YouTube shadowbans video titled “The CIA is a Terrorist Organization”

>Strange, I'm not seeing any of that for the topics mentioned

You've been living in a cave for the last several years if you haven't watched everyone who questioned the narrative about the intelligence agencies and US global military empire smeared as Russian assets, from sitting Congresswomen to Pulitzer Prize winning journalists.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/political-commentary/c...

>The problem here is that you're lumping fringe/extremist anti-establishment content with mainstream anti-establishment content,

Who decides what is fringe, you? The CIA? Apparently Youtube though that the video in question was "fringe". Who sets the standard for what information people are allowed to see and hear? For decades it has been the CIA.

https://www.nytimes.com/1976/01/28/archives/cia-ties-to-jour...

>>Talk about [anti-establishment] and see yourself get delisted from Google, smeared in the media, then get harassed by various agencies until you either flee the country or end up like Hastings or car bombed like Daphne.

>is demonstrably false.

A false and predictable assertion from someone who forms their opinions based on an echo chamber of children on reddit. Some of us don't want the rest of the media and the discourse to turn into the same.

I think the most important thing to keep in mind is that we’ve always been fighting to preserve our rights under the constitution. Freedom and democracy doesn’t just come for free.

Take another period in US history... at a time of another pandemic, the Spanish flu, and a World war.

The 1918 Sedition Act [1] made illegal the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language" about the United States.

The effects of this law were so successful, that at a time when a pandemic killed 20 million Americans, the newspapers never wrote about the flu. In fact this is why that virus was named the Spanish flu, since during the war Spain was neutral and allowed its press to freely report on it. Not because the virus came from Spain.

History of course repeats itself. But the real lesson for us is that we need to always be vigilant. And it’s not a time to despair that things are at their worst, or can’t get better, or everything is downhill.

Instead look at how far we’ve come. Look at what we’ve overcome in history.

We just need to keep moving the ball forward.

1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedition_Act_of_1918

I bet most of the views on flat earther’s videos are just people looking for non artificial comedy.

There is no natural trend in history towards any cultural viewpoint, much less towards modern progressivism. And honestly, the very notion that there is such a trend is almost inevitably followed by an attack on opponents by casting them as, well, barbaric.

To pick one obvious example, consider the democratic-autocratic scale. In Western history, the first (recorded) height of democracy was in Classical Antiquity, with Rome and the Greek city states being democratic. But by Late Antiquity (around the AD/BC changeover), these democratic states changed into autocratic states, and they remained as such for nearly 2000 years. Even in the past 100-200 years, when Europe has been "generally" democratic, there has been some dramatic see-saws between democracy and autocracy of various flavors.

> I don't know the history of the events or the characters that led to American indepedence (I am not an American) but what I do find when people feel the need to character assasinate important figures of the past is that they do massively over simplify events and the people involved.

Judging from your choice of words here, I suspect that you are equally as guilty of oversimplification as the people you criticize. People are complicated; motivations are complex and interrelated; trying to understand the motivations of people through evidence that is deliberately deceptive is frustrating. But putting people in the past on pedestals and worshiping them is as destructive as vilifying them is.

Again, an example; this time, the role of slavery in colonial and early US. It is definitely a mistake to consider slavery to be the primary motivation for American independence, as the 1619 Project did (for starters, it begs the question as to why the more-intensive slave Caribbean colonies explicitly rejected succession at the same time). But the cognitive dissonance of combining slavery with appeals for universal liberty needs to be noted, even if you're judging from the standards of the time. Contemporary British opponents to American independence castigated the Americans for preaching liberty yet owning slaves. Some states and individuals did emancipate slaves during the revolutionary period, so we can fairly judge their contemporaries (like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson) for failing to do so.