# Uber Quack
**URL:** https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/uber-quack/6100
**Category:** Alternative Medicine
**Created:** [March 5, 2018, 4:59pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/uber-quack/6100 "2018-03-05T16:59:51Z")
**Posts on this page:** 7
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2018, 4:59pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/uber-quack/6100/1 "2018-03-05T16:59:51Z")
It’s hard to find actual news on this, since all of the alt sites are going bonkers over being censored. The irony that they claim they can control a private company is, um, ironic.
> **[I see...schadenfreude. Natural News banned from YouTube.](https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2018/03/05/i-see-schadenfreude-natural-news-banned-from-youtube/)**
>
> Over the weekend YouTube deleted the Natural News channel, which is the video arm of Mike Adams' online quackery empire. Adams, not surprisingly is ranting about "censorship." it's not.
My new definition of a libertarian is someone who wants everything they don’t want. They don’t want bad information out there, they want just anyone to be able to say anything and be given a megaphone to say it. They don’t crazy people shooting children, they want everyone to have a gun. They want a healthy society, they don’t want an organized system of distributing medicine to everyone.
---
### Author:  [@beltane](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/beltane)
#### Post date: [March 5, 2018, 11:53pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/uber-quack/6100/2 "2018-03-05T23:53:50Z")
Good find.
Natural News is a bullshit site but this is outstanding evidence that **left-leaning tech giants like Google — which owns YouTube — are anti-free speech**. The legal truth is that as a private company Google has the right to censor anything it wants, but their true motives are on display here.
Let it be clear Google is intolerant of content which clashes with their politics. Obviously this differs from the companies’ code of conduct: [Google Code of Conduct - Alphabet Investor Relations](https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html)
> “Don’t be evil." Googlers generally apply those words to how we serve our users. But “Don’t be evil" is much more than that. Yes, it’s about providing our users unbiased access to information, focusing on their needs and giving them the best products and services that we can. But it’s also about doing the right thing more generally – following the law, acting honorably, and treating co-workers with courtesy and respect.
---
### Author:  [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)
#### Post date: [March 6, 2018, 6:09pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/uber-quack/6100/3 "2018-03-06T18:09:46Z")
> Let it be clear Google is intolerant of content which clashes with their politics. Obviously this differs from the companies’ code of conduct: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
Claiming the Parkland shooting is a false narrative is not "politics". Claiming scientists are evil is not "politics".
---
### Author:  [@beltane](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/beltane)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2018, 3:56am UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/uber-quack/6100/4 "2018-03-08T03:56:03Z")
> Let it be clear Google is intolerant of content which clashes with their politics. Obviously this differs from the companies’ code of conduct: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
Claiming the Parkland shooting is a false narrative is not "politics". Claiming scientists are evil is not "politics".Maybe in a very hair splitting sense. I think Google's actions show they do consider it political. Similarly Google could say their operations aren't political, just business, but that doesn't jibe with their record of [political engagement](http://https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/google-is-losing-allies-across-the-political-spectrum/)]
---
### Author:  [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2018, 2:15pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/uber-quack/6100/5 "2018-03-08T14:15:20Z")
> Let it be clear Google is intolerant of content which clashes with their politics. Obviously this differs from the companies’ code of conduct: https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html
Claiming the Parkland shooting is a false narrative is not "politics". Claiming scientists are evil is not "politics".Maybe in a very hair splitting sense. I think Google's actions show they do consider it political. Similarly Google could say their operations aren't political, just business, but that doesn't jibe with their record of [political engagement](http://https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/08/google-is-losing-allies-across-the-political-spectrum/)] You set this up so there is absolutely no way to win unless Google acts like some disembodied robot. But even then, you would require that robot to be programmed with some sort of universal sense of fairness to all, that doesn't exist. You need Google to be disengaged from all politics, showing no concern for any particular class of people, but then you'd judge them for not caring. So doing something, anything, is political by your definition, including doing nothing.
---
### Author:  [@citizenschallengev3](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/citizenschallengev3)
#### Post date: [March 8, 2018, 3:13pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/uber-quack/6100/6 "2018-03-08T15:13:07Z")
What earns Google the title of “Left-leaning”?
Can you define it?
---
### Author:  [@lausten](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/u/lausten)
#### Post date: [October 8, 2018, 2:37pm UTC](https://forum.centerforinquiry.org/t/uber-quack/6100/7 "2018-10-08T14:37:55Z")
I’d forgotten about this one so I’ll resurrect it. It’s from back when crap news was getting kicked off platforms. It shows how discussion is being killed right now. If you allow for free discussion, you’re too liberal and you’re supporting quacks, if you don’t, you’re part of a conspiracy to suppress all knowledge and information. We have encouraged the skills of arguing and not of solving problems.
We tolerated the intolerable, and we’re paying for it.