Yet another independent voice is being silenced on Google's video platform YouTube, with threats to shut his entire channel down if he does not "water down" his political commentary. While he is going to comply in order not to be completely silenced, he is also fighting back, not just for himself but by taking the chance and a severe monetary hit by preparing undertake a multi-million dollar project to launch a YouTube alternative website by the summer of 2018, in order to provide a platform for the rest of the Independent Media that is under censorship attack on multiple fronts.
Below: The Health Ranger announces a reduction in posting political commentary to YouTube due to YouTube's outrageous censorship of any ideas which are critical of the delusional Left.
In a follow up video (found here) Adam's details more about his plans to launch the YouTube alternative, where he is very upfront about the fact that he will not be offering the ad revenue to which YouTube offers, at least to those they do not restrict, demonetize and censor for political opinions that do not toe the official MSM line, but that he will be offering an option for donating to creators where users can independently support video creators they enjoy.
What they have done with Mike Adams should be a crime, they could not control him by limiting his "ad revenue" because Mike doesn't use their ads, he creates his revenue by selling his awesome products, so they went straight into intimidation, and threats of completely silencing him on their platform. Remember, Google once blocked hundreds of thousands of Mike's pages from their search engine, with no justification.
As ANP has detailed multiple times since the 2016 presidential election, an out-right war has been declared against Independent Media websites that do not mimic every assertion and in many cases clear documented lies being told in the MSM.
Twitter has been purging independent voices under the guise of battling "extremism," and it has already been reported that they "shadow ban" conservatives and Independent Media.
In early December Twitter silenced a veteran conservative journalist, Bridget Johnson, who has written bylines at places like USA Today, the Hill, Politico, NPR, and the Jerusalem Post and more. Breitbart highlighted her ban as part of Twitter's ongoing purge of of Independent or conservatives in order to silence opinions Twitter officials do not agree with.
A link to Johnson’s cache’d tweets (from late September) shows nothing close to any of the flame wars, abuse, taunting, bullying or anything else that violates Twitter’s intentionally-cryptic terms of service. As someone who has known Bridget for going on 10 years (in the early days of the inter-web-dot-nets I blogged at her site), this suspension makes even less sense. She is a total pro, a pursuer of facts, and as her Facebook account shows, nothing close to a flaming partisan.
As of now it appears as though Johnson is just the latest victim of Twitter’s Kafka-esque campaign to chill conservative speech, a campaign with no set rules, guidelines, or explanations when you are entirely disappeared due to a capricious act of corporate fascism.
Another example comes from PJ Media columnist Megan Fox, who explained that every time she gets attention from someone like Rush Limbaugh or a link from Drudge, one of the big tech giants suspends her.
Don't get noticed in the major mainstream press as a conservative if you want to keep your social media accounts. The first time Rush Limbaugh read one of my articles, my YouTube channel was demonetized. The second time, which was last week, my Twitter account was suspended. On November 26, I published an article titled "Teachers Attend 'LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP' Sensitivity Training (WTF?)." The next day Matt Drudge linked it and it went viral. Then Rush Limbaugh read it on the air.
A few hours later, my Twitter account was suspended for responding to someone commenting about the article who accused me of "harming people" by writing it. My response used a colloquialism, "go hang," which Twitter claims is harassment. I used it in the colloquial style that, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, means "I don't care what you say," which is exactly how I meant it.
Oh, and those were before Twitter's "new rules" to lump the alt-right in with white nationalists, and white supremacists, in order conflate anything conservative in with their definition of "hateful and abusive content." In other words, if you have an opinion that leans towards conservative opinion, they can now just declare it "hateful," while labeling you a white supremacist.
This has sent many users to join the Twitter alternative Gab.ai, who has a category or hashtag set up titled "Twitter refugees welcome." Gab was created to offer people a true free speech platform, which Twitter used to claim they believed in.
Facebook now attempts to counter any news that isn't their preferred narrative by claiming if it doesn't match the "trustworthy" mainstream media narrative, it is "fake news," while never once applying that same standard to the large number of examples of "fake news" from the MSM, such as ABC news recent false news, which tanked the stock market and caused the suspension of Brian Ross. Or the massive CNN "fake news" story about Wikileaks and Donald Trump Jr, which had to be corrected, edited and completely changed because "multiple" sources supposedly leaked a wrong date to them.
