YouTube CEO: Anything said against WHO is a violation and will be removed


YouTube CEO Susan Wojkicki joined CNN’s Brian Stelter this past weekend and said the company removes anything that is against the World Health Organization, the same group that lied for weeks for the Chinese Communists while the coronavirus spread around the globe.

This is unreal.

Susan Wojkicki: “We talk about removing information that is problematic.  Of course, anything that is medically unsubstantiated, people saying like “take vitamin C” um, um “take turmeric, it will cure you.”   Those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy.  Anything that would go against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy.  And so remove is another important part of our policy.



This comes at the same time that Facebook announced it is working with state governments to take down organizing announcements for protests of the COVID-19 Chinese coronavirus lockdowns.

H/T: Gateway Pundit

And a reminder as to who the minders are over at YouTube.

Southern Poverty Law Center secretly policing content for YouTube

You got it. The same group that said Patriot Groups marked as Hate Groups by Southern Poverty Law Center 

Here is their map to their so-called “Hate Groups” –  Hate Map

Here is a list of the various groups including Christian identities – Catholics and Oath Keepers: SPLC Groups Monitored

Last August, a guest post by Mustang, filled you in on the group – Excusing Leftist Hatred – SPLC

Back to the post at hand:

The Southern Poverty Law Center is assisting YouTube in policing content on their platform, The Daily Caller has learned.

The left-wing nonprofit — which has more recently come under fire for labeling legitimate conservative organizations as “hate groups” — is one of the more than 100 nongovernment organizations (NGOs) and government agencies in YouTube’s “Trusted Flaggers” program, a source with knowledge of the arrangement told TheDC.


First, the flaggers are equipped with digital tools allowing them to mass flag content for review by YouTube personnel. Second, the partner groups act as guides to YouTube’s content monitors and engineers designing the algorithms policing the video platform but may lack the expertise needed to tackle a given subject.

More at  Daily Caller

BONUS: SPLC Revisited … Transfers Millions in Cash to Offshore Entities

38 Responses to “YouTube CEO: Anything said against WHO is a violation and will be removed”

  1. Odysseus Says:

    They have laid bare evidence of November human to human transmission,
    but Susan said they were slanderous to the CCP/WHO and Susan is an honorable woman.
    They have presented testimony of lab origination of the virus,
    but Susand said they were slanderous to the CCP/WHO and Susan is an honorable woman.
    Nay they are all honorable men and women.


  2. Steve Dennis Says:

    The internet giants are really starting to crack down. Facebook is not allowing people to put up anything about organizing protests and now this. I wonder how long it will be before WordPress starts cracking down on what people write about…

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Always On Watch Says:

    Southern Poverty Law Center secretly policing content for YouTube

    It doesn’t get more damning than the SPLC being involved!

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Ed Bonderenka Says:

    I heard this on FB earlier. I then searched and found lots of videos critical of the WHO on Youtube.
    Search in Youtube “the WHO is corrupt” as I did just minutes ago.
    That said, I believe they are referring to what they believe is false information relative to WHO opinion on the efficacy of remedies.
    Just trying to be factual.
    I hate to appear to be justifying Youtube or FB.

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      It will be interesting how this goes in the future with this….. I guess its in the eye of the beholder what is false at some point…. but glad you brought this up… so many of my older youtubes have been removed.


  5. peter3nj Says:

    Off Topic:
    This pretty much sums up the democrats strategy for taking down Trump this November and for all future elections:

    If you can’t beat them, arrange to have them beaten. George Carlin

    Liked by 1 person

  6. peter3nj Says:

    Business oligarch. A business oligarch is generally a business magnate who controls sufficient resources to influence national politics. … possesses sufficient political power to promote their own interests; controls multiple businesses, which intensively coordinate their activities.

    What can be said about millionaire and billionaire corporate oligarchs seeking to destroy the country and the system that allows them their privileged existence in their ivory towers wanting for little else then absolute power.
    Bastards all, this little number is for all of them:

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Mustang.Koji Says:

    In one single Tweet a month or so back, I got suspended for a day. I tweeted the Schitt needs to wash his mouth out with soap; in this case, I used Tide pods. I protested but they claimed my Tweet “encouraged bodily harm or suicide.” No shit.

    But I did see many more tweets attacking our president in no uncertain terms yet they were allowed to continue.

    My memory isn’t good anymore but aren’t Kenyan Obummer and Moochelle entertwined with YT now?

