'They're desperate': Joe Rogan rails against YouTube's apparent censorship of Trump interview



Earlier this week, Americans experienced difficulty tracking down President Donald Trump's three-hour interview with Joe Rogan on YouTube, which presently has over 41.5 million views on the Google-owned platform. The hotly anticipated interview was also glaringly absent from the platform's trending page on Monday.

Rather than connect would-be viewers with the unfiltered interview, YouTube inundated users with results for antagonistic legacy media reports about the interview and unrelated videos — a redirection strategy that Rogan indicated had a dramatic impact on traffic.

Rogan blasted YouTube on the Wednesday episode of his show, telling stand-up comic Francis Foster and political commentator Konstantin Kisin that the apparent censorship effort reeked of desperation.

"There's no way this was a mistake," said Rogan. "That's too convenient."

The titular host of "The Joe Rogan Experience" noted that he initially gave YouTube the benefit of the doubt: "I'm like, 'I'm sure it was a mistake. There's no way that it was on purpose.' And so if you googled 'Rogan Trump,' you could only get clips. You couldn't watch the whole episode. You couldn't find it."

'There is massive far left censorship at Google/YouTube.'

David Heinemeier Hansson, the co-owner of the software company Basecamp, shared footage of his unsuccessful attempt to find the interview on Monday, tweeting, "Tried to find the Rogan/Trump interview on YouTube but no matter what I search, it's not coming up. Would be beyond bonkers if they're actively trying to suppress it. Must be a glitch, right?"

Hansson, whose original concerns were amplified by Rogan, noted further that numerous variations of his search, including "jre trump" and "trump on rogan," similarly failed to produce the desired result.

Rogan told Foster and Kisin that not only could potential voters not find the video, YouTube refused to highlight the Trump interview in its trending section, despite the video far surpassing the competition by leaps and bounds. He indicated that this omission revealed either that the section is meaningless or that something foul was afoot.

According to Rogan, amid YouTube's apparent election-time censorship attempts, Elon Musk — who stressed that "there is massive far left censorship at Google/YouTube" and noted that "Alphabet (Google/YouTube) is the #1 biggest donor to the Democratic Party" — reached out to Spotify CEO Daniel Ek, successfully porting the entire interview to X to ensure its visibility.

"So now it has way more views," said Rogan, referring to the tens of millions of additional views it has since netted on Musk's platform.

'They hate it because ideologically they're opposed to the idea of him being more popular.'

"You can't suppress s***. It doesn't work," said Rogan. "This is the internet. This is 2024. People are going to realize what you're doing. If you try to make it so that something can't come up in a search engine because it's too popular — first of all, if that's not trending, then you tell me what the f*** is."

YouTube said in a statement Monday evening:

Since airing Friday, the interview has generated over 34 million views on YouTube and counting, making it Joe Rogan's most viewed episode of the year. For some searches on Monday the original 3-hour interview didn't appear prominently. Short excerpts uploaded by the Joe Rogan channel appeared, but we know it was frustrating for users looking to find the full video. We've worked to resolve this and viewers will begin seeing the full podcast in more YouTube search results soon.

While Rogan indicated that the censorship was unmistakable, he expressed openness to the possibility that rather than an institutional effort on the part of Google to once again interfere for the ostensible benefit of Democrats, "it could have been like some rogue engineer. There's a lot of people that are working behind the scenes."

According to OpenSecrets, individuals at Google's parent company, Alphabet, have donated over $2.2 million to the Harris campaign this election cycle, as well as $1.6 million to the Harris super PAC Future Forward USA and millions more to congressional and Senate Democrats.

Google has also been accused in recent months of manipulating the autocomplete feature for its search engine to suppress information about Donald Trump. An attorney for Alphabet Inc. admitted to Congress in August that the autocomplete tool for its search function hid results about an ActBlue donor's attempt on Trump's life in Pennsylvania.

Earlier this year, Google also reportedly killed a pro-Trump ad for a supposed "policy violation."

"I think they're desperate because they had no idea it was going to be that popular," said Rogan. "It's a runaway train, and they hate it because ideologically they're opposed to the idea of him being more popular."

BlazeTV host Steve Deace recently underscored the social and political significance of the interview, writing, "The benefit of this interview for candidate Trump could be equivalent to the largest and most expensive media ad buy in political history — something unattainable given the resources and precise messaging required to pull it off effectively."

Rogan suggested that leftists largely control "these massive media distribution companies like YouTube or Facebook. They're massive companies. They have so much influence on everything. And they didn't like that this one was slipping away."

Google's antipathy for Trump is likely not all ideological. In 2020, Trump signed an executive order with the aim of limiting legal protections for social media companies and signaled a desire to implement new regulations on Big Tech.

"Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube wield immense, if not unprecedented, power to shape the interpretation of public events; to censor, delete, or disappear information; and to control what people see or do not see," wrote Trump. "As President, I have made clear my commitment to free and open debate on the internet."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'60 Minutes' omits critical details about 'misinformation expert' otherwise painted as victimized researcher



CBS News' "60 Minutes" recently boosted the grievances of activists who fancy themselves online narrative curators, including so-called "misinformation expert" Kate Starbird, the cofounder of the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public.

The liberal news network framed Starbird as a defender of truth and a victim of conservative criticism but failed to mention critical biographic information about the so-called expert, namely that she's a partisan who has taken money from the Biden administration and is named as a defendant in an ongoing legal battle over censorship.

The beleaguered academic

"60 Minutes" introduced Starbird as "a professor at the University of Washington, a former professional basketball player, and a leader of a misinformation research group created ahead of the 2020 election."

The dribbling academic complained to host Lesley Stahl that X has not responded to or heeded more than 30% of her censorial outfit's suggestions — "and on the majority of those, they put labels."

Additionally, she claimed that conservatives disproportionately push "misinformation" online, insinuating further that they have a stake in combating her fact-checking efforts and have sought to intimidate both her and her team.

"This campaign against you is meant to discredit you so we won't believe you," said Stahl.

"Absolutely. And it's interesting that the people that pushed voter fraud lies are some of the same people that are trying to discredit researchers that are trying to understand the problem," said Starbird.

"60 Minutes" leaned on Starbird's claims in the episode to later suggest that while conservatives bemoan censorship of speech online, they simultaneously seek to "chill the research" of benevolent academics such as Starbird.

X, formerly Twitter, only responded to 30% of the notes from researchers flagging misinformation in posts, says Kate Starbird, the leader of a misinformation research group. https://t.co/yCfxH64hAU
— (@)

The censorious partisan

The liberal news outfit neglected to mention that Starbird is a radical partisan, a Biden donor, and a recipient of Biden administration grants who has collaborated with the Biden Department of Homeland Security on efforts to shut down speech deemed undesirable by the powers that be.

The Daily Caller highlighted that Starbird ran lead on a narrative-curing project that secured $2.25 million from the National Science Foundation in August 2021. The stated purpose of the initiative was to "study ways to apply collaborative, rapid-response research to mitigate online disinformation."

Upon receipt of the grant, Starbird said in a statement, "Working to advance scientific understanding of online disinformation, this research will develop and evaluate 'rapid response' methods for studying and communicating about disinformation at a sophistication and pace on par with the dynamic and interdisciplinary nature of the challenge."

Starbird was named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed last year by Jim Hoft of the Gateway Pundit and Jill Hines, codirector of the conservative Health Freedom Louisiana group, whose criticism of mask wearing was suppressed on Facebook. Starbird is also referenced in Murthy v. Missouri, the case concerning the Biden administration's efforts to have Americans censored online now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Hoft and Hines' complaint alleged that Starbird and other personnel from her organization were involved in "probably the largest mass-surveillance and mass-censorship program in American history — the so-called 'Election Integrity Partnership' and 'Virality Project.'"

The complaint further claimed that Starbird's UW lab secured the aforementioned $2.25 million grant "just months after Starbird's lab helped censor the Biden Administration's political adversary during the 2020 election."

Starbird served as a member of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency Cybersecurity Advisory Committee. She apparently also ran lead on the CISA task force "Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Misinformation and Disinformation."

CISA, a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is accused along with other prongs of the Biden administration in Murthy v. Missouri of violating Americans' First Amendment rights online.

Last year, Mike Benz, executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, shared a video from Starbird detailing how to kill or curate narratives on Twitter.

— (@)

In her interview with "60 Minutes," Starbird regurgitated many of the talking points advanced by the Biden administration in its fight to keep leaning on social media companies to censor dissenting voices online.

"It's interesting that the people that pushed voter fraud lies are some of the same people that are trying to discredit researchers that are trying to understand the problem," said Starbird.

The bespectacled researcher is not only sympathetic to the Democratic administration's clampdown on undesirable speech online but also a fan of the man in the White House.

The Daily Caller noted that Starbird donated to then-candidate Joe Biden's presidential campaign in 2020.

Extra to signing checks for the Biden campaign and the Biden Victory Fund, Starbird has poured cash into ActBlue and other leftist causes, according to Federal Election Commission records.

The Caller indicated that "60 Minutes" did not respond to requests for comment.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) responded to Starbird's interview, writing, "Missouri v. Biden exposed this. 'Misinformation Researchers' are part of the Vast Censorship Enterprise. No tax dollars to these wannabe authoritarians."

