https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/if_media_werent_scared_of_vote_fraud_claims_they_wouldnt_censor_them.html
President Trump’s attorney Jesse Binnall complained that his opening statement before a Senate Homeland Security hearing on election fraud was banned on YouTube. Binnall tweeted, “YouTube has decided that my opening statement in the U.S. [Senate], given under oath and based upon hard evidence, is too dangerous for you to see; they removed it. To this day, ‘our evidence has never been refuted, only ignored.’ Why is Google so afraid of the truth?” The following message appeared when his testimony was searched: “This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Community Guidelines.” These “Community Guidelines are designed to ensure our community stays protected.”
On December 9, YouTube updated its policy on “election-related misinformation.” “Our policies disallow content alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of a historical U.S. presidential election. Starting today, we will remove new content uploaded on or after December 9, 2020, alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.”
YouTube employees are fairly intelligent people. YouTube’s CEO has a degree from Harvard University. If they sincerely wanted to protect the community from false information, they should have allowed Binnall’s video to remain on YouTube. By banning it, they activated the “Streisand Effect.” The Streisand effect occurs when an attempt to censor information has the unintended consequence of further publicizing the information. It’s named after Barbra Streisand, whose attempt to suppress a photograph of her residence in Malibu, California drew further attention to it. The censored video was immediately posted on BitChute.
The censorship accomplished two things. It increased to number of viewers and further popularized a YouTube competitor. The video briefly appeared on YouTube again on Monday morning. At 1:23 A.M., it had 52,349 views with 2.3K positive and 15 negative ratings. The ratio of positive to negative response must have shocked YouTube execs. One of the comments read, “The Fact that YouTube deleted it is why I wanted to see this…”