    Liked by 1 person

  8. Mustang Says:

    The First Amendment only applies to interactions with the government; there is no right to free speech on privately owned social platforms/property. This explains how FB and YT can get away with censoring material. They own the platform, they have a say in what they will allow to appear on their platform, and it will either be their way or the highway. Our only recourse is to choose not to use it. Even if 66% of Americans stopped using FB or YT, these companies would remain solvent. How? It’s a global market and even if we applied that same formula to the world’s technological marketplace, 34-40% of market share produces massive profits. Does FB or YT care what we conservatives think? Heck, no.

    Liked by 3 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      While the courts have ruled in their favor, is it morally right? Is there such a thing as a monopoly of social media and media in general that it reaches a point of being a public utility?
      For a long time, media companies were not allowed to own more than one local news channel in a local market in order to maintain a diverse point of view. Same with radio. Now it is mega giants who control contents. Same with newspapers when there were more than one in a community. At some point does the FCC have a roll in this?
      I am not one for government interference, but with the control of most access to the content let along access to the internet it is worth some thought… It has been a long time since I had my legal hat on and better minds than mind have considered this…. yet I look forward to a good rebutal.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ed Bonderenka Says:
      But as Senator Ted Cruz points out, Congress actually has the power to deter political censorship by social media companies without using government coercion or taking action that would violate the First Amendment, in letter or spirit. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunizes online platforms for their users’ defamatory, fraudulent, or otherwise unlawful content. Congress granted this extraordinary benefit to facilitate “forum[s] for a true diversity of political discourse.” This exemption from standard libel law is extremely valuable to the companies that enjoy its protection, such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter, but they only got it because it was assumed that they would operate as impartial, open channels of communication—not curators of acceptable opinion.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Mustang Says:

      For someone who regards themselves as an enlightened thinker, then no … censorship is not morally right, but I do not think there is anything moral about Face Book or You Tube, or any number of things going on in our society today. Both entities focus their operational decisions on (a) their bottom line, (b) their own ideological bent, and (perhaps) (c) their aspirations for the future fabric of American society. But we can’t have it both ways. I will delete a comment at either of my two blogs that I found offensive to me or my miniscule number of readers, particularly if the comment was profane. Doing this may prove that I am not enlightened, or it may suggest that I have little tolerance for language that I find offensive. If I argue in favor of prohibiting FB and YT from managing their property the way they see fit, even if or especially when I disagree with their leftist views, then the only way I can avoid hypocrisy is to impose that same standard upon my own property. You are right, Bunks … it is a worthy debate.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Points well made as usual Mustang….. at some point it almost gets to the point of being under the category of pornography….. shocks the conscience…. and you know it when you see it…. but this argument is pretty far afield and I would have to do better in my argument.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. kcockroft Says:

    These people need to grow up as they are the new “bullies”. I read somewhere that China did the censoring on youtube

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Linda Says:

    Not surprising. Same with FB. So much for the 1st Amendment.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. markone1blog Says:

    Thanks for letting us know that the SPLC is back to its old tricks. Considering that it was accusing numerous Christian and conservative organizations with corruption while the last set of leaders were philandering with the secretarial staff, it took the Obama-lawyer newbie little time to get back to the old habits. I guess she knows how to stir up money from her people.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. markone1blog Says:

    Not surprising, considering their Big Brother tilt. Still, this is a reason to go to the painful little app Vimeo.

    Liked by 2 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      Painful is the operative word.. 🙂 YOuTube getting worse, much worse…

      Liked by 1 person

      • dave drake Says:

        I’m not surprised at YT or SLPC. Both are in bed with China, WHO and The LEFT. I’d wonder what took them so long, and of course how much further can they go…who knows? Targeting blogs that have opinions different from theirs? Bunk, I’m going to email to you an old graphic from the original days of YT. It will make you laugh. “Preserve your memories forever on YT.” Why yes, we will do that – – until you decide to censor it! 😀
        Little Eichmanns, all them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Mustang.Koji Says:

        Someone I know who posted historical footage from the fighting in the Pacific during WWII got suspended for posting something that was deemed to encourage violence. WTF.

        Liked by 2 people

      • dave drake Says:

        Well let’s all go to the Twitter TOS page, find the section on reporting for encouraging violence and harm:

        Copy and paste the above url into the area asking what Tweet is offensive and when asked why, click on the “promoting violence/harm to others”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Much of the censor has little rhyme or reason other than the person who is sending it it seems.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: