The Gate Keepers Attempt To Return
The internet has been a truly liberating phenomenon for many people, not least the "thought criminals" and "heretics" of the Alt-Right. The freedom of expression that it has fostered has also been hard for the old mainstream media companies, which have struggled to maintain profitability, with some of them having to transform themselves into click bait sites, but extremely tame ones in case they offend their shrinking pool of advertisers.
In addition to the old, dying media, there are others who would dearly love to re-close what they see as the "Pandora's box" of free expression and the market place of ideas that the internet has birthed. These include Western governments, the establishment, the Deep State, and the SPLC, in fact all those who were shaken by Donald Trump's meme-powered march to the White House. But how to do it?
Now it seems that they have a plan, namely using corporate social media to impose shadow bans and creeping platform denial for anything they can loosely define as "hate speech," which basically means anything not 100% on board with the leftist globalist agenda.
Those companies that don't fully cooperate are to be pressured through attacks on their revenue, as we see in recent attacks on Google, which is now being blamed for allowing corporate advertising to appear next to so-called "extremist content."
Among the main social media companies, few have been as important as Google in providing a platform for "heretic" opinions through its internet video service YouTube. This has also allowed content creators to monetize their channels by allowing advertising to run.
But the rise of giant "dissident" channels like Pewdiepie and Stefan Molyneux, with tens of millions of followers, as well as the thousands of smaller alt-right, nationalist, and anti-globalists channels on YouTube creates a headache for the establishment. So now the forces of reaction are attempting to force Google to clamp down and demonetise them by threatening the platform's corporate ad revenue.
Just recently the BBC reported that major UK retailer Marks&Spencer had pulled online ads from Google over what it called "extremist content fears":
Marks and Spencer has become the latest firm to pull its online advertising from Google's platforms over fears it is appearing next to extremist content. It follows a UK government decision to remove its adverts from YouTube - which is owned by Google - after it emerged they had appeared alongside content from supporters of extremist groups. RBS, Lloyds and HSBC also announced similar moves over the weekend. Google said it was 'sorry and would take responsibility for the issues.' Speaking at the Advertising Week Europe conference, Matthew Brittin, the firm's European head, said: 'I would like to apologise to our partners and advertisers who might have been affected by their ads appearing on controversial content.
This latest attempt to shut down free speech follows a recent investigation by the Times, an old media newspaper owned by globalist octogenarian Rupert Murdoch that is constantly losing traffic to the new media of free expression on the internet.
Sky TV, also owned by Murdoch, chimed in to add weight to the favoured narrative that Google is actively "promoting hate" simply by not caring that ads appear wherever people happen to be on their platform. A Sky spokesperson said:
It is clearly unacceptable for ads to be appearing alongside inappropriate content and we are talking with Google to understand what they are doing to stop this.
Journalists from the Times pathetically took screenshots of adverts from a range of well-known firms and organisations that randomly appeared alongside unmoderated and anonymous comments on videos and even Blogger sites, in an attempt to tar these channels and sites as "hate sites." It is even possible that the Times journalists wrote many of these comments that use well-known racial and sexual epithets themselves.
Ads appearing alongside a video can earn the poster around £6 for every 1,000 clicks it generates, with the money flowing from the company behind the ad to the content creator. This means that famous brands may contribute money to a variety of popular opinions that have found a home on the free internet.
The Times said that rape apologists, anti-Semites and hate preachers were thus receiving payouts from well-known companies, a statement that kind of makes the Times sound like an overweight SJW with a full tampon.
However, if that is where the audience is then that is where the advertising needs to be. It certainly isn't going to be at increasingly regressive media sites like the Times which had its heyday in the middle of the 19th century, when it reported on the Crimean War, and had been going downhill ever since.