Counter Culture Comments

Commentary on pop culture, technology, and society. The official blog of Counter Points Media.

As we near two months of widespread violence across the country and no end in sight, the calls grow louder for things to come to a head, either for the insurgents to prevail, or for the violence to be squashed. While some consider and scrutinize possible solutions to the armed conflicts, most seem concerned with who to blame. Many of the right are blaming the local authorities for the violence, while those on the left lay the blame on President Trump. Does the blame belong completely on one side or the other? The answer might not be as simple as it seems.

It must first be considered that there are various approaches to violence currently being employed by Antifa, the leading violent insurrectionist group behind the violence which hasrecently been designated as a domestic terrorism organization by the current administration. Some Antifa members have destroyed statues, committed vandalism, and burned buildings. Others loot, and others commit violent attacks on American citizens, occasionally murdering them. Still others remain peaceful, but encourage the violence from the sidelines.

Some blame surely lies on the citizenry, why by and large did little to defend themselves from the attacks. While many have sought to buy guns, they did so at a time when it was too late, and much of the economy had already been crushed by overreactions to the Coronavirus, meaning a shortage of guns available to be sold in the first place. By then, of course, the violence had already begun.

Well, what about the next line of defense: law enforcement? Those sworn to serve and protect the citizens? Well, these organizations have generally been deliberately hamstrung, both by local, elected officials, and bad PR, which forced officers to fall back in order to not lose trust in the community. Of course, the point has been raised that law enforcement should ignore orders that leave the citizens unprotected for the sake of political points, but the fact remains that the higher-ups in the organization are issuing these orders, keeping law enforcement from, well, enforcing the law, and even worse, pardoning and freeing the traitorous terrorists once they are in custody.

In other cases, law enforcement has been attempting to hold the mobs at bay by firing tear gas, pepper spray, firecrackers, and other repellants, but these cases are diminishing as it generates bad press for law enforcement as a whole, and the terrorists either attempt to overrun law enforcement, or leave only to return another day.

Of course, above them are the elected local officials, which have a hand in hiring those on charge with the local police departments. What blame do they bear for the violence? Many who tell their officers to fall back or stand down are clearly signaling their support for the violence of the terrorists, at times appeasing them by painting political messages on the road. Calling for peace while not instructing law enforcement to keep it rings hollow. Since they oversee local police departments, they do bear some of the blame for their failure to defend the citizens. However, the be fair, much of the blame for them even being in office in the first place lies directly in the hands of their constituents, for failing to elect leaders who will keep them safe. Worse still is the fact that countless citizens who will doubtlessly vote to retain the same politicians who are currently endangering them and exposing them to violent mobs.

Higher upon the power ladder is the current federal administration itself. How much blame does President Trump hold for the violence? The answer will largely depend on your opinion of the role of the federal government in keeping the peace on local land. If one is of the opinion that it is the federal government’s job to keep the peace in states if they fail to ensure law and order, then the answer is largely no. However, for those who believe that the government should be intervening, the answer is clearly yes, as the federal government has largely been absent from state jurisdictions. Regardless of where one stands on this, the Trump administration should bear full responsibility for any lack of action to stem violence on federal land. The property belongs to the federal government, thus, it is the federal government’s job to keep the terrorists in check. While President Trump has repeatedly called for an end to the violent riots, as with the local officials, mere words are not enough to allay blame for violence.

There is plenty of blame to go around. No one particular group or person shares all the guilt. While it is more constructive to consider possible solutions than possible culprits, so long as people are looking for someone to blame, it is best to make sure one is blaming the truly guilty parties.

Written by Casey Rollins.

Motorola G Fast official announcement video

This morning, Motorola unexpectedly announced their latest smartphone, the Motorola G Fast. Joining the Moto G Power and the Moto G Stylus, the Moto G Fast seems quite similar to the Moto G Stylus, boasting a similar (if slightly larger) 5,000 mAh battery set to last for two days and an identical 1080 by 2300 display. However, it comes with 64 GB of storage, rather than the 128 GB that can be found on the Stylus, and it has 3 GB of RAM rather than 4.

We know a bit about this phone, but there are some unknowns here as well. We don't currently know which processor the Moto G Fast will launch with, although Motorola claims it will be “blazing fast” and its Snapdragon chip is octa-core. Motorola also says it has several camera modes, including Macro Vision and Ultra-Wide, but we still don't know the specs of this new device's camera. Among other unknowns are water resistance, the launch market, and the price, but it's reasonable to expect that we could see further announcements soon on those fronts.

