hearing.
What wrong with a private company censoring a public government hearing? Isn't that part of the protection afforded by the First Amendment?
Are you taking a position that says whenever a private enterprise's platform becomes sufficiently popular, it has to become some sort of "public platform" that are subjected to additional government regulations not applicable to the less popular platforms?
If TNCR ever gets over X million registered users and Y million daily visitors, then all of a sudden TNCR have to follow additional government rules that TNCR did not have to when it had only (X-1) million registered users and (Y-1) million daily visitors?
