8 ms·

These platforms absolutely do ban or demonetize people for these reasons. Dennis Prager's video on the Ten Commandments was demonetized and the reason given?

These platforms absolutely do ban or demonetize people for these reasons. Dennis Prager's video on the Ten Commandments was demonetized and the reason given? "It contains the word 'kill'. Dangerous for children." They have extremely rigid standards for conservatives and very loose standards for everybody else. That's a real thing and it's something you don't see until you are one of those whose views are being targeted. Ultimately, I predict that conservative discourse will take a similar path to MP3s: first, it will be targeted by the big powers-that-be. Next, technologies will appear that make it impossible to police or shut down. Finally, corporate America will realize that it's better to work with people than fight them and the discourse will be brought back into the fold and corporations will once again make money off of it.

pavlov 6y ago
>”They have extremely rigid standards for people of one viewpoint and very loose standards for people of another.” It only seems that way to you because you’re seeing only one side getting arbitrarily suspended. My left-leaning Twitter feed has for years been regularly full of people complaining about how Twitter censors black women, activists, feminists and sex workers, while not doing enough against white supremacists, etc. Probably the truth is that the standards are just unevenly rigid one day, loose the other, depending on who catches their attention. Policing hundreds of millions of active users is nearly impossible, and adding automated systems increases the risk of false positives.
- chrissnell 6y ago
  No doubt that's true on the level of the average user like you and me. What we see for prominent conservatives, however, feels very unfair to me. Perhaps prominent members of other groups are targeted similarly--it wouldn't surprise me.
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    To be honest, every single time I dig in to a conservative complaining "they are singling me out for my views!!" I do more research and find that it is 99% bullshit. Not 100% bullshit mind you, because it's that 1% that is nominally true so they can leave out the rest of the context. Here is a more complete discussion of Prager's charges of censorship, and in my opinion they are laughable: https://reason.com/2019/07/18/dennis-prager-who-boasts-1-billion-video-views-a-year-decries-youtube-censorship/ https://reason.com/2019/07/18/dennis-prager-who-boasts-1-bil...
    - orf 6y ago
      > "Respectfully, senator, that's not right," replied Bhatia, explaining that those videos contained mature topics—murder, rape, etc. He reiterated that they are still visible to the "98.5 percent" of YouTube users who do not opt for restricted mode. Who would have thought that another conservative story about censorship would turn out to be bullshit. It’s not like the people parroting them have the impetuous to check though, it’s much easier and more comfortable to drone on about “YouTube blocking a video about the 10 commandments” over and over until it becomes your reality, where you’re persecuted.
  - wilsynet 6y ago
    Are you referring to Donald Trump?
  - chandra381 6y ago
    Multiple studies have shown that Facebook and twitter do not censor conservatives. This has been well established and anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant or arguing from a position of bad faith. https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again-that-facebook-doesnt-censor-conservatives/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again... > What we see for prominent conservatives, however, feels very unfair to me I find this extremely ironic given that the slogan "facts don't care about your feelings" is attributed to conservatives in particular
    - xpaqui 6y ago
      All the "conservatives/libertarians" I've followed on youtube have been both demonetized and had videos suspended. It's a small sample size but all?!, what a coincidence. From the "left leaning" channels I follow I've not seen the same complain. I don't follow anyone on facebook or twitter I can't vouch for those, maybe it's just youtube who does all the censoring.
      - phatfish 6y ago
        Maybe if you name/link them we can decide if it was reasonable or not.
        xpaqui 6y ago
        On youtube Joe Rogan, Sargon of Akkad, Viva Frey, Academic Agent, Thunderf00t, 1791
      - antris 6y ago
        In general "conservatives" seem to have a harder time following TOS on hate speech, bullying, racism, sexism etc.
        collyw 6y ago
        https://twitter.com/hashtag/VerifiedHate?src=hashtag_click https://twitter.com/hashtag/VerifiedHate?src=hashtag_click
  - SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
    It’s weird to claim that YouTube has a bias against right wing media and then shrug and say well I have no idea if left wing media suffers equally arbitrary censorship or not. That makes no sense as a stance.
- roenxi 6y ago
  What happens at the margins is probably random and depends on which moderator was having a bad day. But the Trump ban is quite different, especially since they gave a formal and thought-out justification [0]. The tweets that they quote are simply innocuous. The ban isn't justified based on the tweets, and was either a panicked response to the news with no investigation or a very thinly veiled political move. I think the right wing has reason to claim bias from that one. What is the closest parallel with that involving a left wing figure? [0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
  - hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