Facebook just announced it was ditching their "disputed article" red flags because it appears that many users most likely do not trust their "fact checkers, in where Facebook chose far left liberals sites like Snopes, and more people were clicking the articles Facebook was determined to steer them away from.
"Academic research on correcting misinformation has shown that putting a strong image, like a red flag, next to an article may actually entrench deeply held beliefs – the opposite effect to what we intended,” Tessa Lyons, product manager at Facebook, wrote in a company blog post."
Now Facebook will use "Related Articles" next to anything their liberal fact checkers have determined or want users to think is "false" news. Anyone want to hazard a guess at what sources Facebook will be using for their "related" articles in an attempt to control what people click and read on their platform?
Look, no one disputes there is fake news shared on Facebook, but people are smart enough to research claims for themselves. For example, I see a story with a headline, "Aliens invade earth," I am so not going to instantly go hide in a bunker, I am going to disbelieve it unless it can be debunked or verified by ME, not Facebook liberals.
Facebook's attempts, to date, to control their users and what people read, have failed and they will continue to fail because most people do not want to be told what to believe and what they should and shouldn't read, they want to be informed, then use their own judgement as to what they determine to be true.
Which brings us to Google and their antics. They manipulate their ranking on their search engine to only show what they consider "trustworthy" sources on their first pages of results, which are MSM sites for the most part. Yes, "sources" like CNN, which has been caught over a half a dozen times this year alone publishing outright fake news, some having resulted in edits, corrections, retractions, removal of articles and resignations of high profile reports. Google manipulates their searched to lead to sources such as ABC News, who we explained above was recently embroiled in their own fake news scandal. So has NBC News, MSNBC News, NYT, and Washington Post. All "sources" Google deems trustworthy, no matter how many times they continue to publish fake news.
Manipulating their search results is only part of the attack against Independent Media, because by doing so, they are also not sending as much traffic to other Independent Media sites, which affects revenue.
Note how many Independent Media sites now have little boxes, ordonation banners at the bottom of their articles, as ANP has been forced to begin doing.
Daily Caller articles, screen shot below, has a message now saying "The Daily Caller News Foundation is working hard to balance out the biased American media. For as little as $3, you can help us. Freedom of speech isn’t free. Make a one-time donation to support the quality, independent journalism of TheDCNF. We’re not dependent on commercial or political support and we do not accept any government funding," along with a donation button.
Government Slaves has a fundraising form, showing how much has been raised out of a goal, with a donate button. We are also noting many articles and video descriptions now have a Patreon link for people to donate. Some use other donation sites, we are even seeing people take Bitcoin payments.
ANP set up a donation page offering multiple options including donating by Paypal (or credit card), a Patreon link and an address for snail mail donations, with a banner on the bottom of all of our new articles saying "Help Keep Independent Media Alive."
The commonality of those starting to encourage donations is they are for the most part more right-leaning or libertarian websites or video channels, and do not push the liberal mainstream media narrative, and are all being attacked on multiple fronts by big tech.
Make no mistake, Independent Media writers are not looking to get rich, we wouldn't be in this business if we were. The reason so many are now finding themselves dependent on donations or crowdfunding to survive is because the attacks on Independent Media have reached a fevered pitch, not just by social media censoring, or YouTube demonetization or threatening to silence opinions, or from Googles manipulating search engine results and rankings.
They are also using their revenue program to provide ads that pay less to be shown on Independent Media sites that do not push their preferred narrative.
Big Tech across the board, whether it is social media or search engine and video platform giants, are conducting a coordinated attack against all Independent Media and they have been since before the election, they just kicked it into high gear after their favored candidate lost her butt and President Trump was elected.
How did that happen when every single MSM source attempted to convince America it wasn't possible? Independent Media united against Hillary Clinton, bypassed them all, working tirelessly to bring the news to readers that the MSM wouldn't.
Readers can help in a number of ways to overcome these attacks against Independent Media. While donations are always appreciated, not everyone is in a position to donate to anyone else, many live paycheck to paycheck, but there are ways to help your favorite sites to thrive.
