Because Gracearchy was recently censored, we’re ready to Rumble.
YouTube removed one of our episodes. The good news is that we appealed and within four hours they restored it.
We’re not leaving YouTube because it’s the biggest platform. It’s natively on everyone’s phone and smart TV. The goal of any show, including ours, is to reach as many people as possible. This is an outreach, and…
We believe we must reach into the Matrix.
But Rumble doesn’t censor the kind of content we produce, and they have very recently resisted doing so when the United Kingdom’s government directly “urged” them to do so with Russell Brand. So…
Starting today, we will also put our podcast on another streaming service – Rumble.
Or…
We explain two recent events in this episode.
First, which episode did YouTube censor? Why did it happen?
Second, did YouTube “dial down” another one of our programs (a.k.a., suppress the algorithm)? If so, which one and why?
Other reasons to listen…
– Our handling of the dirty words you cannot say on YouTube is one of the funniest things we’ve done.
– We break down the result of Missouri v. Biden.
– We explain how censorship cancels epistemological journeys and crushes respectful dialogue.
THIS EPISODE is titled Is Censorship Graceful? Ready to Rumble? You can also listen while you work or drive on these podcasting platforms: Pandora * iHeart * Google Podcasts * Spotify
Obviously, we’re featuring today’s episode on…
Please also subscribe where you listen, so you’ll be instantly notified about new episodes.
ZAP The State and have a nice day,
Jim Babka
Host, Gracearchy with Jim Babka
Co-creator, Zero Aggression Project
Gracearchy is hosted by Zero Aggression Project’s co-founder, Jim Babka, but the views expressed in the show are not necessarily those of the board, staff, or supporters of the Zero Aggression Project (Downsize DC Foundation).
Show Comments 2
I’m suspended from NextDoor because they cannot tell me why I was suspended, but they want me to promise (for the fourth time) to read and pledge to follow the terms of service…which, from day one I’m pretty sure I’m among the very few who did so before signing up, and several times afterward. I’m also on the list of highest recruiters of new members because I thought ND would be a good thing to have if we needed to decentralize our security, etc.
They refused to tell me what term I violated. I have no idea what it was. I can’t spend any more time creating content for them to use to draw in new users and I can’t rely on them to host my content. I had also been suspended for asking for doctor recommendations (I gave a list of traits I was looking for, but it was basically like asking neighbors to recommend a plumber or restaurant).
I cancelled my PayPal account (and Venmo), for dropping the accounts of a life-saving non-profit organization.
I use my LinkedIn account profile to explain exactly why I will not use them. They took down 10 years of free medical advice of a well-motivated and knowledgeable doctor offering commonsense ideas for maintaining health. Again, life-saving.
YouTube is a special problem, so I use them to reach out and explain why they can’t be trusted in the comments, but you are right to find a better alternative. Some YouTubers start videos on YT, and complete them elsewhere for those who want to see the suspected sensitive material.
I was never on Facebook until I began trying to use it for business 4-5 years ago. I can’t risk using it for that, anymore. It isn’t worth the effort.
I learned a long time ago that “you get what you pay for” is true more often than not. As a software retailer in the 1980’s I was often given free software and rarely used it. I wouldn’t pirate it, either. If it is a useful product it is worth paying for, for so many reasons. I’m not fond of the subscription model, but you can bet they care a lot more about keeping users than the “free” platforms do. Walk away. Don’t provide them free content on their free platform. Take your followers with you.
I believe in giving people as many chances as they need to do the right thing. If any of these platforms gave a sincere apology and made corrections to their practices, I would reward them with some attention.
This started years ago when the social media youngsters were called into Congress to face shaming and blaming. I knew then it was bad news if their civil rights attorneys and wiser advisors didn’t provide them backbones. I don’t think these youngsters truly understood how much power they had. (All the media companies have similar interests in regulatory development–I can’t think of a lobbying force with more influence over Congress (except maybe Pharma and “Defense.” Of course, Pharma is a big advertiser on the media platforms…) If I owned a media company I would be polling the users and asking them who should decide what they see and hear, and showing them why they might not want to trust Congress for that. Consumers outnumber every other group, and many of them vote. There are times when it is better to play political hardball than to avoid politics (e.g., in no-win situations).
So they censored Gracearchy twice? *Sigh*! What really drives me nuts about this is that simply *the mention of dissent from the “establishment position” on COVID or The Climate can get you censored -regardless of evidence for the contra-wise position. Bill nailed it when he pointed out the whole “trust the science” and the so-called finding of the WHO as well. The turning down of Gracearchy I agree is exceedingly pernicious. People are more ready to believe that a censorship issue is occurring if you are completely shut off than if your site simply drops a majority of views. We really appreciated the information provided at the 22 minute mark concerning the First Amendment and freedom of the press and speech freedom distinctions as well. Frankly, this episode is in itself worth quite a bit. Thank you for keeping this free for us- When I am able, you will be receiving a donation. (Wish I could promise a large one!)