YouTube Boss Susan Wojcicki Steps Down, but Her Replacement Loves Censorship Too

YouTube Boss Susan Wojcicki Steps Down, but Her Replacement Loves Censorship Too

YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki recently announced plans to step down as CEO and will be succeeded by the censorship-happy Neal Mohan. Wojcicki leaves a legacy of censoring independent creators and favoring corporate media.

CNBC reports that Susan Wojcicki has announced that she is stepping down as CEO of YouTube after eight years in the role, and YouTube Chief Product Officer Neal Mohan will replace her.  With more than 2.5 billion monthly active users, YouTube has become the most popular video platform in the world. She has overseen the expansion of the company’s physical footprint in areas such as New York and San Bruno, California.

Google-owned Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki

Google-owned Youtube CEO Susan Wojcicki ( Kimberly White /Getty)

Sabo mocks Google CEO Sundar Pichai

Sabo mocks Google CEO Sundar Pichai (

Wojcicki announced her resignation in a blog post, stating that she would be stepping down from her position to devote more time to her family, her health, and her passion projects. She will continue to have a presence at the company, collaborating with YouTube teams, mentoring staff, and meeting with creators. She has also agreed to accept an advisory position across Google and parent company Alphabet.

Neal Mohan will take over from Wojcicki. His appointment as the new head of YouTube suggests that the company is looking to continue its growth and expansion, but may extend its harsh censorship practices.

Since joining YouTube in 2008, Mohan has been vocal about encouraging censorship on the platform. In an interview with David Pierce, Protocol’s editor-at-large, Mohan claimed that independent creators who express their views on newsworthy subjects lack context and should therefore be silenced and censored. In order to provide context and explanations for news events, he claimed that authoritative sources are necessary. He contrasted authoritative content with content from other creators, arguing that independent creators do not provide the same level of context.

Under Wojcicki, YouTube introduced a policy stating that “anything that would go against WHO (World Health Organization) recommendations is a violation of our policy.” The policy was critcized by many, including the well-known podcaster Joe Rogan. YouTube has stated that authoritative sources are ten times more likely to appear at the top of search results for some news events and that it won’t recommend YouTubers for breaking news.

Although Mohan’s position on censorship is troubling, it is unclear how he will approach his new position as YouTube’s CEO. It is obvious that TikTok and other social media platforms are increasingly challenging YouTube, and the company will need to keep innovating and evolving to stay on top.

The ability of YouTube to overcome the difficulties it has recently encountered will also be a determining factor in the company’s future growth and expansion. Containing the platform’s explosive growth has been one of the biggest challenges. Google and YouTube paid $170 million in 2019 to resolve allegations that the video platform had broken laws governing children’s privacy. Along with the coronavirus pandemic and the 2020 elections, Wojcicki faced criticism from leftists for the platform’s inability to thwart supposed “misinformation” and “disinformation” campaigns, while conservatives criticized the company for its harsh censorship rules.

The demonetization practices of YouTube, which have cost some creators money, have also drawn criticism. According to the company, it is working to enhance its procedures and guarantee that creators are treated fairly.

Read more at CNBC here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan


Our Big Tech Overlords Yanked Yet Another Covid Video We Apparently Can’t Handle

Our Big Tech Overlords Yanked Yet Another Covid Video We Apparently Can’t Handle

YouTube has pulled yet another Project Veritas video.

The now-infamous video of Jordon Trishton Walker, Pfizer’s director of research and development in strategic operations and mRNA scientific planning, giving up information on #DirectedEvolution and Pfizer’s plan to continue profiting from the Covid vaccines is still available in full on Rumble.

As Tucker Carlson introduced the story Thursday night, he said:

Consider the story that did not break today. … In the 24 hours since Project Veritas posted this footage, it has been viewed more than 12 million times on Twitter. No other media outlet has covered this story at all. … [You’d think you could] just go online and find out about it. Well Google, the biggest search engine in the world, which has a monopoly on search in this country … appears to have gone out of its way to make it much more difficult for users to learn anything about the Pfizer executive pictured in the footage.

Apparently, Carlson’s sources found what so many others suspected immediately after the Project Veritas story broke — that Google appeared to mask and misdirect its search results almost immediately. That seems as clear a sign as any of the collusion between Big Pharma and Big Tech.

That’s not a far-fetched accusation. Consider The Wall Street Journal’s 2019 investigation, “How Google Interferes With Its Search Algorithms and Changes Your Results.” Among other things, they found, “Despite publicly denying doing so, Google keeps blacklists to remove certain sites or prevent others from surfacing in certain types of results.” Imagine how they’ve perfected this in the last few years.

By Friday evening, YouTube yanked Project Veritas’s Pfizer video, which had 800,000 views before it was censored. Luckily, it was still alive and well on Twitter with 20 million views.

