A left wing you who is critical of free speech and agrees with D platforming has found there criticizing Lauren Southern censored, almost after the video was placed in protected mode. Another left wing channel re uploaded the video and the original better than encouraged others to go, watch it and to subscribe to the channel that was attempting to bypass Youtube censorship. The reason this is interesting is that the creator advocates for companies taking down content, they feel could cause harm or feels could cause harm and he says that companies have no obligation to host anyone's content. I find this interesting that, who will advocate for censorship, but then complain about it and attempt to bypass it when they're the ones being censored and this, isn't the only example of the far left getting angry that they are facing the brunt of the rules they advocate for so what exactly happened with this? You what does it mean for censorship and what are some other examples of the far left being hypocritical when it comes to deep

before you started head over to Patrie on dot com forward, slash him cast, and click become a patron to help support my work. There. Many different tiers of Jews from most notably tier two at ten dollars per month access to behind the scenes, photos and videos when available when traveling. So this is do for a living, and if you want to see more videos like this and more on the ground reporting, please consider becoming a patron today. I first talk about this Youtuber rational disconnect, who, I think is really doing a pretty good job, though they are more aligned with the far left, and I disagree with a lot of their arguments. I think the channel is well thought out and he has reasonable arguments. He made a video five days ago, South Africa and the far right part one. In the thumb. Now we can see it as apartheid was bad, but here's why it wasn't. This video is a criticism of Lawrence, others, documentary farmlands, which addresses issues that White farmers are facing in South Africa. This is what you are greeted when you try to watch. The video The content has been identified by the Youtube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences. You can.

Click I understand and wish to proceed all of the features for this. Video has been disabled and the only way to actually find it is through a direct link from someone else. Following this rational disconnect, we did my video far right in South Africa has been mass flag and put into limited state by Youtube? You can still watch it, but you can't, comment on or share it? Some lovely people have been enough to mirror it I'll link them below, check them and give them a sub. You advance decided that this video should be placed in a limited state. Personally, I disagree. With the idea of limiting videos, because you took doesn't agree with their message, but this individual agrees that you tube has a right to do this. I also think you guys are right to do it. I just want to advocate for Youtube not to do it, because it's a political game, If you too was a large takedown one video, then they're gonna take on other videos as well, and this is a perfect example of just why free speech is on board to be it in public or on a platform like you to particularly interesting about this case, though, is statements made

by the you tuber himself now I agree that people should have ever they want to, but that doesn't mean that they should be free from the consequences of that speech or that they are entitled to anybody's platform. But with that mentality, you can ban anything what happens when the people in power decide that what you're saying is oppressive and they decide to ban that speech. Well. First off: that's a slippery slope! Fallacy, but I agree that it's something to be worried about if we agree that it's reasonable, that speech can be stopped because it's racist or xenophobic and will therefore lead to violence. Where do we draw that line now? I agree that there's a risk there. I would argue that any speech that's going to cause harm

into this category that should be acceptable or allowed on these platforms. I want to point out this: isn't the biggest you tuber in the world, but the video that was censored was a criticism of Lauren Southerns Documentary farm lands and I for one think we definitely need more critical views on everybody. I disagree with you to putting it in limited state. But what's interesting here, is that he calls it a slippery slope, fallacy that if he advocates for no platforming what happens when he finds himself no platform. He says that's a fallacy and sure enough, a few days later, this exact thing has happened. The slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy. In this instance, it proved abs totally true and what I find fascinating. As we just heard. He says the content that could cause harm should be removed from these platforms, and these platforms have no problem, device them. I wonder, then, why this individual thinks it's fair to try and bypass that censorship shouldn't they agree. If you

says your video has been taken down? It should be removed. Why would you try and put it back up you're going against your own principles, perhaps not about principles? It's about politics and what he views as causing harm different from what you two views as causing harm. The reason why I advocate for free speech, even a private platform, is that my values are different from Youtube's values, and I think it's Important that we can all discuss our ideas without being shut down, otherwise someone, like you, too will decide our values for us and it actually goes a bit beyond this rational disconnect event. We did LOL Nazis flag, my video. At Qfc shadowbanned on the same day, F, Yikes event. A screenshot of a shadow band jack and he finds that his account is, in fact, shadow band. When your shadow band on twitter, it means that sometimes your posts won't appear, certain post one appear, and it means that More content can only be viewed by those who actually follow you. It's a bit complicated. I know exactly how Twitter decides who and what will be shadowbanned, another thing it's

to bring up is that he says Nazis flag, his video and it got removed. That's not actually how Youtube works. Technically, yes, Nazis, whoever someone flagged as video Youtube, actually manually reviews the videos, at least according to a statement provided to me by you in an email. They told me flag Content is not automatically taken down by the flagging system. They went on to explain cat videos are manually reviewed before being taken down that somebody flagged. The video Youtube watched it and said this. Video does not fit our guidelines and should be removed I'm not sure if I'm going to accept Youtube statement, as fact when they say someone manually reviews the video, that's what they said to me. I've had videos taken down and then reinstated as well, but that doesn't mean they don't have someone manually review them it just means whoever manually reviewed it might just flag it and have it removed, but I did, doubt two rational disconnects to get a statement on his actions and his views on the issue. I said: I'm current

watching your video online southern? I had a question if a private platforms determined that content violates its policy and sensors it? Why should you for others mirror content you know has been blocked in a statement. Youtube on the issue. They said to me that they do not use bots to remove videos they are manually, reviewed before being censored or removed, based on which policy shouldn't you accept the censorship based on your own argument from your video and no platforming. If you agree with the platform right to censor content. Why would you defy their rules or at least encourage others to subscribe to those who do? Do you think the far right should be allowed to bypass censorship when a platform deems the content, violate policy, I then explained that I am working on a deadline and hope to get a comment before I had to record. He responded that he takes issue with some of my promise: he's skeptical Youtube actually has people. Looking at this reports, he talks not how many creators, such as Sean and Jenn and counterpoints an free rose, get put in limited state lead to then have those limited states overturned after they can get in contact with someone. He says he hasn't talked to anyone at Youtube.