Written by Casey Rollins.

This review covers only the two-episode premiere.

When FX announced three new series—Devs, Dave, and Breeders—I assumed that Dave was created to fill Atlanta’s spot of sharp social commentary, while Breeders would just be the fun new comedy. However, it appears that the inverse is true.

Breeders is a very tense and dark psychological dramedy. The program is largely one-note; the kids drive the parents crazy. The writing is sharp, especially for the dialogue, and the acting is top-notch, even if side plots don’t feel integrated into the larger story. As an artistic work, Breeders is high quality entertainment. It feels effortlessly funny a times, which is good in an era of shows that are trying too hard.

Where I find issues in Breeders is in the messaging it perpetuates. The one-noteness of the program is largely due to the majority of each episode consisting of the main characters’ children driving them crazy. They aren’t just inconsiderate, as one might expect, they’re also downright manipulative of Paul and Ally (the main couple)’s parenting style. Never once are the children ever disciplined. The closest thing to discipline that the children experience is a string of f-words screamed from the mouth of their father, which I would guess as the show goes on will prove to be more mentally scarring than actually corrective of their behavior. If the kids grow up to be brats, it could be quite reasonable to blame the parents (imagine that!).

However, the crux of my main gripe with the show is in its portrayal of the children. Children can be terrible, grubby little monsters, and Breeders portrays this aspect of little ones quite masterfully. However, they're not portrayed as much else. If the children aren’t terrorizing the parents, they’re sleeping, and that’s only so that they can wake the parents up in the middle of the night (again). Completely ignored is the cuteness of children, and their sweet, charming antics. Never do the children ever bring joy to their parents. It easily leads the viewer of 40 straight minutes of torture to ask “well, why would anyone even want to have children at all?” Especially one who has never had children or spent much time with them.

While the show strongly suggests you ask this question, it doesn’t make the slightest attempt to answer it, leaving the viewer to watch on hopelessly as the parents continue to be tortured. Perhaps this question will be answered later on in the program. The children are quite young, so there is plenty of room for the show to grow, and many directions the show can take. And as I write this, episode two is already out, although if the thumbnail and episode name of the third episode are any indication, not much is set to change in Breeders’ messaging, at least not yet.

Written by Casey Rollins.

@thecaseyrollins on Twitter

This is an edited version of the transcript for Counter Points Media's video 'The Cost Of Cancel Culture' The information might be old or outdated, and the author might not hold the same opinion today.

The Cost Of Cancel Culture (on BitChute)

The Cost Of Cancel Culture (on YouTube)

Before we begin, this message is necessary for context.

Under no circumstance should anyone ever harass anyone for their opinion or use of free speech.

Additionally, under no circumstance should anyone, even a black person, use the n word.

I am using the names of the persons involved, since by now this information is already public and viral.

Please do not harass them in any way.

A case has been made by some that this is harassment, or doxxing, and legal charges could be in order. I will leave a link below so that you can explore the information regarding this if your wish.

If any of the persons involved in this video would like to contact me for any reason, please message me.

My Twitter handle is @thecaseyrollins, and on both Qoto and my handle is @realcaseyrollins.

2020 is finally upon us, and while many are excited to enter the new year, for two young teenagers, the new decade couldn’t have started on a worse note.

The controversy began two days before the dawn of 2020, when Bailee Beckett and her friend Bethany Bonar were hanging out. Bailee is white, and Bethany is black. The issues began when Bailee posted a selfie with Bethany, saying she was her white friend, and stating that she doesn’t hang out with n words. When another user, who previously went by the name Oli but now goes by Iris Hera on Twitter, recorded a direct Snapchat message created by the both of them, clarifying that Bethany had given her permission to use the n word, and explaining why, in her eyes, it was fine to use.

While the case can certainly be made that no one should be using the n word, and while it has a massive, looming history of being used to oppress African Americans, and not all black people are comfortable with white people using the n word, Bethany’s main point is right. Bethany is fine with the message in the video, and the message was shared in a private context.

However, this was not enough for Iris Hera, who took it upon herself to post their entire exchange publically on Twitter, exposing their names to her followers, leading many to slander them and call for major companies to never hire them, and for colleges to not accept them.

Bailee responded with two videos, asking Oli to take the posts down, claiming that this could ruin her life, and accusing her of harassment.

