Google Removes Ban On Conservative Video After Creator Threatens To Contact Gizmodo (VIDEO)

Google Removes Ban On Conservative Video After Creator Threatens To Contact Gizmodo (VIDEO) | Censor | Civil Rights Free Speech Internet Censorship Multimedia Science & Technology

By: The Voice of Reason |

If you’ve been watching the news lately, you know social media giant Facebook is currently taking enemy fire because a group of former employees stepped forward and alleged to Gizmodo that Facebook “routinely” suppressed conservative news in its “trending news” feature, even when stories from conservative sites were being circulated widely by Facebook users.

As you’ll learn in the first video below, now that first blood has been drawn against Facebook in relation to their long standing policy of discriminating against conservatives, start to expect A LOT of people to being cocming out of the woodwork who Facebook royally screwed over, and perhaps bankrupted, because it Lord Zuckerberg didn’t agree with someone’s ideology.

One of the biggest stories within that story is the one about Steven Blake Crowder, the well known Canadian-American actor, comedian, host of Louder with Crowder, former contributor for the Fox News Channel, and regular guest on TheBlaze. This week has Officially Filed not a “lawsuit, but a Legal Motion Against Facebook Requesting Information.

Sadly, Facebook is hardly alone in it’s effort to silence dissent. It is joined with Google and Twitter, all of whom are using the same legal “loophole” of sorts to get away with their actions. You can learn below about my own personal video that was banned by Google this week, and how I managed to get my way, and have them repost it, but below I focus on the far bigger issue. In the first video, Crowder suggests you bookmark his page and return often, because he says there is FAAAAAAR more going on behind the scenes than most people know about, which will come out over time.

In your case, it will come out about another 2/3 down the page… a lot of it anyway. Facebook is about to come under assault, and I for one love it!

On it’s face, that behavior by one of the largest companies on earth is utterly despicable, but it hardly stops with just Facebook. Facebook is far from alone in its silencing of conservatives and their views on social media. Google and Twitter are just as bad, but it may not seem quite as overt simply because Facebook is by far the larger and more popular social media site.

As you’ll learn more below, YouTube (owned by Google) recently banned one of my own videos and then threatened to terminate my account this past week, and only after my 4th email containing a threat to contact Gizmodo did they republish it. Before discussing what happened with my video that was banned, I want to make clear that this post will cover the following, which my video below explains.


1. The REAL reason Zuckerberg is acting fast to meet with large conservative media outlets

2. When Facebook Bans conservatives, it is breaching the contract it makes with the user in terms of service

3. Is the contract formed with Facebook a legally binding one?

4. How does the American Bar view Facebook?

5. how close have people come to winning a case against Facebook

6. Where are matters currently?

7. What happened with the video of mine that got banned and later re-instated?

8. Alternatives to Facebook, Google, and Twitter


Let’s make a few things real clear for people who may have no idea what is REALLY going on with social media unless they happen to be conservative writers like myself. People won’t believe it. First of all… News flash: Mark Zuckerberg isn’t rushing out to meet with conservative leaders as reported by Breitbart because he was unaware of what Facebook was dong and wants to make it right; Zuckerberg is trying to get out in front of the other half of that story that so far has managed to stay suppressed hoping he can keep it that way. The other half of that story is that Facebook, Google, and Twitter also routinely engage in banning people who express conservative viewpoints for days or often weeks at a time, which is obviously a growing problem for writers like myself.

In the video below, I explain that in any given month, writers like myself, and AT LEAST 10 other conservative writers I know personally, spend about 1/3 to 1/2 of every of the month BANNED from being able to post in groups we belong to because of our conservative views. In the video I explain how I’ve written to Facebook and to Google on multiple occasions, expressing my desire to stay within their guidelines, if they would only tell me what the heck they are, because they are NOT in Facebook’s Terms of Service or Community Standards, and they are NOT in Google’s Terms of Service or Community Guidelines either. The following as a screenshot of an email I have sent more times than I can count!

(click image to enlarge)

Google Removes Ban On Conservative Video After Creator Threatens To Contact Gizmodo (VIDEO) | Facebook1-1024x692 | Civil Rights Free Speech Internet Censorship Multimedia Science & Technology

Also in the video, I lay out what I believe to be the framework for a potential lawsuit against Facebook, Google, and Twitter. Note: Despite being an attorney, I currently run a small business, and don’t actively practice law. Therefore, my access to legal materials for research is limited, but with the recent developments we’ve seen the last two weeks, I hope someone takes this information and runs with it.