Emailing articles to family and friends, asking them to email to their friends. For those that use social media, sharing articles from all your Independent Media favorites, even if just in private messages because that can generate more traffic, which in turn automatically helps those sites generate more revenue. Subscribe to your favorite IM sites, their feeds, their newsletters, and forward them to family and friends as well.
Most importantly, share the news itself, with or without a link because the more people that actively search for Independent Media sources, the more regular readers and commenters those sources retain, building a network of solid, awakened individuals
What they have done with Mike Adams should be a crime, they could not control him by limiting his "ad revenue" because Mike doesn't use their ads, he creates his revenue by selling his awesome products, so they went straight into intimidation, and threats of completely silencing him on their platform. Remember, Google once blocked hundreds of thousands of Mike's pages from their search engine, with no justification.
BIG TECHS WAR AGAINST INDEPENDENT MEDIA
As ANP has detailed multiple times since the 2016 presidential election, an out-right war has been declared against Independent Media websites that do not mimic every assertion and in many cases clear documented lies being told in the MSM.
Twitter has been purging independent voices under the guise of battling "extremism," and it has already been reported that they "shadow ban" conservatives and Independent Media.
In early December Twitter silenced a veteran conservative journalist, Bridget Johnson, who has written bylines at places like USA Today, the Hill, Politico, NPR, and the Jerusalem Post and more. Breitbart highlighted her ban as part of Twitter's ongoing purge of of Independent or conservatives in order to silence opinions Twitter officials do not agree with.
A link to Johnson’s cache’d tweets (from late September) shows nothing close to any of the flame wars, abuse, taunting, bullying or anything else that violates Twitter’s intentionally-cryptic terms of service. As someone who has known Bridget for going on 10 years (in the early days of the inter-web-dot-nets I blogged at her site), this suspension makes even less sense. She is a total pro, a pursuer of facts, and as her Facebook account shows, nothing close to a flaming partisan.
As of now it appears as though Johnson is just the latest victim of Twitter’s Kafka-esque campaign to chill conservative speech, a campaign with no set rules, guidelines, or explanations when you are entirely disappeared due to a capricious act of corporate fascism.
Another example comes from PJ Media columnist Megan Fox, who explained that every time she gets attention from someone like Rush Limbaugh or a link from Drudge, one of the big tech giants suspends her.
Don't get noticed in the major mainstream press as a conservative if you want to keep your social media accounts. The first time Rush Limbaugh read one of my articles, my YouTube channel was demonetized. The second time, which was last week, my Twitter account was suspended. On November 26, I published an article titled "Teachers Attend 'LGGBDTTTIQQAAPP' Sensitivity Training (WTF?)." The next day Matt Drudge linked it and it went viral. Then Rush Limbaugh read it on the air.
A few hours later, my Twitter account was suspended for responding to someone commenting about the article who accused me of "harming people" by writing it. My response used a colloquialism, "go hang," which Twitter claims is harassment. I used it in the colloquial style that, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, means "I don't care what you say," which is exactly how I meant it.
Oh, and those were before Twitter's "new rules" to lump the alt-right in with white nationalists, and white supremacists, in order conflate anything conservative in with their definition of "hateful and abusive content." In other words, if you have an opinion that leans towards conservative opinion, they can now just declare it "hateful," while labeling you a white supremacist.
This has sent many users to join the Twitter alternative Gab.ai, who has a category or hashtag set up titled "Twitter refugees welcome." Gab was created to offer people a true free speech platform, which Twitter used to claim they believed in.
Facebook now attempts to counter any news that isn't their preferred narrative by claiming if it doesn't match the "trustworthy" mainstream media narrative, it is "fake news," while never once applying that same standard to the large number of examples of "fake news" from the MSM, such as ABC news recent false news, which tanked the stock market and caused the suspension of Brian Ross. Or the massive CNN "fake news" story about Wikileaks and Donald Trump Jr, which had to be corrected, edited and completely changed because "multiple" sources supposedly leaked a wrong date to them.
Facebook just announced it was ditching their "disputed article" red flags because it appears that many users most likely do not trust their "fact checkers, in where Facebook chose far left liberals sites like Snopes, and more people were clicking the articles Facebook was determined to steer them away from.
"Academic research on correcting misinformation has shown that putting a strong image, like a red flag, next to an article may actually entrench deeply held beliefs – the opposite effect to what we intended,” Tessa Lyons, product manager at Facebook, wrote in a company blog post."