Bailee went on to reveal that her mother also wanted Oli to delete the videos.

The exchange prompted a flurry of responses, such as condemning Bethany for being an oreo, or condemning Bailee of being racist.

This, of course, is unfortunately a sign of the next generation. Raised up with figures such as Kolin Kaepernick, Jussie Smollett, and LeBron James as role models, it should be no surprise that Oli decided to immediately post the info online, is gloating over her newfound clout, and is considering making a merch line with her girlfriend. The term “social justice warrior” might be overused, but the fact is that SJWs are some of the most highly praised personalities in modern pop culture. Marry this with Cancel Culture, and the Tik Tok Generation has become a ticking time bomb, rife with infighting and just waiting for something to spark an explosion. Many in politics today are warning that there’s impending civil war. In reality, it might be necessary to merely wait for the 15 year olds to become adults.

While calling out actual racism is a noble thing to do, to point out a single mistake made early in someone’s life as something that should end any hope of them being successful, especially for a one-time use of a bad word, is anything but, and the support Oli has received is troubling.

Humans were created as flawed creatures. To demand that they be perfect and never make a mistake is certainly unreasonable. What is reasonable is to allow teens to grow up and learn from their own mistakes how to operate in the real world. After all, all of us are mere works in progress.

Written by Casey Rollins.

@thecaseyrollins on Twitter

This is an edited version of the transcript for Counter Points Media's video 'Our Modern Dystopia' The information might be old or outdated, and the author might not hold the same opinion today.

Our Modern Dystopia

Our Modern Dystopia

I have been following censorship for around three years now, and it is a subject that has always fascinated me. Not because I saw overt threats to free speech at the time, but because of the vast powers big tech holds. I didn't understand the world of censorship in my sophomore year in high school as well as I do now, but I knew enough to see that it was only a matter of time before a company that controls the top browser, runs the most popular entertainment website, and holds the keys to the entire internet would begin to abuse its power, and this revelation is no more clear than in our present, near-dystopian digital age.

YouTubers have long been complaining about demonetization of videos due to language or edgy political views, but as of late the conversation has been louder, and the punishment harsher. For instance, soph, a 14-year-old satirist whose content comes across as a cross between a political version of Studio C and an intellectual PewDiePie, recently got targeted by BuzzFeed for supposedly using hate speech in her video do not be afraid. The part BuzzFeed, and the other NPC-like mainstream blogs and outlets took the most umbrage with was her saying “isalamalakem” and referring to the middle-aged Muslim men who marry very young girls and rape them. BuzzFeed merely had to shout “sick em boy” for YouTube to take the video down. However they likely were not expecting the outpouring of support she received from the alt-right, many of them undoubtedly duped into believing that she was actually racist, similar to how the fake news media on the left gaslighted hateful groups like the KKK into supporting Trump, on the merit that he was racist too. Ironically, YouTube bowing to the wishes of a hateful fake news blog amplified the accused, and helped her inch ever closer to the coveted 1 million subscriber mark. It was rumored that YouTube would remove her channel after completely demonetizing it, but thought better of it after seeing all the support she recieved for being bullied by two large, left-wing establishment groups.

Even more recently, Steven Crowder, the host of Louder with Crowder, which essential serves as the right-wing’s Late Show with Steven Colbert, was targeted by Carlos Maza, a gay guy who hosts the cringeworthy, anger-fueled left-wing video series on Vox’s YouTube channel called Strikethrough, for supposedly harrasing him for being gay. And later, he added that it was for being Mexican too. He cites times that Crowder debunks the pervasive errors in his NBC-funded YouTube videos, and describes him using so-called “homophobic” as well as racial slurs; the irony here is, Maza’s own Twitter handle is the word “gay” paired up with an apparently racial slur. It is hard to take one seriously when they become angry with someone for describing them the exact same way that they portray themselves on the outset. In a sane world, these claims would be met with the same mockery and scorn as one who calls the cops on someone for calling them ma’am, even though she introduced herself as such. Even YouTube, while investigating the particular clips Maza presented in his raging Tweets, found that Crowder had done nothing wrong in the videos, although in an effort to placate the emotional gay man during Pride Week claimed that they are investigating aspects of Steven Crowder’s YouTube channel. That investigation ended with YouTube demonetizing his channel for sells a shirt featuring the word figs.