    It is disingenuous to say those tweets are "simply innocuous" without the context of what was going on and what the President did that very day. I've posted this before, and while I agree that those are far from his most egregious tweets, given the fact of the insurrection at the Capitol, the ban doesn't seem unjustified at all. Especially since there are now many videos coming out from the insurrection of the rioters believing they are acting in accordance with Trump's wishes.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      For the sake of argument, Ok. I'll not argue with that. I shall assume that the context of the situation justified the ban. But why then did Twitter quote two tweets? The tweets do not support the decision. They could just have said "based on context off Twitter, we are banning Trump". The fact that they didn't makes me think they were scrambling and not thinking clearly. Their reading of the tweets is bizarre. Or maybe they being dishonest about their reasoning.
      - _djo_ 6y ago
        Because those two tweets, and the video, were both offering tacit support to people violently attacking the US Capitol and continuing to promote the egregious lie and conspiracy theory of a stolen election that was driving the attack in the first place. What made those tweets untenable was the changed circumstances of the attack on the Capitol and the knowledge that those engaged in it were relying on Trump's support and encouragement.
scoopertrooper 6y ago
> These platforms absolutely do ban or demonetize people for these reasons. Dennis Prager's video on the Ten Commandments was demonetized and the reason given? "It contains the word 'kill'. Dangerous for children." That's unlikely due to a anti-conservative bias though. YouTube is notorious for their aggressive demonetisation of content. In any event, there is a definite difference between demonetisation and censorship. Nobody is obligated to pay you for telling them what you think .
- xpaqui 6y ago
  Well that's what you say but that's not true, to be marked as domonetisatised also lowers your view counts since the video stops showing up, it also might not show for subscribers. Youtube is also able to monetize your video, but since people have reported seeing adds on demonetized videos, you just don't get the money. > That's unlikely due to a anti-conservative bias though. Can you point me out to left leaning content that gets demonetized constantly so I could compare with the right leaning one. I've not seen this happen in people I've subscribed and would like to see if this claim has any merit.
  - alsetmusic 6y ago
    I don’t know this person’s political stance, but I can’t help but be reminded of this story. A woman shot YouTube staff when her channel was demonetized. I think people who view social media as targeting right wing views are seeing reality very narrowly. Politics don’t appear to be involved with this case. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/nasim-aghdam-the-youtube-shooting-and-the-anxiety-of-demonetization https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/nasim-ag...
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    > Well that's what you say but that's not true, to be marked as domonetisatised also lowers your view counts since the video stops showing up, it also might not show for subscribers. I understand these to be separate issues that get lumped together because Google changed the way their recommendation engine worked to de-emphasise the importance of subscriptions around the same time as advertisers started to care about where their ads played. Happy to be proved wrong, but I had a quick look around on the internet and couldn't find a reasonable source to contradict me. > Youtube is also able to monetize your video, but since people have reported seeing adds on demonetized videos, you just don't get the money. This might be right, it might be wrong, but it isn't censorship. > Can you point me out to left leaning content that gets demonetized constantly so I could compare with the right leaning one. I've not seen this happen in people I've subscribed and would like to see if this claim has any merit. I don't watch much 'left leaning' content, so I can't readily provide an example, but a lot of true crime and history channels are constantly having videos demonetised for touching on non-advertiser friendly themes. I know this because they constantly complain about it!
boomboomsubban 6y ago
Demonetization standards are universally fairly strict yet arbitrary, and they are based on the desires of the advertisers. Plus, "YouTube won't pay me for my right-wing propaganda" doesn't make someone a victim.
- downandout 6y ago
  It does make them a victim if content on the other side is not demonetized at the same rate for the same arbitrary reasons. When that happens, you wind up with well-funded speech that continues on one side, and the other side fades away (which is what partisan individuals would like to see happen to their opposition, but is unhealthy for society).
  - notahacker 6y ago
    But the very fact of YouTube's existence ensures that sincere and effective political commentators do not need their speech to be 'well-funded' for it to be easily accessed by millions of people. And the aspects of political speech that do involve significant donor funds like paid TV slots are overwhelmingly not dependent on or supported to any significant extent by YouTube channel revenues. Sure, demonetization makes YouTube political commentary an unprofitable business model which is unfortunate for people who would like to earn a living from it, but free speech isn't about Google's advertisers owing anybody a living, and if people are only willing to express a particular view for click revenue then that political position has much bigger problems than Google,...
    - downandout 6y ago
      But it’s all about incentives. If they are financially incentivizing one side and not the other, it leads to a dramatic imbalance in the amount and quality of content on either side. If they wanted a healthy ecosystem, they would either even-handedly apply demonetization policies, or demonetize all political content across the board. They are, unsurprisingly, doing neither of these things.
      - 6y ago
pharmakom 6y ago
The right have been pushing this narrative that they are being unfairly treated by platforms such as YouTube for some time now (long before the capitol riot). I strongly encourage you to look deeper into this because it is not an accurate picture of what is really going on.
pelliphant 6y ago
I don't know much about how often conservatives get "demonetized", because I don't follow any. But I would suspect that the same (but opposite) goes for you, since I constantly hear about non-conservatives getting demonetized.
- xpaqui 6y ago
  Can you point me out to those non-conservatives, I would like to compare them with the ones I've seen demonetized on the right.
  - ketamine__ 6y ago
    Just about every vegan or entertainment channel complains about demonetized video(s) at some point.
    - xpaqui 6y ago
      That's a good point, I don't follow specifically vegan groups. Usually more on the left / right part of the spectrum.
  - pelliphant 6y ago
    https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17424472/youtube-lgbt-demonetization-ads-algorithm https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17424472/youtube-lgbt-demo...
ralfn 6y ago
The problem for conservative outlets is that we have to believe their word that they are being prosecuted. But their word means absolutely nothing because they have zero credibility since they would be saying these exact same things no matter what. If you always cry fire, you end up in a situation where people don't care if you are lying or that your house is on fire. >. Finally, corporate America will realize that it's better to work with people than fight them Conservative media isn't 'the people' and these tech companies aren't the corporates. The tech companies follow this policy because otherwise their employees walk out. And the so called conservative media is a very tiny super elite spending a ton of money trying to pervert traditional values into a death cult for personal gain.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  Indeed. "Conservatives" have for decades been complaining that Christians are being persecuted... meanwhile the vast majority of the house and senate identifies as Christian and no president has ever identified as any other religion. To them, it seems, not getting everything they want qualifies as persecution.
- themaninthedark 6y ago
  While I do feel that conservatives pull out the persecution complex... using that as the entire basis for dismissing arguments seems disingenuous. The problem for <i>feminist</i> outlets is that we have to believe their word that they are being prosecuted. >tech companies aren't the corporates. The tech companies follow this policy because otherwise their employees walk out. We at $bigname law firm aren't corporate, it's just if we hire poc our employees will walk out. -someone before the civil rights era. I have the argument that the policy implemented are inherently biased against conservative groups. For example, a policy about misgendering would disproportionately affect conservatives because they feel that sex is an immutable characteristic.
  - ralfn 6y ago
    >using that as the entire basis for dismissing arguments seems disingenuous. You are right. The tech firms could be more transparent about the rules they apply and which ones are violated. The ambiguity is indeed solvable, but considering the state of the world, it seems like a low moral priority to me. >We at $bigname law firm aren't corporate, it's just if we hire poc our employees will walk out. -someone before the civil rights era. That's disingenuous. Your comparsions fails in five ways: 1. Its not about who gets hired, its about who is served as a customer 2. The violated rules of these firms are also defined as criminal behavior by law in all of the western world, so to 'serve the customer' you are talking about being an accessory in a crime. Even if public prosecutors don't make a habit of prosecuting companies when they are simply the platform, companies have an obligation to their shareholders to not take unnecessary risks. 3. None of this has anything to do with traditional or conservative values. Both the far-left and far-right have been creating a lot of propaganda suggesting that traditional values include racism, sexism, sedation, anti-semitism, etc. 4. The employees walking out is a realistic problem, because there is barely any supply of death cult members with the intellectual and educational background required to perform the job. I'm sure lots of people work at these tech companies that have traditional values, like a small government and low taxes, or a more family centric focus on life. But at this point those people are referred to as 'traitors' by the same so called conservative media 5. People's skin color isn't a choice. They are born with it. Your views on the other hand are a choice. There is accountability and liability. You can be an anti-semitic person and post a video about how to cook an egg without it being removed from youtube. You just can't express anti-semitic views on somebody else's platform. Not complicated nor an issue.

pavlov 6y ago

>”They have extremely rigid standards for people of one viewpoint and very loose standards for people of another.” It only seems that way to you because you’re seeing only one side getting arbitrarily suspended. My left-leaning Twitter feed has for years been regularly full of people complaining about how Twitter censors black women, activists, feminists and sex workers, while not doing enough against white supremacists, etc. Probably the truth is that the standards are just unevenly rigid one day, loose the other, depending on who catches their attention. Policing hundreds of millions of active users is nearly impossible, and adding automated systems increases the risk of false positives.

chrissnell 6y ago
No doubt that's true on the level of the average user like you and me. What we see for prominent conservatives, however, feels very unfair to me. Perhaps prominent members of other groups are targeted similarly--it wouldn't surprise me.
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  To be honest, every single time I dig in to a conservative complaining "they are singling me out for my views!!" I do more research and find that it is 99% bullshit. Not 100% bullshit mind you, because it's that 1% that is nominally true so they can leave out the rest of the context. Here is a more complete discussion of Prager's charges of censorship, and in my opinion they are laughable: https://reason.com/2019/07/18/dennis-prager-who-boasts-1-billion-video-views-a-year-decries-youtube-censorship/ https://reason.com/2019/07/18/dennis-prager-who-boasts-1-bil...
  - orf 6y ago
    > "Respectfully, senator, that's not right," replied Bhatia, explaining that those videos contained mature topics—murder, rape, etc. He reiterated that they are still visible to the "98.5 percent" of YouTube users who do not opt for restricted mode. Who would have thought that another conservative story about censorship would turn out to be bullshit. It’s not like the people parroting them have the impetuous to check though, it’s much easier and more comfortable to drone on about “YouTube blocking a video about the 10 commandments” over and over until it becomes your reality, where you’re persecuted.
- wilsynet 6y ago
  Are you referring to Donald Trump?
- chandra381 6y ago
  Multiple studies have shown that Facebook and twitter do not censor conservatives. This has been well established and anyone who argues otherwise is either ignorant or arguing from a position of bad faith. https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again-that-facebook-doesnt-censor-conservatives/ https://www.niemanlab.org/2020/10/two-new-studies-show-again... > What we see for prominent conservatives, however, feels very unfair to me I find this extremely ironic given that the slogan "facts don't care about your feelings" is attributed to conservatives in particular
  - xpaqui 6y ago
    All the "conservatives/libertarians" I've followed on youtube have been both demonetized and had videos suspended. It's a small sample size but all?!, what a coincidence. From the "left leaning" channels I follow I've not seen the same complain. I don't follow anyone on facebook or twitter I can't vouch for those, maybe it's just youtube who does all the censoring.
    - phatfish 6y ago
      Maybe if you name/link them we can decide if it was reasonable or not.
      - xpaqui 6y ago
        On youtube Joe Rogan, Sargon of Akkad, Viva Frey, Academic Agent, Thunderf00t, 1791
    - antris 6y ago
      In general "conservatives" seem to have a harder time following TOS on hate speech, bullying, racism, sexism etc.
      - collyw 6y ago
        https://twitter.com/hashtag/VerifiedHate?src=hashtag_click https://twitter.com/hashtag/VerifiedHate?src=hashtag_click
- SamoyedFurFluff 6y ago
  It’s weird to claim that YouTube has a bias against right wing media and then shrug and say well I have no idea if left wing media suffers equally arbitrary censorship or not. That makes no sense as a stance.
roenxi 6y ago
What happens at the margins is probably random and depends on which moderator was having a bad day. But the Trump ban is quite different, especially since they gave a formal and thought-out justification [0]. The tweets that they quote are simply innocuous. The ban isn't justified based on the tweets, and was either a panicked response to the news with no investigation or a very thinly veiled political move. I think the right wing has reason to claim bias from that one. What is the closest parallel with that involving a left wing figure? [0] https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
- hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
  It is disingenuous to say those tweets are "simply innocuous" without the context of what was going on and what the President did that very day. I've posted this before, and while I agree that those are far from his most egregious tweets, given the fact of the insurrection at the Capitol, the ban doesn't seem unjustified at all. Especially since there are now many videos coming out from the insurrection of the rioters believing they are acting in accordance with Trump's wishes.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    For the sake of argument, Ok. I'll not argue with that. I shall assume that the context of the situation justified the ban. But why then did Twitter quote two tweets? The tweets do not support the decision. They could just have said "based on context off Twitter, we are banning Trump". The fact that they didn't makes me think they were scrambling and not thinking clearly. Their reading of the tweets is bizarre. Or maybe they being dishonest about their reasoning.
    - _djo_ 6y ago
      Because those two tweets, and the video, were both offering tacit support to people violently attacking the US Capitol and continuing to promote the egregious lie and conspiracy theory of a stolen election that was driving the attack in the first place. What made those tweets untenable was the changed circumstances of the attack on the Capitol and the knowledge that those engaged in it were relying on Trump's support and encouragement.