After that, Rumble tweeted:

UPDATE: It seems like YouTube has removed @Project_Veritas’s video. In response, Rumble will hold the line against this outrageous censorship by keeping the video up and even featuring it on our homepage.

Censorship dies on Rumble.

Accusations of YouTube “censorship” have been rampant: from issues related to the Jan. 6 Committee and Covid vaccines, to climate change and public appearances by former President Donald Trump (presumably because he continues to question the results of the 2020 election; however, Google began censoring him long before that, supposedly for “false accusations” about Joe Biden.)

Holding Big Tech Accountable

One has to wonder how long we are going to tolerate sources such as Google/YouTube deciding what we should or shouldn’t see. Freedom-loving Americans should be actively pursuing lawsuits to hold these monolithic companies accountable.

In this regard, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should be commended for his work. Kennedy, along with multiple other plaintiffs, filed a lawsuit on Jan. 10 making antitrust and constitutional claims against corporate media outlets. The suit alleges the Trusted News Initiative (TNI), an industry partnership started in March 2020 by several of the world’s largest news organizations, partnered with Big Tech firms to collectively censor online news. Google/YouTube is one of the “core partners” of the TNI.

This is a huge step in the right direction. Yet even now, as many people are waking up to the fact that their friends and loved ones may have been harmed by mRNA shots marketed as “vaccines,” there is no great public backlash against YouTube for censoring questions or warnings that might have informed the public about the risks of the Covid jabs.

Big Tech Runs Roughshod

Large YouTube channels such as Russell Brand’s and Dr. John Campbell’s still have to speak vaguely about anything Covid-related to their millions of subscribers, just so they won’t get shut down — as if they lived under communist or fascist rule.

The bottom line is that Big Tech is running roughshod over us. Beginning with YouTube’s Chief Executive Officer Susan Wojcicki, and on up the ladder to Google and parent company Alphabet, headed by Sundar Pichai, it becomes clear that the looming elephant in the room has grown too big. Imagine a 21st-century, augmented reality version of “You can’t fight city hall.”

“Every single CEO supposedly for the last 20 years has been talking about the free and open internet,” explains Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski. “They’ve been parading like the most important thing is to not regulate the internet and keep it free and open. Then all of a sudden in the last three or four years, everyone’s parading the opposite: Let’s censor it and let’s have a controlled internet. Never in my life could I ever have imagined that happening.”

In a Fox Nation special earlier this month that everyone concerned with censorship and free speech should watch, Pavlovski sat down with Carlson to discuss internet suppression and the birth of Rumble. It is an eye-opening explanation of how our digital information works, and of the uphill battle we face in taking back our First Amendment rights.

Pavlovski explained:

These companies all respectively have a monopoly on their certain division of the internet: Google is search, YouTube is video, Twitter is microblogging, and Facebook is social networking. … It’s a fun party for them. … Think about how big these companies are in comparison to the railroads and the tobacco companies in [the early 20th century] — these are even more powerful and have even more control than those companies did at that time. … So I don’t think they want to let that go. They’ve certainly abused their power.

Backlash for Critics

And don’t think Pavlovski hasn’t already felt a backlash after his appearance on Fox Nation. Less than 10 days later, Rolling Stone ran a piece titled, “Far-Right Superstars Are Failing on Rumble. Who’s Winning?

Rolling Stone is part of the Penske Media Corporation (PMC), a growing near-monopoly run by billionaire media tycoon Jay Penske. In July 2021, PMC brought in Noah Shachtman, former editor at The Daily Beast, to be Rolling Stone’s new editor-in-chief. A former Bill Clinton campaign staffer, it’s clear in which direction his bias lies.

In order to give Rumble a thorough dissing, Rolling Stone sought out E. Rosalie Li, “a public health scholar and disinformation researcher at Johns Hopkins University.” She also runs Hoaxlines, an organization that researches “media manipulation and unethical efforts to influence the public.” Li explains that Covid lockdowns “scared people who believed that the government was dangerous.” She then laments that there was “life-threatening” information posted on different platforms, and not enough of it was removed concerning Covid and the Jan. 6 Capitol riot. As a result, the masses fell victim to “conspiracy theories.”

The article then launches into a full-blown justification for censorship, quoting yet another misinformation expert, and explaining that as the masses peruse various internet platforms, they are becoming affiliated with like-minded believers. This, they claim, is dangerous because together they will morph into extremists spreading evil misinformation. And that can’t be allowed to happen.

It’s clear that with the rise of “misinformation experts” (there are currently 245 such code-worded job openings on Indeed), YouTube isn’t about to back down in its assault on free speech.

Lawsuits Offer Hope

Luckily, there are some targeted lawsuits coming before the courts, including the Supreme Court, that will challenge Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This law “grants a liability shield to internet platforms that protects them from being held responsible for their users’ posts, while also allowing them to decide what stays up or comes down,” CNBC reports. These cases, outlined here, will help determine the bounds of free expression on the internet.

In the last few years, thanks to cancel culture and the seemingly unbridled power of Big Tech, we’ve come to understand how fragile free speech really is.

Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe recently copied YouTube’s CEO Wojcicki on a tweet to Elon Musk, asking him how much it would cost to buy YouTube. He’s got a point. In the short term, we may be left praying that Musk or other benevolent billionaires can come to the aid of saving the First Amendment. There is no future for America without it.


YouTube Censored User After He Published Democrats’ 2016 ‘Stolen Election’ Claims

YouTube Censored User After He Published Democrats’ 2016 ‘Stolen Election’ Claims

Independent YouTuber Matt Orfalea does not align with Democrats or Republicans. He eschews any type of label because labels are dangerous, he tells The Federalist.

“A lot of people identify with their politics. I just identify as a video creator.”

Perhaps this is why Orfalea’s videos are so effective. Amassing hundreds of thousands of views, and in some cases, millions, the filmmaker’s work consists of crisply edited mash-ups of politicians and corporate media figures making complete fools of themselves — without any commentary from Orfalea himself. One such mashup shows politicians and media decrying the Wuhan lab leak theory as a baseless conspiracy, despite all evidence pointing to the contrary. Another shows the media’s hypocrisy surrounding the Hunter Biden laptop (and their quest to characterize the story as Russian disinformation — an actually baseless claim).

While Orfalea’s videos do not explicitly criticize the politicians or talking heads they represent, this has not stopped YouTube from demonetizing certain videos it deems hostile to the establishment-backed narrative of the day.

In the comment section of the Wuhan lab leak video, Orfalea tells viewers, “This video is of course demonetized without explanation. Follow me on Rumble!”

But Orfalea is no stranger to censorship. During the 2016 election, he created a video that revealed PBS News’s selective editing of an interview with then-Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. Of particular note was PBS’s censoring of Stein’s entire criticism of Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton and Clinton’s support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Within 24 hours of publishing his video on Facebook, Orfalea said, it was deleted with no explanation. The YouTuber also said last year that he has been censored for publishing the same content as corporate media outlets as well as drawing attention to the comments of a disgruntled Netflix employee.

But in the wake of the 2022 midterms and YouTube’s recent crackdown on election-related “misinformation,” Orfalea has once again found himself in the popular video platform’s crosshairs.

In September, Orfalea published a montage of Democrat politicians and media figures questioning the results of the 2016 election and characterizing it as “illegitimate,” “rigged,” and “hacked.”

He then released a second montage comparing the statements of then-President Trump questioning the 2020 election results to Democrats — most notably, Hillary Clinton — questioning the results of the 2016 contest.

“I wanted to show that Trump and the Republicans are not the only ones to challenge or question the integrity of an election,” Orfalea said. “It was literally just the last election cycle. And people have already forgotten.”

YouTube immediately tried demonetizing both videos, as journalist Matt Taibbi reported, but then reversed the demonetization of the first video after Orfalea pushed back. But that didn’t stop the video-sharing platform from deleting the second video and giving Orfalea a strike (if a YouTuber receives three strikes, his entire channel will be deleted), imperiling his livelihood. Orfalea is currently banned from posting to YouTube for a week.

YouTube rationalized its decision by arguing Orfalea’s second montage “contains claims that past US presidential elections were rigged or stolen, and our election integrity policy prohibits content that advances false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in US presidential elections.”

If YouTube’s “‘election integrity policy’ prohibits content that advances false claims that ‘past US presidential elections were rigged or stolen,’” Taibbi noted, then it should have removed Orfalea’s first video as well. After all, the first montage features politicians ranging from President Joe Biden to Vice President Kamala Harris — and even former President Jimmy Carter — all claiming the 2016 election was rigged and that Trump was an illegitimate president.

But of course, Democrats can get away with election “denialism” (whatever that means) when Republicans can’t. Orfalea’s censorship by YouTube just shows how hypocritical leftist politicians, the corporate media, and other peddlers of the Official Narrative really are. And the best part? They don’t care.

No matter that the Russian collusion hoax and claims that Trump stole the 2016 election were dead on arrival. No matter that voter skepticism over the legitimacy of the 2020 election was indeed well-founded (and outlined in Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway’s book, “Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections“). Whatever (or whoever) poses a threat to the regime and its narrative must always be squelched – including inconvenient facts.

Despite finding himself once again under the boot of the left’s censorship regime, Orfalea remains undaunted. He’s still committed to creating videos that challenge propaganda from both the left and the right.

“It’s important for people to realize that we swallow the narratives the media feeds us without thinking about it,” Orfalea said.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.


By Bridling Section 230, SCOTUS Can Finally Do What Congress Won’t: Rein In Big Tech

The Supreme Court announced this week that it will finally attempt to do what Congress has not: bring clarity to Section 230, the law that protects internet platforms from liability for content published by others. While Section 230 operates across the internet, it is also, for Big Tech, a valuable financial subsidy.