I bring all this up to say that rather than going away, censorship is reaching a fever pitch that is destined to burn hotter than 451 degrees fahrenheit. In fact, at the University in which I am currently enrolled, Albert Mohler, famed anchor of the Christian-themed news and culture podcast “Daily Breifing”, was invited on campus for numerous speaking events, one of them being a town hall. I used that opportunity to ask a question regarding free speech online, citing instances such as FaceBook blocking ads for pro-life causes and Twitch banning the non-political streamer HelenaLive for mentioning that there are only two genders. In his response, he predicted that there will come a time when Christians won’t be allowed to use the internet at all. While it sounds like an outlandish dystopian nightmare, it’s not an impossible reality, and most importantly, it’s the one we are creeping closer and closer towards. As we approach the end of free speech on the highways of the internet, it’s important to know how to navigate the underground railroad and arrive at websites and digital solutions that allow you to express yourself freely.

Thankfully, these havens of freedom aren’t all that difficult to use. I recommend watching videos by The Hated One for better and more detailed instructions, but one can easily evade big tech almost completely. Using Linux can help keep Microsoft from analyzing your activity, which you may find in your interest, as it’s been rumored for nearly two decades that they’ve installed backdoors into Windows for the NSA’s use. Simpler solutions consist of switching away from Chrome or browsers that use unmodified versions of Google’s Chromium engine, to an alternative such as Firefox, Dissenter, or even Opera. The next step is to find alternatives to the websites one typically uses, preferably one with high-profile users. Some nice alternatives to YouTube and Twitch are BitChute and DLive, as BitChute content from users such as soph, Infowars, styxhexenhammer666, Timcast and 1791, and DLive has attracted PewDiePie to their platform. Nice alternatives to FaceBook and Twitter are Gab and Minds, both of which also have popular internet personalities. Furthermore, the browser Tor is exceptional at evading network-wide censorship measures, as well as hiding the ability of third parties to track your network usage. With the abundance of alternative websites and free independent software currently available, you can find respite from the leftist, zombie-like trolls; always feasting on the flesh of those different than them, and yet somehow never tired and never satisfied.

Written by Casey Rollins.

@thecaseyrollins on Twitter

This is an edited version of the transcript for Counter Points Media's video '#SOPHGATE' The information might be old or outdated, and the author might not hold the same opinion today.



It’s been known to many that YouTube takes somewhat sadistic pleasure in muting the voices of those who hold extreme points of view, any in a move that should shock absolutely no one, YouTube just banned soph, a budding satirist and top alt-right commentator. Satirically commenting on various trends in modern culture, the majority of her content consists of mocking the far left and pointing out instances of violence that often occurs among the left’s protected class. Her account is still available on BitChute, so her content is still online, but that hardly negates the fact that YouTube should technically be legally bound to support all points of view, as they are classified as being a platform rather than a publisher, and receive benefits by doing so.

This is exactly why it is important to use alt-tech now, before you are banned. A user like soph, who understands the controversial nature of her content, will be sure to back it up on a website like BitChute. But by the time you realize that you’re next, it will be too late, and your content could disappear from the internet quicker than a dusted character in Avengers: Infinity War.

This is an edited version of the transcript for Counter Points Media's video 'What Espanol in MSNBC Debates Reveal About Democrats.' The information might be old or outdated, and the author might not hold the same opinion today.

What Espanol in MSNBC Debates Reveal About Democrats

What Espanol in MSNBC Debates Reveal About Democrats

During the first MSNBC Democrat debate, at first glance it may seem that nothing of note occurred besides the mainstream media ignoring the only clear winner, Tulsi Gabbard. Few policy differences were exposed, but what was exposed shows something deeply troubling about the soul of the Democratic party.

On social media, Beto, Booker, and Castro were roundly mocked for their use of Spanish during the debate. The fact that Democrat candidates would even bother to answer multiple questions in Spanish was viewed by many as merely an act of pandering, and they’re right. Answering questions given in English in Spanish serves little purpose unless the debate had been translated during the telecast and the candidates didn’t want to be mis-interpreted.

Nevertheless, the case remains that candidates use opportunities like debates to speak to their voters, revealing that these Democrats view a sizeable and growing portion of their electorate as hispanic, many of them presumably illegal immigrants. The policies discussed revealed that they want to further change the demographic makeup of the country, allowing unrestrained immigration into the country under the guise of compassion, although that’s not the real motive as evidence by the fact that no matter how hard he tried, Julian Castro could not summon even a single fake tear over a tragic border incident. In reality, they’re importing voters, offering bribes to starving hordes in exchange for merely a vote. When put in line with the fact that all the candidates ignored the very real plight of many white Americans, alongside the cultish levels of support for Planned Parenthood, a child sacrifice temple originally called The Negro Project, reveals that Democrats view the electorate merely on the color of their skin.

According to them, whites are divided but incredibly stubborn, making it worthless to pursue whites on the other end of the aisle. Blacks are growingly insurrectionist and ideologically unstable, from Black Lives Matter to Blexit, making them unreliable voters. Hispanics, meanwhile, are poor and destitute, in need of a better life, which the Democrats can use to exchange votes for daily bread.

This unbelievably racist mentality of the modern Democrat party shows just how “caring and compassionate” they actually are. By inventing new so-called civil rights for sexual degenerates and those drowning in debt, among others, they whitewash the tombs, making themselves appear compassionate, but once you examine them closer, the repelling stench of hatred and deception easily wafts into your mental nostrils.

This is an edited version of the transcript for Counter Points Media's video 'The Truth About Gab.' The information might be old or outdated, and the author might not hold the same opinion today.

The Truth About Gab on BitChute

The Truth About Gab on YouTube has been around since August 2016, and was launched publicly in May 2017. However, you may not have heard much about it until October 2018, when a Gab user committed a mass shooting in a Pittsburg synagogue. As usual, the typical left-wing fake news reporting rushed to blame guns for the shooting, but when they wanted to take a break from that, they began blaming Gab, forever tarnishing its reputation and filling search engine results with unbased slander against the site. Why? There’s a quick and simple answer, but a long story, so it’s best to start at the beginning.

Gab was originally launched as a free speech competitor to Twitter. After harsher and harsher censorship rules imposed by Twitter, Andrew Torba created Gab as a free-speech Twitter clone. The interface and methods of interaction were similar. There are hashtags, topics, @ symbols for mentioning certain users, and so on. But there were differences too, like the inclusion of groups, as well as, you guessed it, protections for free speech. According to their current Community Guidelines, Gab allows all speech that is legal under the United States’ First Amendment, which protects free speech. The only content not allowed on the site is piracy, threats of violence or terrorism, illegal pornography, and using Gab for the illegal sale of various products and services. Their policies for account management is similar to Twitter’s, however, banning spam accounts, duplicate accounts and account squatting. Gab’s policy on content, meanwhile, seems to be “if it’s legal, it’s fine.” This is in stark contrast to Twitter, which bans content that is racist, so-called “homophobic”, or just supposedly “hateful”.

When the site launched, Andrew Torba made an announcement on the blog site Medium, and the tech blog Wired rushed to condemn the site, calling it “alt right”, which flies in the face of a direct quote from Torba where he said “we want everyone” and “if there are any centrists, progressives, libertarians, or apolitical people interested in trying something new, I say, please join us.” Of course, Torba (who hold multiple online accounts using the name of Gab), eventually got banned from Medium.

However, coverage of Gab since its launch was few and far between, except for when their apps were blocked by Apple and Google’s app stores because of “hate speech.” Things were relatively peaceful, until one dramatic moment that would change everything for Gab, forever.

A Gab user shot people. While Gab never condoned the attack, and never directly supported the shooter or his ideology, many blamed Gab for inspiring his hate. While odd, this is quite typical of the over-tolerant left. In the leftist’s often psychotic mind, if one does not support a message or idea, they do whatever they can to silence the opposition. If you don’t like conservatives, you ban them. If you don’t like Christian bakers you put them in jail. If you don’t support Nazis, you punch them.

This line of thinking leads the leftist to believe racism is far more widespread than it actually is; it sees a lack of virtue signalling as a clear case of racism that must not be tolerated. However, one underlying factor in the case of Gab is that they are doing nothing wrong. They simply host a website where people can post stuff. They aren’t breaking the law, so the only way to take them on is through tarnishing their reputation. So, the lamestream media barrages Gab with slander whenever they cover it. This is one reason why Gab is viewed as alt-right.

