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.

Ignorance Wins: The UK commits suicide, not EU-thanasia

England wanted to EU-thanize the EU but instead has just committed economic and political suicide.  A vote based on racist and reactionary (lack of) thinking won't only separate the UK from the EU in terms of borders.

The UK banking system will be isolated, which means no EU loans, consumer protection or international banking.  It means UK citizens cannot travel, work or live in the EU.  It means UK citizens will lose the legal protections that the EU offers (environmental, economic, labour and employment rights, human rights, food and consumer safety, etc.).

The Scottish vote on separation in 2015 failed, but the possibility of voting again still exists.  Once the economic and political fallout of this vote come to pass, Scottish people will flock to the polls and will gladly return to the EU.  And you can expect Wales and Northern Ireland to choose the same route soon after. 

Within ten years, England will either become an economic basket case, the North Korea of Europe, or it will come crawling back, begging for readmittance that will only come on the EU's terms.

As seen on twitter:

Abuse Unbridled: Two horses were mutilated and killed for people's entertainment

On Saturday May 21, the gambling event and fashion show for the obscenely wealthy - known as "The Preakness" - took place.  During the "race", two abused horse fell and were injured.  Instead of attempting to medically tend to the horses and save their lives, the financial decision to save money was made and the horses were killed.  No doubt they already had semen from the horses so they could breed the next generation.

I hope you enjoyed your bloodsport.  Did they also "euthanize" the jockey who broke his collarbone in the fall?

Circuses are under pressure to stop using animals for human entertainment.  Animals in circuses are subjected to abuse, to violence and mistreatment, to poor health and living conditions.  Most of the public oppose it and circus numbers are declining.  Even some in the corproate media are speaking out against animals in the circus. 

But when it comes to horses owned by the rich for gambling and entertainment, a different standard applies.  As we have seen in multiple professional sports (e.g. basketball, golf, footbal, etc.) don't dare to criticize the wealthy or you will be banned from the sports venues.  Breaking scandals is unacceptable - you can only report on repulsive behaviour and actions after they are publicly known (e.g. Donald Sterling, Tiger Woods), not while their dirty secrets are still behind closed doors.

Some circuses have switched to human-only displays and shows, and racing can do the same.  Keirin racing in Japan is popular and is a sport on which there is legal gambling.  (Keirin racing became a popular replacement for horse racing because of Japan's limited land space.)  Unlike animals, humans have the ability to say "no" and the willpower to say "yes" and push themselves to their physical limit.  There is no abuse when there is a choice.

Questions Avoided: Is "argumentum ad ignorantiam" a type of GMO plant?

A reputable scientist will agree that argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy ("argumentum ad ignorantiam" - the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), but that doesn't mean educated people are incapable of making mistakes, cherry picking or ignoring what they don't want to hear.

GMO advocates still haven't answered important questions about GMO plants: Why are they actively speaking out against and criticizing those who choose not to eat or grow GMO?  Have they shown it is harmful to continue eating and growing plants that have been grown and eaten for thousands of years?  Are they trying to force everyone to abandon and never again grow what we have been eating? 

Why do GMO advocate mischaracterize and equating of those who don't want GMO to "conspiracy theorists"?  If your argument is right, you don't need to attack those who disagree with you.

All emphasis added to the text is mine.

Alternet: The Media Got It Wrong About a New Report Saying GMOs Are Safe: Here Are 3 Takeaways

A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on GE crops and technology was met with cheers from the biotech industry, but little meaningful scrutiny by the mainstream media. Initial media reports boiled the message down to “GMOs Are Safe” and “healthy,” some even claiming that the study “proves” the safety of genetically modified crops.

[...]

1. GMOs are safe, but..."

Absence of evidence is not absence of effect," Dr. Fred Gould, a professor at North Carolina State University and chair of the Committee on Genetically Engineered Crops, told UPI. "We're very clear to point out that with very subtle long term health effects, it's really difficult to point out such a thing."

[...]
 
2. We don’t need labels, but ...

Labeling GE food is no panacea, but it will increase the odds that problems will be detected sooner rather than later. The decision to not label GE foods has the effect of keeping the entire medical community on the sidelines, unaware of possible GE food-allergen problems, and not capable of doing anything about them.
[...]

3. GMOs don’t harm the environment, but...

Despite finding no “conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems from GE crops,” Gilliam wrote, the committee concluded that “evolved resistance to current GE characteristics in crops is a major agricultural problem.”

In other words, a problem for farmers, but no problem for the environment. 

[...]

Did the committee make any definitive, declarative statements? Perhaps this one: Contrary to the biotech industry propaganda, GMO crops are doing nothing to improve farmers’ yields or feed the world.

"The committee examined data on overall rates of increase in yields of soybean, cotton and maize in the U.S. for the decades preceding introduction of GE crops and after their introduction, and there was no evidence that GE crops had changed the rate of increase in yields.”

But we already knew that.

So "GMO is safe" is a false statement.  A more honest statement would be "GMO has not yet been proven to cause harm."

If there is no benefit in yield to growing GMO crops but there is potential risks by growing them, then why should people not have the choice not to grow GMO?  If you say you're not trying to take away people's choice, then why criticize, attack and mischaracterize those who don't want to eat or grow GMO plants?