Over nearly 30 years since its passage, lower courts have stretched what the plain text suggests is a limited, fairly porous liability into a bulletproof one, which immunizes platforms for far more than just the messages they deliver. Product liability claims for child sex crimes committed using Instagram fall under Section 230 immunity, as do all manner of the platforms’ own moderation — that is, what they do to the content posted by users.

The question before the court — and, indeed, the one currently bedeviling policymakers — is how far Section 230 immunity ultimately goes. The vehicle for deciding this comes in the form of Gonzalez v. Google, a case filed by the family of a 23-year-old American woman killed in an ISIS attack on a Paris cafe in 2015. The family of Nohemi Gonzalez argues that, under the Antiterrorism Act, Google (which owns YouTube) aided ISIS through YouTube videos — more specifically, through its recommendation algorithms, which placed ISIS videos into the feeds of users.

The divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ultimately ruled that Section 230 protects the ability of platform algorithms to recommend someone else’s content — though the majority agreed with the dissent’s observation of “a rising chorus of judicial voices cautioning against an overbroad reading of the scope of Section 230 immunity,” and noted that “the Internet has grown into a sophisticated and powerful global engine the drafters of §230 could not have foreseen.”

Moreover, in her concurrence, Judge Marsha Berzon concluded that the algorithmic amplification, which now powers the business model of the social media platforms “well outside the scope of traditional publication,” constituted the platforms “engaging in its own communications with users.” 

“Nothing in the history of Section 230 supports a reading of the statute so expansive as to reach these website-generated messages and functions,” she wrote. Despite this, Berzon noted, the court was bound to years of overly broad precedent that it could not undo.

It is the Supreme Court, however, that can untangle the years of lower courts misreading the statute, and this will be the question sitting before the justices in the coming months. How they rule has the power to curtail the way in which the biggest corporations in the world curate both the modern public square and a significant portion of the digital economy.

SCOTUS Can Update 230 for the Modern Internet

The court agreeing to take this case is a recognition of two things. First, there is the possibility of something amiss with the statutory interpretation of Section 230 as it currently stands. As I and many others have argued, Congress intended Big Tech’s liability shield to be limited and delineated. Lower courts have rendered it expansive and bulletproof, setting bad precedent that continues to bind lower courts even when they raise their own doubts. That bad precedent must be undone. 

The legislative history is clear that Section 230 had two ultimate aims: to make the internet safe for kids and to give the platforms the necessary incentive to moderate smut while allowing “a true diversity of political discourse” to flourish. Former Rep. Chris Cox, one of the authors of Section 230, is now paid by the tech companies to argue that he meant the provision to be the seminal charter of online internet immunity, but even he cannot hide from his own words nearly 30 years ago. 

Speaking in favor of his amendment, the Online Family Empowerment Act (later known as Section 230), Cox argued, “We want to encourage [internet services] … to everything possible for us, the customer, to help us control, at the portals of our computer, at the front door of our house, what comes in and what our children see.” 

Moreover, a close textual analysis of Section 230 does not support an expansive aim, as Michigan State law professor Adam Candeub has persuasively argued:

Notice what section 230’s text does not do: give platforms protection for content moderation. … That would include ‘disinformation,’ ‘hate speech,’ ‘misgendering,’ religious hatred,’ or for that matter the traffic prioritization that platforms perform to give people content they want.

But the court’s decision to take this case is also a recognition of the instrumental role that the major technology platforms now play in the day-to-day lives of citizens. We have a public square and a large portion of the economy mediated by technology. Yet the rules that govern it are entirely privatized, subjected to court distortion, profit motive, individual commoditization, and corporate whim. The values of free speech and a vigorous exchange of ideas and viewpoints are an afterthought.

Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that the role of major internet platforms is so critical in modern society that it now reaches the level of common carrier regulation. With regard to Section 230, he has suggested that the court should consider “whether the text of this increasingly important statute aligns with the current state of immunity enjoyed by the Internet platforms.”

Despite the hair-raising rhetoric from the tech press and Big Tech’s network of paid policy groups about any changes to Section 230 heralding “the end of the internet,” it is not unreasonable that Congress or the courts would revisit a statute that now applies to platforms and, indeed, a comprehensive internet that didn’t even exist when the original law was passed. 

Clarification is especially warranted as the platforms have made it a pattern to try to have their cake and eat it, too — that is, argue the contradiction that all their content moderation is not their speech and thus Section 230 protected, while at the same time arguing that their content moderation is also their speech, and thus protected by the First Amendment. This is facially ridiculous and something neither the courts nor Congress should let stand.

Yet the Supreme Court, of course, could very well get it wrong. A sweeping ruling that rejects any sort of nuance and instead determines that every moderation decision by the tech companies is protected by Section 230, or that every moderation decision is protected by the First Amendment, would be a huge setback for state attempts to step in and reform the tech companies. State laws, like the one out of Texas recently upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, would be irreparably harmed.

