AEI: The Wall Street Journal has unfortunately amplified the myth that social media is censoring con

[TomSea]

AEI, American Enterprise Institute whom I thought overall, were on our side, maybe not. Just posting this, no endorsement.

The Wall Street Journal has unfortunately amplified the myth that social media is censoring conservatives - AEI
James Pethokoukis @JimPethokoukis August 7, 2019 1:49 pm | AEIdeas

There’s a lot wrong with radio talker Dennis Prager’s new op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, “Don’t Let Google Get Away With Censorship.” Let’s start with the flimsy nature of the headline claim. Prager’s entire censorship case is that YouTube has placed 56 of 320 short videos produced by PragerU in “restricted mode” so that they’re hidden to users — typically libraries, schools, and public institutions — who have chosen the setting. As YouTube explains, “Videos containing potentially adult content will not be shown to viewers who have Restricted Mode turned on.”

Except 98.5% of YouTube users don’t use restricted mode. In other words, this is a poor strategy for meaningfully censoring supposedly conservative thought. Indeed, Prager notes in his piece that PragerU was recently asked to testify before Congress because the website “gets a billion views a year.” And what continues to be a massive traffic driver for PragerU? Maybe it’s PragerU’s YouTube account, which has more than 2 million subscribers! This is an obvious connection Prager declines to make. Anyway, there are many left-of-center sites with a far higher share of content on restricted mode.

Next, Prager extends his censorship claims beyond PragerU and Google. He points to recent research that found 21 of the 22 of the big-name political types who’ve been suspended by Twitter since 2005 were Trump supporters. That’s a 95.4% bias quotient! But as Techdirt’s Zach Graves notes in a piece from earlier this year, “Does Twitter Have An Anti-Conservative Bias, Or Just An Anti-Nazi Bias?,” the bulk of those 21 Trump enthusiasts form a “who’s who of outspoken or accused white nationalists, neo-Confederates, holocaust deniers, conspiracy peddlers, professional trolls, and other alt-right or fringe personalities. . . . It does not include any mainstream conservatives, unless, I suppose, you count recently-indicted Trump campaign advisor and ‘dirty trickster’ Roger Stone.” So it’s a total rogues gallery. Examples: Alex Jones, the American Nazi Party, and David Duke. These are not folks who got bumped for their advocacy of a flat tax or ruminations on Edmund Burke.

Read more at: https://www.aei.org/publication/the-wall-street-journal-has-unfortunately-amplified-the-myth-that-social-media-is-censoring-conservatives/

Some valid points it looks like.

[Wingnut]

"Given that I found Trump to be wildly unfit for the presidency, I voted for Hillary Clinton this year — the first Democratic presidential candidate I ever voted for, and maybe the first Democrat of any kind."
-James Pethokoukis

Loser.

[Sanguine]

AEI, American Enterprise Institute whom I thought overall, were on our side, maybe not. Just posting this, no endorsement.

Some valid points it looks like.

Didn't you just post another article: YouTube silences teenage girl with 1M followers after she blasts LGBT ‘pride’ ?

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,372123.0/topicseen.html

[goatprairie]

Let's see the list of all these "rogues" who were barred from YT.
If Alex Jones is barred, aren't there maybe many far left wackos who aren't?
I've heard Paul Joseph Watson was banned or restricted. Is he considered a dangerous, far right wacko? If pointing all the wacko leftists in a hilarious manner that does not recommend violence is dangerous, than I guess Watson is guilty.
He has one of the funniest, most trenchant videos on the internet. 
Milo? He might be a provocateur, but is he dangerous? Not likely.
I thought democracy died in darkness?
If anybody is advocating violence, yes, bar them.
But if they're just putting out wacky theories, better that they're out there to be countered than have them boiling over out of sight.