However, there is another major factor at play: the vast majority of Gab’s users are alt-right, and racist. At first, this seems to validate claims that Gab is an alt-right website, designed for racist white Nazis. (Okay, black ones too, but I’m not going over that today.) It’s true that most of Gab’s users are racist; however, this is not due to Gab’s prioritizing certain views over another, nor rules banning anti-racist speech, but two major factors; the first is that the first users to switch to Gab were mostly people who had been banned from Twitter for racist or incendiary speech. The disproportionate and discriminatory nature of Twitter’s bans and censorship have led most of the Twitter exiles to be people from the far-right. Ironically, the far left forces alt-right social media users off their site and drives them to Gab, and then blames Gab for having an alt-right userbase. Then, of course, their loud proclamation that Gab is racist dissuades non-racists from joining the website and condemning the hatred, leaving the alt-right and racism as the predominant voices on the website. Obviously Gab isn’t an alt-right site, designed for neo-Nazis, like the media says they are. Rather, it serves as a haven for free speech and freedom of expression. Several progressives have joined the website, after all. But the media focuses only on the fact that the alt-right can use the site without being afraid of getting banned. That is the reason they are attacked, because in the end, some people want only their voices and perspectives to be heard.

Written by Casey Rollins.

@thecaseyrollins on Twitter

This is an edited version of the transcript for Counter Points Media's video 'YouTube Must Die.' The information might be old or outdated, and the author might not hold the same opinion today.

YouTube Must Die on BitChute

YouTube Must Die on YouTube

Things are getting out of hand. I usually don't make commentary videos, but this is starting to tick me off, and making me upset. It’s one thing to hear about censorship, and another thing for a YouTuber to speak out for himself regarding the attacks he or she has recieved from YouTube. I didn’t pay it much mind, until I realized that not one, but two of my favorite YouTubers have been targeted by YouTube for censorship.

Of course, this is nothing new. Story after story about YouTube's policies have been miffing me since around 2016, when YouTube decided to change the way videos are picked for the Trending section. They decided to handpick the videos for the Trending section, instead of allowing it to populate organically according to the algorithm they’d crafted. It was working just fine, but they didn’t like the videos making the list. They now use the Trending section to show a mixture of popular videos and leftist videos, even if they have few plays relative to the other content on the list.

YouTube's own page confirms that they no longer display videos on the list due solely to popularity.

In fact, they contradict themselves. They say “Trending helps viewers see what’s happening on YouTube and in the world.” Additionally, they say they don't include “clickbaity” or “sensational” content. But that's the name of the game on YouTube, you make sensational, clickbaity content so people watch it. If it's actually good, people will share it, watch it, it gets viewed, but it won't get featured. Why? Oh, it's clickbait, it's sensational. This is ridiculous. They don't even enforce it. Here's a screenshot I took on my phone of the trending list, featuring a video with a sensational title.

“Ultimate Pizza Styles Taste Test” by Good Mythical Morning. It says it's “ultimate”, but there's no way to prove that it's actually ultimate, so that makes the video either misleading or sensational. But it's RIGHT HERE!

Here's another one, “Apple Airpods Buyers Need To See This!” by Unbox Therapy. They don't literally need to see that. They'll be fine if they don't. That's both sensational and misleading. It’s also trending.

Obviously they’re partial; they’ll only apply these rules if the content is political. However, they don’t stop there, this gets much worse.

Notable Youtuber and talk show host Steven Crowder revealed that YouTube had been treating him unfairly, effectively causing his videos to be censored and banned in public places as well as to YouTube users who were either underage or lacking YouTube accounts.

Additionally, his videos at the time were apparently hidden from view during search results, somewhat reminiscent of Twitter’s far more recent DFQ feature.

He’s also had his videos excluded from the trending list, despite having gotten more views in a shorter period of time than many of the others. His videos were shadowbanned and excluded from promotion, despite being extremely popular.

This is already getting worse as I speak.

YouTube recently made moves to hide content they deem “controversial”, using language so vague it’s quite obvious they’re getting ready to start censoring content along ideological lines.

It didn’t stop with Crowder. Prager U is a YouTube channel that created commentary videos attacking popular, mainstream progressive political policies. Their YouTube channel has been repeatedly targeted by YouTube as well.

Then in August of 2018, Alex Jones, a far-right conspiracy theorist, had his entire Infowars network deplatformed from multiple websites, including YouTube. Before that, he was already being targeted by YouTube.

In November, one of my other favorite YouTube channels, 1791l, alerted their viewers that YouTube had stopped sending their subscribers notifications, or just plain unsubbing them. This came after they revealed that in May YouTube not only de-monetized them, they refused to communicate with them over the issue. This left them to move to other spaces to profit from the videos they make.

The list of YouTube martyrs burns big and bright like a neon sign, and is longer than a Paul Ryan filibuster. An edgy comedian YouTuber who goes by the name Mumkey Jones was banned from the platform as well. The ironic thing is, the grounds for the deletion of his channel, promotion of acts of violence, even though in fact he was mocking them, this did not apply to a seperate video, which went viral. The infamous Suicide Forest video by Logan Paul.

This is indicative of YouTube’s censorship emphasis. A video satirizing a shooting would be considered political, in the current cultural climate we live in, since every time there’s a shooting it gets blamed on either guns laws, or the lack thereof, and politicians tend to catch to fall for the tragic event. Suicide, however, is not a politicized issue. Suicide isn’t viewed as a conservative issue, or a liberal issue. It’s just viewed as a human issue.

YouTube’s also gone after creators, not for content that they’ve created, but comments left on their content! This is downright disturbing, because a content creator cannot control the comments left on their content. This is highlighted by the nasty comments Trump gets sent daily on his daily tweets.

Sasha Second has also been censored from YouTube for his journalism.

The far-right identitarian YouTube channel Red Ice TV is also being censored by YouTube for their racist content.

It’s not that I support racism, it’s that I support free speech. If an idea, like all men being created equal, is a good enough idea, it should be allowed to stand on its own two feet without its opposition being shut down. If you have to shut up the people you’re talking to in order to win the argument, you’re probably wrong.

Besides, some of their content which is not racist has still gotten strikes from YouTube.

Moving on, another YouTuber, EmpLemon had his videos about the 2017 YouTube Rewind heavily censored from suggestion feeds.

This isn’t just YouTube trying to drown out conservative voices, although that is likely one of their goals. They’ve also censored liberal content.

Aaron Wysocki claimed that The Young Turks had at least 500 videos de-monetized overnight. YouTube censorship isn’t an issue that affects just conservatives, it seems that literally no one is safe. That’s why I’m not making this a partisan video, but rather a free speech video.

Furthermore, Nerd City discovered that YouTube was de-emphasizing countless videos of YouTubers trying to convince suicidal viewers not to kill themselves, pro LGBTQIAA content and #metoo videos, because they were labelled as “mature.” This is odd because they just championed those sorts of videos in the latest YouTube rewind.

This brings me to today. I checked my YouTube notifications and I saw that The Hated One, one of my favorite youtube channels, which makes commentary videos centered on online privacy and censorship, released a video called “Youtube staffer killed my video on Australian encryption law”, where he not only claims YouTube unfairly de-monetized his previous video, “This Australian encryption ban is the dumbest law in history”, he actually provides a sizable amount of proof to back up his claims, with stunning detail. This clip is a sizable length as well, so please bear with me.

That was long, but it shows a rare, behind-the-scenes look of just how badly YouTube can treat content creators if they wish to cut off their revenue stream. I was surprised it took this long; The Hated One, while a small channel at around only 55K subscribers at the time of this video compared to my other favorite channels, he’s racked up hundreds of thousands of views on many of videos, and his video promoting DuckDuckGo over Google gained 1.4 million views at the time of this video. Small content creators are not safe from YouTube’s scorn.

This is why YouTube must die. We need a pure, unbiased and pro-free speech platform for sharing videos. Unfortunately, that will be an uphill battle for a long time because of the strength on YouTube’s content. Not only is there a vast amount of excellent content currently being made, but there is still an extensive back catalog of classic videos from years ago. Any new service will have to fight against that content. Also, the YouTube killer will have to get their name out there. Being the best video sharing platform means nothing if no one will visit it, and no one will visit it if they haven’t heard of it. Censored YouTubers are already saying that they plan to make their own YouTube alternative.

However this just muddies the waters and splits the viewership between the alternative video platforms, leaving no clear winner. However, there is one thing that can destroy YouTube: YouTube itself.

You see, if YouTube identifies to themselves with the left, particularly the far left, after awhile they will have to start going after liberal creators as well, since they will dissent with the more radical positions of the progressive movement.

This has already happened with a YouTuber named David Rubin. In 2018, his video “Socialism Isn’t Cool” got demonetized. After he learned about it, he reuploaded it with the title “Capitalism Isn’t Cool” and that video remained monetized. While he doesn’t support Socialism and is a fan of free speech, he actually doesn’t call himself a conservative, and identifies himself with the Democrat party. In fact, he used to be a host on The Young Turks.