Rather, a limited, case-by-case ruling that takes into account the original intent of Section 230, along with the technology that has developed since its passage, would respect both the public’s interest in preserving the right to have a plurality of voices while immunizing the platforms to moderate for the actual nasty content categorized in the statute itself.

In the absence of any recent congressional action on the matter, the Supreme Court has taken for itself the opportunity to clarify the rules surrounding engagement in the modern public square and the digital economy. For those interested in an outcome that both incentivizes the platforms to moderate the true harm that can flourish on the internet while allowing a diversity of speech — that is, the original intent of Section 230 — a decision that returns the statute to its original confines would be welcome. 

Rachel Bovard is The Federalist’s senior tech columnist and the senior director of policy at the Conservative Partnership Institute. She has more than a decade of policy experience in Washington and has served in both the House and Senate in various roles, including as a legislative director and policy director for the Senate Steering Committee under the successive chairmanships of Sen. Pat Toomey and Sen. Mike Lee. She also served as director of policy services for The Heritage Foundation.


YouTube Punishes Journalist For Highlighting Democrats’ 2016 Election Denialism

YouTube Punishes Journalist For Highlighting Democrats’ 2016 Election Denialism

In classic Big Tech information suppression form, Google-owned YouTube punished a journalist on Thursday for highlighting just how many Democrats, corporate media outlets, and celebrities denied that former President Donald Trump won the 2016 election.

YouTube’s elections misinformation policy claims that “content advancing false claims that widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in certain past certified national elections” is subject to removal. The policy explicitly states that these conditions apply to “any past U.S. Presidential election.”

That’s likely why when journalist Matt Orfalea, author of the “Censored News” Substack and contributor at TK News, tried to upload a compilation of Democrats claiming that Trump was an illegitimate president because he “cheated,” the video was instantly demonetized.

The less-than-five-minute video simply shows media clips of Democrats like current White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, failed 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, and now-Vice President Kamala Harris who, without any credible evidence to back their denialism, all spread lies and misinformation about the 2016 election with the hopes of undermining the newly-elected Trump.

The video also features corporate media talking heads, late-night hosts, former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki, and even Saturday Night Live characters repeating the lie that “Russia hacked our election.”

YouTube’s email disclosing the censorship declared the video “isn’t suitable for all advertisers” and limited the compilation to “run limited or no ads.” The email also stated that the decision to bar the video from making money was made as part of a “manual” review by someone on the YouTube team.

TK News founder Matt Taibbi announced the censorship in an article on his Substack on Thursday.

“I’d like to thank YouTube for making our point,” Taibbi wrote. “The material in this video does not promote the idea that any election was stolen or illegitimate. On the contrary, it shows a great mass of comments from Democratic partisans and pundits who themselves make that claim, about the 2016 election.”

As Taibbi noted further down in the column, Democrats that peddled election misinformation in 2016 were not censored for their brazen denial. Instead, their baseless doubts were rewarded with incessant media coverage that continues to this day.

“However, the decision to assemble these materials in one place, inviting audiences to consider their meaning, apparently crosses a line,” Taibbi continued. “Now we know: you can deny election results on a platform like YouTube as much as you want, you can even promise disruption, but drawing attention to such behavior angers the algorithm. It’s hard to imagine a better demonstration of the double-standard in content moderation.”

More Democrats denied that Trump won the 2016 election than Americans who claimed President Joe Biden wasn’t legitimately elected in 2020.

In 2020, Democrats that objected to every GOP certification this century called Sen. Josh Hawley’s election concerns a “coup attempt.” Prominent Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and former President Jimmy Carter supported the theory that Trump was illegitimately elected. More than 1 in 4 House Democrats boycotted the Republican’s inauguration celebrations in 2017.

Yet, it was election integrity supporters who asked questions about the 2020 election that were suppressed by YouTube and other Big Tech companies.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.


Wisconsin Senator Documents Big Tech Rigging The 2022 Election Against Republicans

Wisconsin Senator Documents Big Tech Rigging The 2022 Election Against Republicans

Fed up with the repeated censorship of his work, Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson penned a letter to YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki demanding the Big Tech company answer for its deliberate attempts to silence him online.

For more than a year, YouTube censors have suppressed, banned, and limited content from Johnson and his team. These attempts to limit Johnson’s reach aren’t just censorship, they are blatant meddling in Johnson’s reelection chances.

Big Tech’s efforts to subdue Johnson’s rigorous commitment to exposing the truth are joined by corporate media and Democrats, both of which are working to ensure that the Wisconsin Republican is replaced by a radical Democrat this fall.

Knowledge about Johnson’s work in the Senate is key to his reelection chances but if Big Tech’s track record suggests anything, there’s nothing stopping companies like YouTube from privately limiting key information voters need to formulate an opinion about Johnson and his opponent.

