Tuesday, August 29, 2017

YouTube "Economically Censors" Ron Paul, Labels Videos "Not Suitable" For All Advertisers


Former US Congressman Ron Paul has joined a growing list of independent political journalists and commentators who’re being economically punished by YouTube despite producing videos that routinely receive hundreds of thousands of views.

In a tweet published Saturday, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange tweeted a screenshot of Paul’s “Liberty Report” page showing that his videos had been labeled “not suitable” for all advertisers by YouTube's content arbiters.

Assange claims that Paul was being punished for speaking out about President Donald Trump’s decision to increase the number of US troops in Afghanistan, after Paul published a video on the subject earlier this week.

The notion that YouTube would want to economically punish a former US Congressman for sharing his views on US foreign policy – a topic that he is unequivocally qualified to speak about – is absurd.

Furthermore, the “review requested” marking on one of Paul's videos reveals that they were initially flagged by users before YouTube's moderators confirmed that the videos were unsuitable for a broad audience.

More @ Zero Hedge


  1. Hard to believe. Probably one of the most purest men post
    gov and today. Goog and screw tube, that's evil for ya.
    Purely propaganda and indoctrination.
    They must be members of the secret society, Frankfurt School.

    1. We could have had Paul instead of Obama for 8 years. Imagine the difference.

  2. I think Ron Paul's ideology is crazy, but he would have done a lot of good for the US. And he is a good man who would uphold the law.

    Even Paul's enemies say the same of him, though maybe that's because he's no real threat to them. Admirable man.

    I prefer Chuck Baldwin! But Baldwin is too religious for many in the US. There's no voter pool as a result. Ron Paul appeals to many different groups, however. Paul is a Christian, but something about Chuck Baldwin, or at least the Constitution Party, drives voters away.

    Paul came close to winning. Pat Buchanan came even closer. Perot too could have won.

    Even Gore beating Bush in 2000 would have done much good for *brand conservative*. (Gore would have been a disaster, as Bush was.) Oh well. :)

    1. Perot too could have won.

      So, what's your take? Framed?