Youtube Censors: Demonetization is government censorship

Youtube content makers are livid, and rightly so.  They are being censored for making content that does not meet youtube's extremely vague "terms of service" rules for video content. 

What's that you say?  Google and youtube are private companies, not the government?  Private companies cannot censor?

I agree, private companies cannot censor, only governments can.  But if a company silences people at the behest and by the order of a government (as part of the price of doing business with said government), then it IS government censorship.

Google abandoned the Chinese market in 2010 but in 2016 has decided to go back.  One of the conditions set out by the mass murdering Chinese dictatorship in 2010 was the censorship of search results, prevention of certain topics online.  In order to re-enter China's markets, google will have to do the corrupt government's bidding and censor user content.  And judging by the new "terms of service" for youtube, google has already started.

These are their five "rules for unacceptable content":

"Sexually suggestive content, including partial nudity and sexual humor"

What constitutes "sexual content"?  LGBTQIA kissing?  Transgender people's videos?  People at the beach?

"Violence, including display of serious injury and events related to violent extremism"

Does this include video showing police and governments violently assaulting and murdering peaceful human rights protestors (e.g. the corporate and government violence against protesters in North Dakota)?  Does this include video exposing war crimes by corrupt governments?  Very likely, it does.

"Inappropriate language, including harassment, profanity and vulgar language"

So, it's perfectly alright for advertisements to appear in hollywood movies full of profanity and racist language, but a youtube video with a much smaller audience cannot say them?

"Promotion of drugs and regulated substances, including selling, use and abuse of such items"

Meanwhile, advertisements by multinational pharmaceutial industries will still be perfectly legal.  Discussing and advocating the legalization or decriminalization of drugs, or even discussing countries where drugs are legal, will remain a banned topic.

"Controversial or sensitive subjects and events, including subjects related to war, political conflicts, natural disasters and tragedies, even if graphic imagery is not shown"

China Uncensored is a youtube channel based in Hong Kong which factually (while humourously) reports on serious events in China such as human rights abuses, the mass murder of falun gong members for "organ harvesting" and transplant tourism, the silencing of the press, arrests without trial and torture, etc.  Would it surprise you to hear that China Uncensored has been "demonetized" (read: demonized) for reporting facts?  All at the behest of Beijing and likely other governments.

Unfortunately, it's not just the corrupt Chinese regime that likes these rules.  Other governments which mass murder and commit war crimes (e.g. the US, Israel, the UK) would be just as happy to see these rules imposed, to silence whistle blowers and help cover up their crimes against humanity.

How many other topics will be deemed "sensitive" and silences by google for the benefit of governments?  Systematic racism in countries like the US and Australia?  Climate change?  The corporatization of the entire world with the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)?

"Not censorship."  Yeah, right.

People Thirst: Slave labourers are dying in 50°C heat

Imagine if religious fanatics in predominantly catholic countries like Ireland, Poland or Italy started physically assaulting non-catholics - for example, muslims - who were eating meat on "good friday" (or any Friday, as catholics used to ban).  Imagine if the catholics demanded laws to arrest and punish or imprison people who do eat meat on those days. 

Would you defend the creation of religious laws where the majority imposed their religious practices upon minorities who don't belong to that religion?  (Well, fanatical christians in the US would, so that's not a good place for an example.)  If it's wrong in one place, it's wrong everywhere.


Not eating meat won't kill anybody, but NOT being allowed to drink water will kill people who are forced to perform hard manual labour in 50-60°C heat (120-140°F for Americans). 

In 2016, ramadan is in June.  This is the hottest month of the year at the equator, and in most predominantly muslim Middle Eastern and North African countries, temperatures are high enough to kill people who are drinking water and not doing physical labour. 

‘Warning’ for non-Muslims caught eating in public during Ramadan

Saudi labourers still working in 55°C temperatures

Death toll among Qatar’s 2022 World Cup workers revealed

North Koreans working as ‘state-sponsored slaves’ in Qatar

Forcing people to work in 50-60°C temperatures while preventing them from drinking water is NOT "respecting culture".  It is a human rights abuse by a theocratic majority, endangering the lives of a powerless minority. 

People should have the freedom to practice their religion, what they don't have is the right to expect non-adherents to obey the religion of the majority.  But as with the catholics of the past (who did physically violate those who didn't follow catholic rules) muslim countries have no hesitation about ramadaning it down your throat.  Or rather, about preventing water going down your throat.

Sexist Missteps: Heels demand that a woman wear heels at work, fire her for saying No

A sexist and sociopathic financial company in England refuses to pay a woman her wages because she dared to wear shoes to work that are comfortable and presentable instead of wear high heels that objectify her.

Wearing heels is a choice.  I like wearing them from time to time, but not all the time.  It is painful to wear them longer than a four hour party once a week, never mind nine hours every day at work.

And yet there are knuckle draggers out there who seem to "think" women can still be objectified, and fired or not paid if they reject abuse and double standards.  Nicola Thorp's question is perfectly valid: Would men be required to work all day wearing shoes that are painful, uncomfortable and (in most workplaces) physically unsafe?  If men aren't required to, why are women required to wear them?

London receptionist 'sent home for not wearing heels'

Temp worker Nicola Thorp, 27, from Hackney, arrived at finance company PwC to be told she had to wear shoes with a "2in to 4in heel".

When she refused and complained male colleagues were not asked to do the same, she was sent home without pay.

Outsourcing firm Portico said Ms Thorp had "signed the appearance guidelines" but it would now review them.

The company is now "reviewing their policy", but only after public shaming and the potential of legal and financial damages.  They certainly aren't changing policy because they view women as human beings.