Youtube is not a platform for free speech. It is owned by Google and staffed predominantly with employees that maintain hard left values. It will silence anyone that strays too far from the accepted political narrative, citing its tenuous and abstract ‘terms and conditions’ as an excuse for its brazen censorship. I already knew all of this, but I was still surprised to log into my Youtube account last July to find out that I had been suspended from the platform.
A few weeks prior to that, I had uploaded a video entitled, ‘When will our woke police wake up’ which covered – in humorous terms – the police’s pandering to crimes committed by trans criminals. Youtube had pulled it and replaced it with a caption card accusing me of hate speech. Nothing in that video constituted hate, but what I hadn’t taken into account was that the ‘transgender movement’ has no sense of humour. It will accuse anyone who pokes fun at it as hate speech.
Of course, the woke militia that complained about the video, didn’t just go after the ball, they went after the player as well. The complainants crawled over every video on my channel making malicious reports in the hope that Youtube would tear down my channel.
The second video they targeted was entitled ‘Guess who commits over 50% of all hate crimes against gays’. What angered me most about this one being pulled was that the video had been on the platform for two and a half years! Youtube checked it four times during that period. At the last review they had imprisoned it behind an 18 rating, thereby ensuring it would never be recommended to anyone. Now they have deleted the video permanently.
The two-week suspension from the platform was no big deal. But the strikes themselves would remain on the account for 3 months. This meant I had to switch all my videos off from public view, until the strikes lapsed, to protect myself from the digital lynch mob that was crawling over my channel.
Meanwhile, I decided I would challenge Youtube on their defective decision making.
Ordinarily, Youtube allows the uploader to appeal removed videos. In this case, I was granted an appeal against the ‘woke video’, but no appeal was given for the ‘guess who’ video. Not that it mattered. The single appeal I was granted was rejected almost as quickly as I made it. My only remaining option was to seek information from Google as to how they came to the decision in the first place.
Under the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), all data subjects are entitled to know about decisions made against their personal data. This prevents organisations from making arbitrary and unfounded decisions, or from making automated decisions that cannot be properly explained. Something that Google does millions of times a day, via the artificial intelligence they have built into their platform’s decision making.
Although Google is an American organisation, they have a European division based in Ireland, which must comply with GDPR. This means that if Google refuses to comply with subject access, they are breaking the law.
Spoiler alert. Google are breaking the law.
It became clear to me very quickly that Google has not the least interest in complying with subject access law. Certainly not anything that forces them to explain their decision making as it relates to censoring video uploads. I made this request over a year ago and I have persisted with it ever since, but each time Google makes excuses as to how busy they are.
The truth is something very different. Google knows that they can refuse to fulfil any subject access request they choose, because there is little the requestor can do about it. Google knows that the UK ICO and its Irish cousin, the IOC, are toothless hounds that are only keen to enforce the law when it is small businesses that flout data protection. Big tech and global conglomerates are given immunity from their infractions by government watchdogs.
The only remedy left is to take them to court. Where every claimant will be countered with an army of the most expensive lawyers on earth. What does Google care about paying a hundred thousand pounds in legal fees to fight one instance of data protection enforcement? They are saving themselves tens of millions in legal costs and manpower by shunning subject access requests altogether. They know that the chances of a requestor taking them to court is perhaps one in a million. And even if that person does take them to court, and succeeds, Google wields the ultimate power…
Every content creator knows that Youtube holds the power of malicious deletion over them. Youtube’s policies are so vague, it gives them licence to delete whomever they want, whenever they wish, for any reason they care to make up. They certainly won’t have to answer for their actions. If an uploader is lucky enough to have a legion of pro-active followers, or influential supporters on their side, they might just kick up enough of a stink to have Google reverse their decision. Just like most bullying corporations, Google’s upper management are shameless cowards who will scurry back into the shadows once the negative spotlight is shined upon them. The problem is that my channel isn’t that prolific. If Google chooses to delete my channel because I dared to take them to court, nobody of any influence is going to be fighting my corner.
As far as I’m concerned, Google’s reach ends with Youtube. They are not going to control what I say here or on any other platform. I have every right to maintain my point of view that transvestism is a cult. It is anti-women, anti-male and seeks to obtain privileges for its militant proponents that place them above the law. My video is an honest portrayal of a very serious problem we have in this country, of the police going easy on any criminal that claims to be part of the trans elite.
I have uploaded the original video to an alternative video platform, ‘Rumble’.