If YouTube continues to do this sort of thing for long enough, the content creators will eventually get fed up and leave for another service, and once a popular YouTuber does this, perhaps ones with thousands of subscribers like Steven Crowder and PewDiePie, their fans will flock to that service, and YouTube will be dealt the first of many death blows, and ironically it will be dealt by YouTube themselves.

But sadly, there isn’t much we can do to expedite the birth of competition in the video sharing space until YouTube makes this move. The smartest thing for content creators to do is diversify their content, putting it one as many sites as possible. If one of those sites gets popular, users stopping by for PewDiePie videos may find your videos next, and you might gain a larger following as well. Until then, there isn’t much for us to do but be patient, and wait for YouTube’s inevitable self-inflicted wound.

Written by Casey Rollins.

@thecaseyrollins on Twitter

On December 11, 2019, Jack Dorsey, CEO of Twitter announced that he'd hired a team of five engineers to look into a method that could be used to decentralize Twitter. The announcement piqued the interest of many in the Fediverse, especially considering that Jack claimed that joining an existing protocol would be his preference, saying "we’d like this team to either find an existing decentralized standard they can help move forward, or failing that, create one from scratch".

While many have been calling for a decentralized internet, the online community now seems hesitant over the prospect. The question remains as to whether or not this move will benefit Twitter, the decentralized community, the public at large, all of the above, or no one at all. Of course, as with most technologies, it matters not that it's used, but rather how, and how others respond to its use.

The answer heavily depends on whether or not the Bluesky team decides to go with ActivityPub and/or Mastodon, or build out their own protocol. Since Gab moved from their own, centralized system to a Mastodon-based infrastructure, one can reasonably expect that Bluesky could successfully port Twitter into the Fediverse in a similar manner, especially considering that they have a far larger budget as well as a much larger dev team.

In fact, Twitter doesn't even have to adopt existing open source software to build their platform. They could write their own code to connect to the ActivityPub protocol, like Gab did. Other developers in the community have done the same, as evidenced by creation of other ActivityPub clients such as Pleroma and Misskey.

If they decide to use ActivityPub, the rest of the Fediverse will be able to interact with Twitter users. What software they end up using, in the grand scheme of things, is pretty much irrelevant. What does matter is how they plan to position Twitter within the Fediverse.

Dorsey seems to want Twitter to become the standard of whatever ecosytem it leaps into, which begs the question, what role would Twitter hold in such an environment, and what would they do with their newfound power? Some have cause for concern. After all, no one uses the Fediverse because of their love of Twitter; many have myriads of problems with the company and/or site, valid or not. Some feel that the Twitter community is to confrontational and toxic. Others argue that it has far too much censorship. Then others have huge problems with how they make money, by collecting user data and selling it.

If Twitter grabs a foothold in the Mastodon community, this could spell trouble for the Fediverse culture as it stands today. No one can outright force an instance to follow certain rules, but there are indications that admins of mainstream instances may be ready to fall in line with collective guidelines. The de facto homepage of Mastodon, Join Mastodon, already has a set of guidelines and rules observed by multiple instances, the Mastodon Server Covenant. This could indicate that most Mastodon admins wouldn't mind following in the footsteps and advice of a leader like Twitter. Some users and admins of smaller instances have already expressed concern that the site features server guidelines (which, by the way, all recommended instances on the website must abide by to remain recommended), but they seem to have very little influence, which in itself might indicate something worrying about Twitter's potential power.

However, Twitter joining the Fediverse might have some positives. Twitter joining the Fediverse opens popular figures, including politicians and the mass media, to a wider audience, allowing even more people to confront them and hold them accountable. This could also mean that, should Bluesky choose to take a similar route as Gab, its software would be open source and available to use on other instances, increasing the diversity of experience across the Fediverse. Additionally, it gives Twitter users a viable way to leave Twitter for the Fediverse without losing all of their data and having to manually follow back users one used to follow while on Twitter.

Of course, there's the possibility that Bluesky creates a new protocol, which could cause more fragmentation, and give Twitter even more power over the new community.

At the end of the day, it is up to you to decide whether or not Project Bluesky is even something you want to happen. The project has its share of pros and cons, and the lack of publicly disclosed information about it gives us little to go on when forming opinions on the topic. That said, it is important to be vocal about the project, especially considering that Bluesky is in its infancy. Contact your Fediverse admin, or the higher-ups at Twitter and Bluesky. Ask them questions and let them know your feelings about this new plan. After all, Project Bluesky just might shape the future of social media.

Written by Casey Rollins.

@thecaseyrollins on Twitter