Trump advisor Stephen Miller's America First Legal noted, "Irony Alert: CBS is guilty of rank disinformation in this interview. They use Kate Starbird as their 'expert' ... but they don't tell you that Starbird is the defendant in our lawsuit alleging a vast scheme to silence speech and deprive Americans of their fundamental civil rights."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Congress Must Stop The Executive Branch’s Heinous Attempts To Censor Americans

To protect free speech, Congress must prohibit the government’s collusion with big tech and other media organizations.

‘Misinformation’ Is The Vocabulary Of A Culture That Has Lost Its Capacity To Discuss ‘Truth’

The perversion of truth is falsehood; misinformation is just the perversion of information.

Democratic Sens. Bennet and Welch seek to create new federal agency that would regulate speech and behavior online



Undeterred by the American people's rejection of the Biden administration's Orwellian disinformation governance board last year, leftist Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) are seeking to form a new federal agency to regulate speech and behavior online.

How has it been pitched?

The Democratic senators introduced an updated version of Bennet's 2022 "Digital Platform Commission Act" on May 18, which would grow the state, further interfere with Americans' interpersonal engagements online, regulate speech, and altogether police digital platforms.

Bennet said in a statement, "We should follow the long precedent in American history of empowering an expert body to protect the public interest through common sense rules and oversight for complex and powerful sectors of the economy."
The Colorado leftist likened the proposed Federal Digital Platform Commission to the extant Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Nancy Watzman, advisor at the Colorado Media Project, indicated this latest statist venture might serve as a remedy for undesirable speech online, noting "misinformation about the pandemic, public health, elections and more are polluting our online spaces and having real-world negative impacts in our communities."

"Stronger oversight institutions, such as the commission proposed in the Digital Platform Commission Act of 2022, have the potential to strengthen the government’s capacity to promote safe, just, and innovative digital products," said Scott Babwah Brennen, head of online expression policy at the Center on Technology Policy, UNC-Chapel Hill.

"It’s time to establish an independent agency to provide comprehensive oversight of social media companies," added Welch.

What does the bill say?

Bennet outlined some of the digital problems he reckons tomorrow's unelected technocrats could remedy, including "the collapse of trusted local journalism"; "harms to the mental health of the people of the United States"; "disinformation and hate speech"; and digital platforms "radicalizing individuals to violence."

To address these supposed problems, the bill deems it necessary for the FDPC to be "equipped with the authorities, tools, and expertise to regulate digital platforms to ensure their operations remain consistent, where appropriate, with the public interest."

The FDPC would comprise five commissioners, all appointed by President Joe Biden and approved by the Democrat-dominated U.S. Senate. Each commissar would get a five-year term or hold on to power until the confirmation of a successor.

The hypothetical FDPC would establish a "Code Council," which would in turn develop "proposed voluntary or enforceable behavioral codes, technical standards, or other policies" for social media sites and other digital platforms.

This council of 18 members would include several "disinformation" experts.

It is unclear whether these disinformation councilmen would clamp down on communications undesirable to the state or actual false claims as well — such as Sen. Bennet's suggestion on Twitter in 2019 that Jussie Smollett was the victim of a "despicable attack," which the Colorado Democrat linked to homophobia and racism.

The commission would also wield authority to impose rules on digital platforms that it has designated "systemically important."

For instance, if Biden-appointed commissars aren't pleased with how Elon Musk is running Twitter, they might determine that his platform is "systemically important," designate it as such, then impose upon it whatever rules it can get away with.

After all, Twitter, like Meta and other big platforms, would satisfy all of the mandatory criteria stated in the bill.

The FDPC would ultimately be conferred the power not only to investigate the management of the business of digital platforms but the power to extract from businesses and "from persons directly or indirectly controlling or controlled by, or under direct or indirect control with, those platforms full and complete information necessary, including data flows."

It appears as though the commission would work in unison with other coercive arms of the state when imposing or curing undefined "democratic values" online.

Extra to the host of new taxpayer-funded regulators, the commission "may recruit and train volunteers to help monitor violations of this Act or regulation."

Harmeet K. Dhillon, a lawyer and former Republican National Committeewoman, tweeted, "This is unconstitutional, also evil and stupid," adding, "How stupid do you need to be, in America, to introduce legislation that violates the Constitution?"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

If Augustus Gloop Can’t Be ‘Fat,’ What’s The Point Of Roald Dahl’s Kids’ Books?

Evil springs from the human heart, not from Roald Dahl describing characters as fat or ugly.

If You Don’t Buy Conservative Art, Ruthless Leftists Will Ensure Nobody Can

Conservatives must put their money where their mouths are and support conservative artists so leftists can't ruin their lives.