YouTube De-Ranks Democratic Candidate Tulsi Gabbard

On Tuesday, Steven Crowder (host of Louder with Crowder daily show) broke a story regarding Democratic candidate Tulsi Gabbard’s YouTube channel. Crowder broadcasted from his livestream and laid out allegations that YouTube is meddling in the US election process. Gabbard is a bit different from the other candidates because she is slightly more moderate, served in the military, doesn’t hate America and has called for some restrictions on abortion. She is one of the only sane voices in the Democratic primary.

The Louder with Crowder team captured evidence on last Friday that Gabbard’s YouTube channel was actively being de-ranked. This came one day after the Democratic debate, when Gabbard was being searched in high volume on Google. Hillary Clinton attacked Gabbard, claimed she is an “asset of the Russians” and is being groomed to run third party. Gabbard struck back on Twitter, lambasting Clinton for being the “embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long . . . ” The team ran side by side tests with one VPN set to the United States search results and the other to Spain search results. Gabbard’s channel did not show up in the search results for the United States, but appeared prominently in the Spain search results. One interesting thing happened: once the story of Hillary Clinton’s character assassination on Gabbard died down late into the weekend . . . the results came back to normal.

Crowder has documented (and been verified by undercover investigations by Project Veritas) that manual de-ranking and manipulation of search results happens within Google, Facebook and YouTube. If these allegations are true, YouTube is attempting to divert attention from the slightly moderate, non-establishment Democratic candidate, Tulsi Gabbard, in order to protect the establishment powerhouse, Hillary Clinton. This has severe implications for the 2020 elections. How far will big tech and large companies go to sway public opinion? Are they colluding with someone? What corporate interests are served by manipulating results?

I wrote an in-depth piece back in June on social media and big tech censorship of conservative voices – it’s worth revisiting. Big tech believes they have a moral imperative to dictate what is “truth” and “acceptable.” They are wrong.

Here is the original post by Louder with Crowder.

PC: National Review.