As Johnson documents in his letter, Big Tech was more than willing to publicly blacklist the senator over discussions about Covid-19, early treatments, the jab, and the 2020 election.

“YouTube has displayed a troubling track record of censoring a sitting United States Senator, the proceedings of the United States Senate, journalists that interview me, and the display of data that is entirely generated from U.S. government health agencies,” Johnson explained. He demanded that Google-owned YouTube cough up documents by Oct. 5 related to the company’s long history of hiding Johnson’s work from the public.

At the behest of Democrat-controlled federal agencies, YouTube wielded its censorship power against Johnson during crucial moments. That included banning him from uploading new content for days at a time.

In January 2021, YouTube denied Americans the right to explore questions about early Covid-19 treatments by removing footage of a U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing from the senator’s YouTube page. Days later, YouTube took down the same video, which garnered nearly 8 million views, from a Fox News YouTube channel.

YouTube justified the censorship to The Federalist by claiming the video was “removed for violating our COVID-19 misinformation policy,” something the company admitted it developed to comply with demands from unelected government employees.

In October 2021, YouTube removed yet another HSGAC hearing from Johnson’s page. That time, Johnson says, YouTube claimed the clip featuring a congressional discussion on public record about election integrity and laws “alleges widespread fraud or errors that changed the outcome of the 2020 US Presidential Election.”

“The video was uploaded on December 20, 2020, meaning YouTube waited nearly a year to remove the video,” Johnson noted in his letter.

Just one month later, YouTube personalized its vendetta by suspending Johnson’s account over a Covid-19 roundtable he hosted. In it, several highly credentialed, world-recognized medical experts “discussed the importance of natural immunity, heard stories on the disastrous consequences of vaccine mandates, highlighted the lack of transparency from the federal health agencies, and gave a voice to the vaccine injured.”

Other things Big Tech didn’t want Americans to know about Johnson included his interview about vaccine mandates and “the FDA’s rushed approval of the vaccination for children” with Wisconsin talk show host Dan O’Donnell and his speech at the Milwaukee Press Club newsmaker luncheon about how “ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are both safe and effective drugs.” YouTube didn’t just penalize Johnson for those comments but also extended its suspensions to O’Donnell, who posted the relevant interview on his website.

YouTube’s interference with election outcomes by manipulating public opinion is not lost on Americans searching for answers about Covid and election integrity, nor on Johnson. In fact, his letter shows how Big Tech censorship is consistently brandished against facts that might lead people to vote for Republicans, and not against facts that would lead to voting for Democrats. It’s likely not a coincidence that a major lawsuit recently exposed the Democrat-run White House has been secretly telling companies including Twitter, Google, and Facebook specific information to hide from Americans.

That’s why, during a recent HSGAC hearing, Johnson asked why Democrats’ false statements were never flagged as “misinformation.” President Joe Biden has repeatedly lied that you can’t get the virus, be hospitalized, or die from Covid if you’re vaccinated but he’s faced no punishment from social media moderators. Big Tech execs from YouTube, Twitter, TikTok, and Facebook, however, never “even attempted to answer” acknowledge Johnson’s inquiry.

“Who do you think you are to censor information from eminently qualified doctors who had the courage and compassion to treat Covid patients?” Johnson asked during the hearing. “You guys bear a fair amount of responsibility for hundreds of thousands of people not being treated — and I would say probably dying, that didn’t have to die. Hope you’re proud of yourselves.”

Big Tech’s acts of information suppression against Johnson aren’t just concerning, they are deliberate election meddling. Controlling what voters can learn about issues of public importance and candidates’ stances on them is a way of controlling election outcomes.

When voters don’t have access to the full story, they can’t make an informed choice. They believe they are choosing, but if Big Tech controls what messages people can read, voters’ choices are predetermined by these huge companies that obey a Democrat-controlled White House and federal bureaucracy.

Johnson’s reelection bid this November is reportedly tight. No one knows how tight it would be if Big Tech wasn’t controlling what Wisconsin voters are allowed to learn about his record — and his opponent. And that’s a huge problem.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @jordanboydtx.


Here’s How Big Tech Plans To Rig The 2022 Midterms

Here’s How Big Tech Plans To Rig The 2022 Midterms

As the 2022 midterms loom, big tech companies are again announcing their plans to meddle in U.S. elections by censoring news and information. Social media censorship ramped up dramatically following President Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, leading to companies such as Twitter and Facebook colluding with Democrat operatives in intelligence agencies to censor and suppress factual stories that harmed then-candidate Joe Biden during his 2020 campaign.

Two years later, following heavy documentation of the meddling, big tech companies are intent on using the same strategy. And they’re openly admitting as much


Nick Clegg, president of global affairs for Meta — Facebook’s parent company — wrote in a blog post that Facebook’s approach to the 2022 midterms will be “largely consistent with the policies and safeguards” from 2020. 