He says in doing research for his video. He came across videos no white genocide in South Africa had 10s of thousands to hundreds of thousands of views which he found because his views have only five thousand views but we're getting flagged and placed in a limited state, while these others weren't He then says that mass flagging has always been a problem back to the days of creationist, doing to atheists, etc. He said if you, a better track record or even, if I was specifically told part of the video was put into a limited state. I think you would have an argument as things stand, I think this was a clear abuse of the system I want to I doubt that I wasn't presenting an argument simply asking him that, based on Youtube's policy, would he agree with their removal. He did not respond. I then said if the far right videos have more views, wouldn't it make sense that the left, mass flags them as well and then asked regardless of how you think the system functions you to pay. As determined your videos, could cause harm and removed it. Do you think bypassing that censorship is acceptable, He didn't answer, but instead argued that I wasn't giving him enough time. He said that he is trouble

I would reach out when he was at work and only given a vague time limit to answer, because of He says his statement is rushed and he is Annabel Lee preoccupied at the time I told him journalism. It's always on a deadline. This is normal to which responded again. Is it normal for someone to contact you at the last minute? thing about to run the story soon. I hope you can answer in time. This seems strange to me. Yes, entirely normal is basics of journalism. I told him this and then sat I'm willing to hear sponsors, but I'm not interested in debating the basics of journalism, and I will also point out that he had enough time to make this very long response about the issue of mass wagon and did not actually answer my question about the principle for which I actually asked. Not arguing that what he's saying is right or wrong simply that you tube has determined his video, too a violation of their standards that could potentially cause harm to others and thus have it removed. I asked finally, regardless of how you think, the system

options: you too has determined your video could cause harm and remove it. Do you think, by passing that censorship is acceptable? Why does this person who agrees with the platforms right to remove content if they view as causing harm? Why would they then advocate get others to go to a channel? That is bypassing the censorship imposed by Youtube. It would seem a bit hypocritical. In my opinion, the channel three I was mirrored the video yesterday with thirty three thousand Eight hundred and ninety eight views as of right now and nearly three thousand likes it would seem inaction. Those who advocate for D platforming being an anti fashion Youtube Channel or a left wing youtuber actually agree in principle those who are center or right wing. On the issue of free speech, it just seems like or using this as a weapon against those who don't agree with them, because when it comes down to it, there absolutely willing to defy their own principles for political reasons. We could also look a personal example that affected me last year. Patrion

and Lauren Southern, and then I asked for comment from a tree on and it's going down and anti website produce this patrion caves to TIM Pool and the alt right bands. It's going down well at Lee I can appreciate they separated me from the alt right at some point. They do quote someone calling me an right. Cool, but now I'm going to show you the exact email that I sent to Jack Conte, the CEO of Patriot and men. People were asking me why I was getting this website Bandan. I posted the email in full transparency. I said: hey Jack, sorry to bother you, but I sent a request for comments to redact that is so far gone unanswered, patron we host a page for a group called it's going down, users of the site Often go into detail how they sabotage construction equipment and instant, sabotaged, railroad tracks, these activities, It will be seen as creating a potential for a loss of life. I understand this difference group and individual, but a comment on why,

It's going down remains on. Patreon would help to clarify your company's decisions. I want to point out things in this email. I redacted the name of pr person, because I didn't want them to face the brunt of online harassment. I said users of the site I did not say those who host the site or those involved with the organization simply that there are people who, articles on the site, users who have posted these things and yes It's going down was banned from patron. So why? and is it's going down so upset they agree with these principles. They posted content that could be seen as causing ARM and Patreon decided to remove them from their platform. The original individual rational, disconnected did the same thing. I would argue that any speech that's going to cause a whole or should fit into this category that should be acceptable or allow on these platforms. So we're faced with the problem. Who determines what causes harm

and what harm is he talking about? Is he talking about the financial harm of you? Too? Probably not, I think, he's talking about incitement to violence. But when he uses vague language, it becomes complicated. Because then you tip says this: video causes us financial harm, we're going to remove it. It's it's interesting that is video, criticizing Lauren Southern was taken down and Lauren Southerns Documentary was not taken down. As to meet the standards can't be applied effectively. This is not the biggest you tuber in the world, but his videos, slowly getting better and he's getting more subscribers, so I would actually encourage all of you to subscribe Who is channel and actually hear what you have to say in terms of his arguments? You don't have to think that he's right. You have to agree with him, but the point is we should accept the right of others to speak, and we should actively oppose censorship, especially in this instance, but I am encouraging everybody to polite fully and respectfully engage with craters like this and encourage them to produce more content. We really do need more critical views on

you too, and one thing- that's missing from the: u to space, are people who are on the left and willing of conversations and debates, at least in my opinion, got a comment below. Let me think about the issue. How do you feel about free speech to keep the conversation going you follow me on twitter at M. Cast more videos will be up on my second channel at six hundred pm. Thank you all so much for hanging out and I will see all.