scoopertrooper 6y ago

> These platforms absolutely do ban or demonetize people for these reasons. Dennis Prager's video on the Ten Commandments was demonetized and the reason given? "It contains the word 'kill'. Dangerous for children." That's unlikely due to a anti-conservative bias though. YouTube is notorious for their aggressive demonetisation of content. In any event, there is a definite difference between demonetisation and censorship. Nobody is obligated to pay you for telling them what you think .

xpaqui 6y ago
Well that's what you say but that's not true, to be marked as domonetisatised also lowers your view counts since the video stops showing up, it also might not show for subscribers. Youtube is also able to monetize your video, but since people have reported seeing adds on demonetized videos, you just don't get the money. > That's unlikely due to a anti-conservative bias though. Can you point me out to left leaning content that gets demonetized constantly so I could compare with the right leaning one. I've not seen this happen in people I've subscribed and would like to see if this claim has any merit.
- alsetmusic 6y ago
  I don’t know this person’s political stance, but I can’t help but be reminded of this story. A woman shot YouTube staff when her channel was demonetized. I think people who view social media as targeting right wing views are seeing reality very narrowly. Politics don’t appear to be involved with this case. https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/nasim-aghdam-the-youtube-shooting-and-the-anxiety-of-demonetization https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/nasim-ag...
- scoopertrooper 6y ago
  > Well that's what you say but that's not true, to be marked as domonetisatised also lowers your view counts since the video stops showing up, it also might not show for subscribers. I understand these to be separate issues that get lumped together because Google changed the way their recommendation engine worked to de-emphasise the importance of subscriptions around the same time as advertisers started to care about where their ads played. Happy to be proved wrong, but I had a quick look around on the internet and couldn't find a reasonable source to contradict me. > Youtube is also able to monetize your video, but since people have reported seeing adds on demonetized videos, you just don't get the money. This might be right, it might be wrong, but it isn't censorship. > Can you point me out to left leaning content that gets demonetized constantly so I could compare with the right leaning one. I've not seen this happen in people I've subscribed and would like to see if this claim has any merit. I don't watch much 'left leaning' content, so I can't readily provide an example, but a lot of true crime and history channels are constantly having videos demonetised for touching on non-advertiser friendly themes. I know this because they constantly complain about it!

boomboomsubban 6y ago

Demonetization standards are universally fairly strict yet arbitrary, and they are based on the desires of the advertisers. Plus, "YouTube won't pay me for my right-wing propaganda" doesn't make someone a victim.

downandout 6y ago
It does make them a victim if content on the other side is not demonetized at the same rate for the same arbitrary reasons. When that happens, you wind up with well-funded speech that continues on one side, and the other side fades away (which is what partisan individuals would like to see happen to their opposition, but is unhealthy for society).
- notahacker 6y ago
  But the very fact of YouTube's existence ensures that sincere and effective political commentators do not need their speech to be 'well-funded' for it to be easily accessed by millions of people. And the aspects of political speech that do involve significant donor funds like paid TV slots are overwhelmingly not dependent on or supported to any significant extent by YouTube channel revenues. Sure, demonetization makes YouTube political commentary an unprofitable business model which is unfortunate for people who would like to earn a living from it, but free speech isn't about Google's advertisers owing anybody a living, and if people are only willing to express a particular view for click revenue then that political position has much bigger problems than Google,...
  - downandout 6y ago
    But it’s all about incentives. If they are financially incentivizing one side and not the other, it leads to a dramatic imbalance in the amount and quality of content on either side. If they wanted a healthy ecosystem, they would either even-handedly apply demonetization policies, or demonetize all political content across the board. They are, unsurprisingly, doing neither of these things.
    - 6y ago

pharmakom 6y ago

The right have been pushing this narrative that they are being unfairly treated by platforms such as YouTube for some time now (long before the capitol riot). I strongly encourage you to look deeper into this because it is not an accurate picture of what is really going on.

