Google, YouTube Told Their Denials About Censorship are Not Credible

On Friday, National Legal and Policy Center presented a proposal at Alphabet Inc.‘s annual shareholder meeting that would require the company to produce a report that “review[s] the vulnerabilities of its enforcement” of its Terms of Service related to content policies on its Google and YouTube platforms. In other words, the risks the company faces due to its censorship practices.

The company’s board of directors opposed our proposal, as explained on pages 98-100 in its proxy statement.

Speaking as sponsor of the resolution was Paul Chesser, director of NLPC’s Corporate Integrity Project. A transcript of his three-minute remarks, which you can listen to here, follows:

Well, here we are a year later, and the incidents of bias and censorship I brought up at last year’s Alphabet meeting in support of that version of our transparency proposal have only been further confirmed, with more evidence that has come to light.


With only three minutes to speak, I won’t address those again, so visit to learn more about what I said.


The reason I won’t revisit those is because now there is an even greater volume of bias and censorship evidence at Alphabet since a year ago.


I have a 15-page document on my laptop of just links to examples of Alphabet’s rampant and vicious practices of suppression, demonetization and de-platforming.


Alphabet opposes our proposal by saying it has “safeguards in place” to prevent “improper bias.”


So how do Google and YouTube define “PROPER bias?”


There is a lot more that can be read between the lines of Alphabet’s opposition statement.


I will give several examples:


1. The Company says, “We enforce our policies consistently.”


I would agree with that – Alphabet consistently censors conservatives, Christians, and skeptics of government propaganda.


2. The Company says, “We have a rigorous quality assurance process for all cases…”


Yes, we all can see how rigorously YouTube enforced its bias against the likes of Matt Walsh, Steven Crowder, Jordan Peterson, medical experts who spoke truth about COVID, and many others whom Google and YouTube silenced.


3. The Company says, “We carefully evaluate decisions to remove or de-monetize websites and content on our services and seek to harmonize the application of our policies across those services.”


I am certain that Google and YouTube eagerly make such evaluations, and considering the Company’s billions of dollars in contracts with state and local governments, have happily censored those who don’t adhere to the government narrative.


4. The Company says, “Our business model depends on our services providing a useful and trustworthy source of information for all our users.”


Google and YouTube’s determination of what is “useful and trustworthy” depends on the desired goals and outcomes, which don’t align with advocates for free speech.


Alphabet has proven itself as a company to be entirely un-trustworthy.


The Company gaslights shareholders by telling them how transparent it is about its censorship practices, when it is nothing of the sort.


Alphabet’s biased censorship decisions are perhaps illustrated most by YouTube’s shuttering of a channel that satirized Chinese Communist dictator Xi Jinping, and restricting a documentary critical of Disney.


I can’t think of two more perfect bedfellows for Alphabet: oppressive China and delusional Disney.


Please vote FOR Proposal Number 14.

Read NLPC’s shareholder proposal for the Alphabet Inc. annual meeting here.

Listen to Chesser’s three-minute remarks in support of the proposal here.




Tags: Alphabet, censorship, Google, shareholder activism, YouTube