Vivek Ramaswamy calls on YouTube to reinstate Alex Jones and Nick Fuentes after platform bans channels

Youtube’s previous practice actions against Jones and Fuentes

Alex Jones faced the abolition of Youtube in 2018 after hate speech and multiple policy violations of content containing minors. In 2020, Nick Fuentes received a platform ban for violations of hate speech. Both content builders received significant follow -up before their first suspensions.

Youtube said that this week would allow some content -creators to be removed from the COVİD and allow election content rules to be restored, but the platform proposes continuous restrictions for Creators with more serious policy violations against Jones and Fuentes.

Cultural Unity and Free Speech Arguments offered

Ramaswamy positioned Youtube demand in wider arguments about American cultural values ​​and national unity. He argued that platform restrictions based on creative identity rather than a certain content may increase social divisions.

Ramaswamy, “When we tell people, the government, even a strong company, when you tell people who deserve to be not heard, I think it actually divides us.”

“I would like you to restore the accounts of these men. And believe me, there will be a down payment to start bringing this country together, we have a very long way.”

Ramaswamy’s full transcript of Youtube objection

Below is the full, unprocessed transcript of Vivek Ramaswamy’s video message to Youtube leadership:

“This is a message for Youtube’s leadership. Obviously, I could probably call you specially, but I think it was better to talk about it in the last 24 hours, you’ve closed the accounts of the two men and closed the accounts of the two men, Nick Fuentes and Alex Jones. For different reasons.

I would like to give a lot of credit to Youtube and Google and your competitors in Silicon Valley to create the first example of the open internet with search engines. It’s a good thing to democratize speech. But I think we take a step in the wrong direction when we drown the same technologies that allow us to reach open discussion and open ideas. Produces discontent. It is disappointing. In fact, it creates insecurity. If you tell people they can’t talk, then they scream. And if you tell people they can’t scream, then they’il wash things. I think free conversation is a prerequisite for peace. It is a prerequisite for the scientific method. This is a prerequisite for our common national identity as Americans.

Now, I can understand why you can imagine why some types of conversation or other people will be allowed to spread or spread false information or that certain things that may be considered as severe or dangerous threats should not be allowed on your platform. Personally, I get a broad perspective on what kind of speech is an expression of a protected view, but this is a separate debate about what someone says that you don’t belong to your platform. This is a category of speech control. There is a different category that says that you can demonize some people, you will not pay them. Even if they can talk on your platform, you don’t have to pay to do this or put advertisers next to their names. This is a separate discussion. Personally, as a general issue, I do not like any of these speeches suppressing, but at least these are discussions that reasonable minds may have.

There is a separate censorship category, but I think it is especially harmful, because of who you are, because of your name and who you are, misinformation, hateful speech, dangerous, or the idea that you cannot express everything you think. Regardless of this, you do not give this judgment. You can’t just talk based on who you are. I think this creates insecurity. I don’t think this is good for our country. There are legal arguments. In my books, I have made legal arguments elsewhere in the Wall Street Journal pieces, and if a technology company is protected by 230, an immune shield created by the government, if a technology company responds to the threats of government officials, perhaps you know that it is actually a legal first fall. It’s not even what I’m talking about right now. What I am talking about is not a legal point. This is just a cultural point. The question of whether this is good or bad for America.

And I think we live now, when you tell people, whether the government or a powerful company, when you tell people who deserve to not be heard, we actually say that you actually divide us. Even if it does with the intention of thinking best, it brings most of the rest of the country together, and in the long run it is actually throwing the kerosene on the flame you are trying to break. And I don’t ask you. I’m not trying to do this in a kind of false anger, angry way that increases some political fights. This is not the purpose. In fact, I think it is often possible to get the right answer through reasonable open dialogue. I hope this is. I hope you can review a decision that may be a wrong decision. And I think when people make a wrong decision to be given a ramp, we need more space as a country, after what we thought, yes, after accepting, we convinced that everything is equal, although we have good intentions, we should let people talk and hear.

I hope it happens here. And that’s why my question and again, from Jimmy Kimmel to Nick Fuentes, probably speaks as a man who doesn’t love me very much, I don’t care, that’s not important. Not about what. Not even about content. It’s about this principle. I would like you to restore these guys’ accounts. And believe me, there will be a down payment to bring this country together, we have a very long way. Thank you very much for thinking. “

To add As a reliable and reliable news source