pelliphant 6y ago

I don't know much about how often conservatives get "demonetized", because I don't follow any. But I would suspect that the same (but opposite) goes for you, since I constantly hear about non-conservatives getting demonetized.

xpaqui 6y ago
Can you point me out to those non-conservatives, I would like to compare them with the ones I've seen demonetized on the right.
- ketamine__ 6y ago
  Just about every vegan or entertainment channel complains about demonetized video(s) at some point.
  - xpaqui 6y ago
    That's a good point, I don't follow specifically vegan groups. Usually more on the left / right part of the spectrum.
- pelliphant 6y ago
  https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17424472/youtube-lgbt-demonetization-ads-algorithm https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/4/17424472/youtube-lgbt-demo...

ralfn 6y ago

The problem for conservative outlets is that we have to believe their word that they are being prosecuted. But their word means absolutely nothing because they have zero credibility since they would be saying these exact same things no matter what. If you always cry fire, you end up in a situation where people don't care if you are lying or that your house is on fire. >. Finally, corporate America will realize that it's better to work with people than fight them Conservative media isn't 'the people' and these tech companies aren't the corporates. The tech companies follow this policy because otherwise their employees walk out. And the so called conservative media is a very tiny super elite spending a ton of money trying to pervert traditional values into a death cult for personal gain.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
Indeed. "Conservatives" have for decades been complaining that Christians are being persecuted... meanwhile the vast majority of the house and senate identifies as Christian and no president has ever identified as any other religion. To them, it seems, not getting everything they want qualifies as persecution.
themaninthedark 6y ago
While I do feel that conservatives pull out the persecution complex... using that as the entire basis for dismissing arguments seems disingenuous. The problem for <i>feminist</i> outlets is that we have to believe their word that they are being prosecuted. >tech companies aren't the corporates. The tech companies follow this policy because otherwise their employees walk out. We at $bigname law firm aren't corporate, it's just if we hire poc our employees will walk out. -someone before the civil rights era. I have the argument that the policy implemented are inherently biased against conservative groups. For example, a policy about misgendering would disproportionately affect conservatives because they feel that sex is an immutable characteristic.
- ralfn 6y ago
  >using that as the entire basis for dismissing arguments seems disingenuous. You are right. The tech firms could be more transparent about the rules they apply and which ones are violated. The ambiguity is indeed solvable, but considering the state of the world, it seems like a low moral priority to me. >We at $bigname law firm aren't corporate, it's just if we hire poc our employees will walk out. -someone before the civil rights era. That's disingenuous. Your comparsions fails in five ways: 1. Its not about who gets hired, its about who is served as a customer 2. The violated rules of these firms are also defined as criminal behavior by law in all of the western world, so to 'serve the customer' you are talking about being an accessory in a crime. Even if public prosecutors don't make a habit of prosecuting companies when they are simply the platform, companies have an obligation to their shareholders to not take unnecessary risks. 3. None of this has anything to do with traditional or conservative values. Both the far-left and far-right have been creating a lot of propaganda suggesting that traditional values include racism, sexism, sedation, anti-semitism, etc. 4. The employees walking out is a realistic problem, because there is barely any supply of death cult members with the intellectual and educational background required to perform the job. I'm sure lots of people work at these tech companies that have traditional values, like a small government and low taxes, or a more family centric focus on life. But at this point those people are referred to as 'traitors' by the same so called conservative media 5. People's skin color isn't a choice. They are born with it. Your views on the other hand are a choice. There is accountability and liability. You can be an anti-semitic person and post a video about how to cook an egg without it being removed from youtube. You just can't express anti-semitic views on somebody else's platform. Not complicated nor an issue.