Posts rated as false or partly false by one of Facebook’s 11 so-called “fact-checkers” will receive a label titled “false information,” causing their outreach to be dramatically limited. During the 2020 election, NeverTrump outlet The Dispatch — one of the fact-checkers — published an inaccurate “fact-check” that shut down public communications from pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List just weeks before the election.

Lead Stories, one of Facebook’s many left-wing “fact check” censors, is partly funded by the Democratic National Committee as well as Beijing-based ByteDance, the Chinese company that owns TikTok. In 2020, Lead Stories was responsible for censoring The Federalist’s own correct reporting about the Georgia election. After The Federalist criticized Lead Stories for its fake “fact-checking,” it was censored again.

While accurate stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop were never fact-checked, their reach was also limited in 2020, as Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerberg admitted in an interview with podcaster Joe Rogan. According to Zuckerberg, the FBI pressured Facebook to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story by falsely claiming it was Russian disinformation.

Such collusion between the intelligence community and Facebook is sure to continue: in its 2022 Factsheet outlining its approach to the U.S. midterms, the company writes that it will be “working with federal government partners including the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, as well as local and state election officials and industry peers, to make sure we’re all preparing for different scenarios.”

While discussing their approach to the midterms with The New York Times, Facebook employees said the company will take a “greater interest” in censoring information that it claims could lead to “real-world violence” like the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol.

According to internal documents obtained by The Wall Street Journal, Facebook’s Disaggregating Harmful Networks Taskforce tracks hundreds of thousands of users and pages that could “distribute potentially harmful content.” Once Facebook employees identify a “dangerous information corridor” — networks of accounts, pages, and groups — they work to undermine it, usually by removing popular accounts or severely restricting users’ ability to transmit information. This is the same strategy Facebook applied when it censored more than 700,000 “Stop the Steal” supporters after the Jan 6. riot.

Yet Facebook took no action against the Democrat-funded and coordinated operation to question the legitimacy of the 2016 election by falsely accusing Donald Trump of being a traitor who stole the election by colluding with Russia. That lie, which led to mass public hysteria and years of investigations, is allowed free rein on its platform. Facebook’s so-called “fact-checkers” included journalists who participated in spreading the lie or otherwise allowed it to continue without censorship via fact-checking.

Despite this open political double standard, an internal memo from the task force claimed “an individual can question election results. But when it’s amplified by a movement, it can damage democracy. There is harm in the way movements shift norms and an understanding of collective truth.”


In August, Twitter announced it would begin enforcing its “Civic Integrity Policy” for the 2022 midterms. This means taking “action against misleading claims about the voting process, misleading content intended to intimidate or dissuade people from participating in the election, or misleading claims that may undermine public confidence in elections outcomes.” 

Like Facebook, Twitter will label what it claims is “false or misleading” information as misinformation. Once labeled, such content will not be distributed by the company’s algorithms. Twitter may also remove “false or misleading” tweets entirely.

“In cases where there is potential for harm associated with the false or misleading claim, the Tweet may not be liked or shared to prevent the spread of the misleading information,” a company blog post reads. Such a policy is unlikely to apply to disinformation from the left. For example, during the 2020 election, Twitter refused to censor viral tweets pushing misinformation about USPS mailboxes that negatively affected the right.

Ironically — as Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson notes – Twitter was probably the single greatest source of disinformation during the 2020 election. Just weeks before the election, the social media company worked overtime to censor The New York Post’s story on First Son Hunter Biden’s laptop, even locking the Post’s account and those of other users’ who tried to distribute it.

As such, Twitter “brazenly hid a story from its users that, had they seen it, would have been quite damaging to Biden and certainly would have caused some people to change their votes,” Davidson wrote. Davidson was later deplatformed by Twitter for saying scientifically accurate truths about biological distinctions between men and women. Twitter routinely bans effective communicators who question left-wing narratives pushed by its company and other activists.

Of course, no censorship comes close to the level of Twitter (and Facebook) banning then-President Trump, leader of the Republican Party, from their platforms after the Jan. 6 riot — effectively cutting off communication from the president of the United States to his supporters and the rest of the country.


Arguably the most popular social network in America right now, TikTok announced that it would also be countering so-called election misinformation through its Elections Center, a segment of the app that will “connect people who engage with election content to authoritative information and sources in more than 45 languages.”

As Federalist Culture Editor Emily Jashinsky reported, this gives the Chinese-owned social media company access to the voting profiles of all American users who opt to use TikTok’s Elections Center. As TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is connected to the Chinese Communist Party, TikTok’s Elections Center “will put detailed voter profiles in the hands of a company based in Beijing, stocked with party members and state employees, subject to laws that allow the Chinese government data access.” 

As Jashinsky notes, China could influence the midterm elections using this data, as well as censoring American public discourse in favor of the Chinese Communist Party’s geopolitical ambitions by either fomenting public discord or undermining anti-CCP politicians under the guise of “combatting misinformation.” 


