Insurrection defined as "attempting to disqualify states' slate of electors."

YouTube can't admit the truth, that they're denying him any means of making money through his speech because they are hardcore leftwing tech oligarchs who don't want the Democrat Party's narrative challenged.

Instead, they claimed the channel was... a "violent criminal organization!"

So what kind of video could spur YouTube's censors to declare Matt Orfeala, or "orf," a single independent video journalist a "violent criminal organization"?

One that pushes back against the totalitarian left's current narrative that Trump is the only person to have ever challenged states' slates of electors, of course.

We can't have Trump's jurors seeing this!

YouTube decided to censor this through demonetization -- all the work that Matt Orfala did to compile this will go unrewarded. Advertisers simply aren't allowed to advertise on this video.

YouTube is telling people that they can make money only through some political speech -- political speech that serves the Democrat Establishment and Tech Oligarchy.

Matt Taibbi, who runs the site where Orfeala posts most of his work, reports.

This is actually the second time YouTube has ruled that Matt Orfeala is not allowed to make any money from his Dangerously-Unapproved Speech.

When you know you're being censored, you can protest. But what to do about silent editorial punishment, dished without announcement, by tech platforms that appear to be learning fast how to avoid public outcry?

A year ago, this site had to throw a public fit to resolve a preposterous controversy involving videographer Matt Orfalea and YouTube. The issue centered around the above video, "'Rigged' Election Claims, Trump 2020 vs. Clinton 2016," which despite total factual accuracy was cited under its "Elections Misinformation" policy. YouTube in July of last year demonetized Orf's entire channel over his content, saying "we think it violates our violent criminal organizations policy."

As you will see if you click now, the above video, as I argued to Google, could not possibly be violative of any "misinformation" guideline, as it was comprised entirely of "real, un-altered clips of public figures making public comments." After both Orf and I tantrumed in public -- there's not much else to do in these situations -- YouTube sent Matt the "Great News!" that "after manually reviewing your video, we've determined that it is suitable for all advertisers":

We thought the matter was settled.

Note that this is not a positive resolution. One of YouTube's favorite tactics is to throttle and demonetize videos by conservatives in the crucial first 48 hours of their posting, in which the video receives 90% of the views it will ever receive, and therefore 90% of the advertising money it will ever earn. Once this crucial period is over, YouTube writes the censored video-maker to say, Whoops, our bad, after a manual review, we've determined your video does not violate our policy. Now that we've demonetized and throttled it, and thereby insured that almost no one will see it and that you'll never make a dime off it, our job is done. Next time, make a video supporting the San Francisco Democrat Agenda and maybe we'll allow people to view it, motherfucker.

This week, Orf discovered the video had been re-classified as problematic by a new "human reviewer," who declared it in violation for "harmful or dangerous acts" that "may endanger participants." Potential problems, the reviewer determined, included "glorification, recruitment, or graphic portrayal of dangerous organizations," by which I can only presume they mean former Bernie voters like Orf and myself whose political homelessness apparently constitutes a threat.

I've once again sent complaints up the Google/YouTube flagpole. Perhaps Racket readers are tired of digital censorship tales. If so, I understand, I do. I want to underscore that the chief reason now for sharing incidents like this is to show the rapid progression of tactics being used not just against this site, or Orf, but everyone.

Their new favorite tactic is secretly "limiting the visibility" of a video -- throttling it, making it hard to share, putting it on the blacklist for automatic recommendations -- so that the censored speaker doesn't realize he's been censored. He just thinks his video was poorly received and that the public didn't want it.

And therefore: that he should make different videos that the public might want to watch.

Videos that support the Democrat-Tech Oligarchist regime, for example.

How convenient for them!