Breitbart News Reports:

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has denied that the social media giant censors news from conservative outlets — and says he wants to meet with “leading conservatives” to discuss the issue.

A report earlier this month by Gizmodo alleged that Facebook “routinely” suppressed conservative news in its “trending news” feature, even when stories from conservative sites were being circulated widely by Facebook users. The report also alleged that Facebook “injected” more acceptable stories, such as coverage of the left-wing Black Lives Matter movement. Facebook denied the allegations.

In a Facebook post Thursday evening, Zuckerberg reiterated that denial, and said he plans to reach out to conservatives:

This week, there was a report suggesting that Facebook contractors working on Trending Topics suppressed stories with conservative viewpoints. We take this report very seriously and are conducting a full investigation to ensure our teams upheld the integrity of this product.

We have found no evidence that this report is true. If we find anything against our principles, you have my commitment that we will take additional steps to address it.

In the coming weeks, I’ll also be inviting leading conservatives and people from across the political spectrum to talk with me about this and share their points of view. I want to have a direct conversation about what Facebook stands for and how we can be sure our platform stays as open as possible.

Zuckerberg has taken explicitly liberal stances on a number of issues, including gay marriage and immigration. Earlier this year, he criticized employees who had crossed out “Black Lives Matter” and written “All Lives Matter” on a wall devoted to free expression in the company’s Melo Park, California headquarters.

“There are specific issues affecting the black community in the United Sates, coming from a history of oppression and racism,” Zuckerberg wrote at the time, arguing why “All Lives Matter” was unacceptable.

On Friday, Breitbart News tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos challenged Zuckerberg to a live debate.


The Internet Library writes:

Click-wrap agreements are contracts formed entirely over the Internet. A party posts terms on its website pursuant to which it offers to sell goods or services. To buy these goods, the purchaser is required to indicate his assent to be bound by the terms of the offer by his conduct — typically the act of clicking on a button stating “I agree.” Once the purchaser indicates his assent to be bound, the contract is formed on the posted terms, and the sale is consummated. No paper record is created nor is the signature of the purchaser required.



The fact that click-wrap agreements can be enforced does not mean that any particular agreement is in fact enforceable. Contracting parties must still turn to ordinary contract law principles to determine the enforceability of particular agreements.

Traditionally, ‘adhesion contracts’ share four elements:

(1) adhesion contracts are drafted to drastically favor one party;

(2) general enough to apply to numerous transactions;

(3) offered with the representation that, except for price, the drafting party will enter into the transaction only on the terms contained in the document; and

(4) minimize the actionable obligations of the adhering party, predominantly to the payment of the money.

Virtually all e-commerce contracts are pre-written. The three most prevalent e-commence contracts are Internet site ‘terms of use’ agreements, ‘click-wrap’ agreements and implied agreements.

These three clauses are easy to manipulate and are on the whole determinative of the entire outcome of any contract dispute. In freely negotiated contracts, these clauses are the result of extensive bargaining. In contracts of adhesion, however, the dispute resolution clauses frequently become the means by which businesses maintain legal certainty and predict their own advantage. For example, the forum selection clause, which commonly appears in e-commerce agreements, is employed by the licenser to bring certainty to Internet-based transactions that lack any fixed geographic location.


American Bar Association writes:

Online agreements do not always fit neatly within the clickwrap or browse- wrap categories. Sometimes, the agreements display features of both. In Fteja v. Facebook, Inc., the District Court for the Southern District of New York considered the enforceability of the forum selection clause in the hybrid clickwrap- browsewrap agreement between Facebook and its user, requiring that all disputes be litigated in California.

Fteja shows that the more an online agreement resembles a traditional clickwrap agreement, the more willing courts are to find the notice necessary to give rise to constructive assent. Specifically, a major factor for the Fteja court in holding the agreement enforceable was that Facebook informed the user of the consequences of clicking “Sign Up,” and showed the user where to click to understand those consequences.


THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to, he owns and operates, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.

[mailpoet_form id="1"]

About The Author

Related posts