YouTube was the last major social media platform to announce that it, too, had a plan to combat misinformation leading up to November’s general election. 

In a Sept. 1 blog post, the company wrote that searches for midterm-related videos will prioritize “content coming from authoritative national and local news sources like PBS NewsHour, The Wall Street Journal, Univision and local ABC, CBS and NBC affiliates,” although many of these corporate media outlets possess a heavy left-wing bias. Any content deemed “borderline” misinformation will be prevented from being widely distributed.

YouTube also claimed it will remove “election content that violates our policies,” including “misleading voters on how to vote, encouraging interference in the democratic process, inciting violence, or advancing certain types of election misinformation,” which includes “election integrity” content.

While this policy will be enforced regardless of “political viewpoint,” the company emphasized that videos “claiming widespread fraud, errors, or glitches occurred in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, or alleging the election was stolen or rigged” would violate its policies. YouTube allows members of the Democrat Party to continue using its platform to claim elections it loses are rigged or stolen.


Democratic organizations were accidentally granted access to a trove of Republican voter data on Snapchat, enabling them to hone their political ads leading up to the 2022 midterms. As Federalist Staff Writer Shawn Fleetwood reports, a “slip-up” by Snapchat gave groups such as the Democratic National Committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, and Georgia Democrat Stacey Abrams’ gubernatorial campaign access to voter data by Republican-aligned firm i360. Such groups used the data to create targeted political ads to sway voters.

While Snapchat claims it is working to rectify such supposedly accidental data sharing, “the blunder underscores the sensitivities surrounding reams of voter data that have become a highly valuable political commodity,” Axios writes.

While the data breach affected both Republican and Democrat data firms, the data’s “use by political groups was significantly more prolific on the Democratic side.”

What This Means

Much like in 2020, Big Tech companies are actively censoring information they deem harmful to their official narrative or preferred candidates. By falsely labeling factual information from conservatives “misinformation,” such companies have the power to control the flow of information that informs voters and rig elections in their favor.

It’s been heavily reported that companies like Facebook and Twitter have colluded with the Biden administration to censor information related to Covid-19. As the Biden administration already has plans to massively influence the 2022 midterms, they and other Democrats will continue to collude with big tech to swing high-stakes congressional races come November.

Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.

The Federalist logo eagle mark

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.



Dr. Tony, Other US Officials Served In Lawsuit: Collusion with Big Tech

Dr. Tony, Other US Officials Served In Lawsuit: Collusion with Big Tech

Fauci, Other US Officials Served In Lawsuit Over Alleged Collusion

Suppressing Free Speech with Big Tech

Post by Tyler Durden | Written by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times

White House chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and other top Biden administration officials have been served with discovery requests after a federal judge ordered the administration to comply with discovery requests stemming from a lawsuit alleging government collusion with Big Tech.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, speaks in Washington on May 11, 2022. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

The lawsuit accuses government officials of working with Twitter and other major social media networks to suppress truthful information on multiple topics, including COVID-19.

One example outlined is how Fauci, the longtime head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, held a secret meeting with scientists who soon after tried to discredit the theory that the virus that causes COVID-19 came from a Chinese laboratory. At the same time, Fauci, who has repeatedly cast doubt on the so-called lab leak theory and whose agency funded research at the lab in Wuhan, was exchanging messages with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on how COVID-19 information on social media was handled.

Fauci was told in the request to identify every worker in his agency who has or is communicating with a social media platform regarding content modulation and/or misinformation, to identify all such communications he had, and to identify all meetings he had on the matter with social media platforms.

He was also asked to provide all communications with Zuckerberg from Jan. 1, 2020, to the present, and all communications with platforms related to the Great Barrington Declaration, the COVID-19 strategy authored by Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Martin Kulldorff, and Dr. Sunetra Gupta that Fauci and his former boss, Dr. Francis Collins, criticized publicly and in private.

Discovery requests were also sent to White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre; former Disinformation Governance Board chief Nina Jankowicz; Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; and agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Homeland Security.


Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, the plaintiffs in the suit, also served subpoenas to Meta, Facebook’s parent company; YouTube; Twitter; Instagram; and LinkedIn.

The subpoena compels the platforms to provide documents before Aug. 17, including all communications with Jankowicz and other federal officials.

The documents reference how Jen Psaki, Jean-Pierre’s predecessor, told a briefing in July 2021 that officials are “in regular touch with these social media platforms” and that “we’re flagging problematic posts for Facebook that spread disinformation.”

“We will fight to get to the bottom of this alleged collusion and expose the suppression of freedom of speech by social media giants at the behest of top-ranking government officials,” Schmitt, a Republican, said in a statement.


(TLB) published this article as posted by Tyler Durden and written by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times

Header featured image (edited) credit: Dr. Anthony Fauci/ (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Emphasis added by (TLB) editors



Stay tuned to …


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Share this…
Share on FacebookPin on PinterestTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn



Please help truthPeep spread the word :)