Now Facebook will use "Related Articles" next to anything their liberal fact checkers have determined or want users to think is "false" news. Anyone want to hazard a guess at what sources Facebook will be using for their "related" articles in an attempt to control what people click and read on their platform?
Look, no one disputes there is fake news shared on Facebook, but people are smart enough to research claims for themselves. For example, I see a story with a headline, "Aliens invade earth," I am so not going to instantly go hide in a bunker, I am going to disbelieve it unless it can be debunked or verified by ME, not Facebook liberals.
Facebook's attempts, to date, to control their users and what people read, have failed and they will continue to fail because most people do not want to be told what to believe and what they should and shouldn't read, they want to be informed, then use their own judgement as to what they determine to be true.
Which brings us to Google and their antics. They manipulate their ranking on their search engine to only show what they consider "trustworthy" sources on their first pages of results, which are MSM sites for the most part. Yes, "sources" like CNN, which has been caught over a half a dozen times this year alone publishing outright fake news, some having resulted in edits, corrections, retractions, removal of articles and resignations of high profile reports. Google manipulates their searched to lead to sources such as ABC News, who we explained above was recently embroiled in their own fake news scandal. So has NBC News, MSNBC News, NYT, and Washington Post. All "sources" Google deems trustworthy, no matter how many times they continue to publish fake news.
Manipulating their search results is only part of the attack against Independent Media, because by doing so, they are also not sending as much traffic to other Independent Media sites, which affects revenue.
INDEPENDENT MEDIA FORCED TO RELY ON DONATIONS TO SURVIVE
Note how many Independent Media sites now have little boxes, ordonation banners at the bottom of their articles, as ANP has been forced to begin doing.
Daily Caller articles, screen shot below, has a message now saying "The Daily Caller News Foundation is working hard to balance out the biased American media. For as little as $3, you can help us. Freedom of speech isn’t free. Make a one-time donation to support the quality, independent journalism of TheDCNF. We’re not dependent on commercial or political support and we do not accept any government funding," along with a donation button.
Government Slaves has a fundraising form, showing how much has been raised out of a goal, with a donate button. We are also noting many articles and video descriptions now have a Patreon link for people to donate. Some use other donation sites, we are even seeing people take Bitcoin payments.
ANP set up a donation page offering multiple options including donating by Paypal (or credit card), a Patreon link and an address for snail mail donations, with a banner on the bottom of all of our new articles saying "Help Keep Independent Media Alive."
The commonality of those starting to encourage donations is they are for the most part more right-leaning or libertarian websites or video channels, and do not push the liberal mainstream media narrative, and are all being attacked on multiple fronts by big tech.
Make no mistake, Independent Media writers are not looking to get rich, we wouldn't be in this business if we were. The reason so many are now finding themselves dependent on donations or crowdfunding to survive is because the attacks on Independent Media have reached a fevered pitch, not just by social media censoring, or YouTube demonetization or threatening to silence opinions, or from Googles manipulating search engine results and rankings.
They are also using their revenue program to provide ads that pay less to be shown on Independent Media sites that do not push their preferred narrative.
BOTTOM LINE
Big Tech across the board, whether it is social media or search engine and video platform giants, are conducting a coordinated attack against all Independent Media and they have been since before the election, they just kicked it into high gear after their favored candidate lost her butt and President Trump was elected.
How did that happen when every single MSM source attempted to convince America it wasn't possible? Independent Media united against Hillary Clinton, bypassed them all, working tirelessly to bring the news to readers that the MSM wouldn't.
Readers can help in a number of ways to overcome these attacks against Independent Media. While donations are always appreciated, not everyone is in a position to donate to anyone else, many live paycheck to paycheck, but there are ways to help your favorite sites to thrive.
Emailing articles to family and friends, asking them to email to their friends. For those that use social media, sharing articles from all your Independent Media favorites, even if just in private messages because that can generate more traffic, which in turn automatically helps those sites generate more revenue. Subscribe to your favorite IM sites, their feeds, their newsletters, and forward them to family and friends as well.
Most importantly, share the news itself, with or without a link because the more people that actively search for Independent Media sources, the more regular readers and commenters those sources retain, building a network of solid, awakened individuals