InfoWars teams with Diamond and Silk in lawsuit against Google for discrimination and censorship

Google-owned YouTube has begun aggressively demonetizing certain political videos because they are allegedly not advertiser friendly, the latest being 95 percent of those produced by longtime Trump supporters Diamond and Silk.

This appears to be the latest effort by the tech giant to punish speech that doesn’t fit within the far-Left parameters of the Silicon Valley oligarchy.

But the North Carolina social media stars are apparently planning to fight back in court, with the backing of controversial InfoWars impresario Alex Jones. Jones claims that his organization’s videos have also been similarly demonitized.

Demonitization is essentially a form of economic censorship by choking off a content producer’s revenue stream when videos are deemed unsuitable for all advertisers.

The Daily Caller explains:

Affected creators are unable to make money from their work, which is automatically flagged or vetted by volunteer “experts.” In addition, the new system incorporates “tougher standards” for controversial videos that do not break YouTube’s terms of service, which are placed in a purgatory state that effectively censors them from being recommended to YouTube viewers.

Lynette “Diamond” Hardaway and Rochelle “Silk” Richardson achieved social media prominence during the election season for their feisty, often irreverent videos supporting Donald Trump, including encouraging fellow Democrats to change their voter registration so that they could cast a ballot for Trump in their state’s primary. With its ongoing pro-Trump commentary, The Viewer’s View YouTube channel has 100,000-plus subscribers and has logged nearly 17 million page views. The ladies say that they have been in good standing with YouTube for the past two years.

Conservatives, libertarians and others suspected that there was something fishy about YouTube’s new policy about policing hate speech and the like.

The Washington Times noted:

Critics argue that YouTube’s stated goal of blocking “extremist” content is rhetorical camouflage meant to hide the systematic silencing of popular right-leaning personalities.

As part of an exposé with the “rebels” of Google following the firing of James Damore, one former engineer using the alias Emmett told Breitbart that “he personally witnessed efforts from leftists within Google to bias YouTube’s algorithms to push anti-PC content off the platform’s ‘related videos” recommendations.” He added, “it’s ‘only a matter of time’ before Google begins to bias its search results against the Trump movement, Republicans, and right-leaning politicians.” (Related: Read more about search engine manipulation at

In the interview with Alex Jones, Diamond and Silk alleged that YouTube is engaging in discrimination against them because we are “black, conservative, Republican, and loyal supporters of the president,” and suggested in a tweet that a class-action lawsuit could be on the horizon. In general, a class-action lawsuit is brought on behalf of an entire class of aggrieved parties.

“Why is YouTube deciding what the advertisers should be advertising around? Why not let the advertisers pick and choose? … This is clearly discrimination, prejudice, and bias, and it won’t be tolerated,” Diamond declared.

During the conversation, Jones told them that he is actively consulting with anti-trust and discrimination lawyers about commencing a legal challenge against Google, and invited Diamond and Silk to be co-plaintiffs in the potential lawsuit. Jones described YouTube’s actions as “bullying” and “a shutdown of free speech.”

Antitrust could come into play because Google essentially wields a monopoly over search results on the Internet. Against this backdrop, some have even called for Google as well as other dominant social media entities like Facebook and Twitter to be regulated like public utilities.

In particular, Natural News founder Mike Adams has advocated for a content neutrality law for online gatekeepers “that bars large internet corporations from selectively silencing websites and video channels they don’t like for purely political reasons.”

As a private company, the First Amendment does not apply to Google, unless perhaps there is some evidence of public-private collusion. Last year, The Intercept reported that Google execs and lobbyists were regular weekly visitors at the Obama White House, and that at least 250 individuals participated in revolving door employment between Google and the Obama administration. In June 2016, Wiki Leaks founder Julian Assange claimed that Google was actively engaged in trying to help Hillary Clinton become president. In a subsequently deleted video, Source Fed demonstrated that Google was allegedly manipulating auto-complete search results to bury negative information about Hillary Clinton.

A petition has been launched calling for the end of YouTube’s censorship of conservatives and discrimination on the basis of politics, along with a remonitization of all YouTube channels that comply with the portal’s terms and conditions.

Sources include:

comments powered by Disqus