It was at the annual Sacramento Bible Conference in early August when a YouTube live stream of Dr. Carl Trueman’s speech abruptly ended. The fact that he was in the middle of his arguments, or that many were tuned in, didn’t seem to matter. The reason for this occurrence?
Content violation.
Trueman was lecturing on the topics covered in his new book, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, an in-depth historical analysis of the sexual revolution and LGBTQ ideology. He makes both nuanced and controversial claims about the modern self — its fascination with sexual identity and inward exploration. His audience, a mostly Christian conservative crowd, was undoubtedly intrigued, but apparently not so the so-called “internet trolls” watching online. In the middle of his speech, the live stream was ended. Trueman found out a few hours later, while the conference was still progressing. There were several live streams of this talk, and the one taken down was the one that was publicly advertised.
Something doesn’t add up, though. Obviously, Dr. Trueman was not censored as a proven content-violator, as the lecture dubbed “violating” on Aug. 7 is now available on YouTube. In fact, the same material was previously delivered at a Princeton University seminar without controversy. YouTube only blocked this video livestream — why?
On their Community Guidelines page, YouTube outrightly states that their codes of conduct are enforced by their own viewers, meaning that they rely on the everyday person to report indecent and obscene videos. It seems flagging, and even more so, reporting, are the main means in YouTube taking a video down. Once a video is reported based on one of the ten reasons, YouTube staff then reviews them, and quickly, too. As they state, staffers review these reports 24 hours a day, seven days a week. So in Trueman’s case, if even one individual reports the livestream on the basis of “Hate Speech,” and if staff agree, the livestream is suspended without the accused being given benefit of the doubt. Thus, what happened on Aug. 7.
It seems the suspension of the livestream of Trueman’s talk rested on the claims of a singular individual somewhere on the internet. That means, says Trueman, “anybody with an internet stalker or two out there can be closed down,” which a particularly disturbing thought. The rise of the modern self, indeed.
Trueman is somewhat appalled, though not surprised. He’s worried, he says, about the power of Big Tech and their platforms. According to him, they are potentially “corralling and curtailing speech in ways that could have dramatic effects on the nature and scope of public debate on the most important issues of our day.”
There is no that doubt internet censorship has very exponentially increased since the 2016 election, where it was argued internet inaccuracies caused millions of voters to support Donald Trump. YouTube, Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter have never been the same since. Numerous prominent conservative, and obviously non-fascist, Twitter users have complained about their accounts being taken down or suspended, Right-wing organizations have reported deleted content or the abrupt removal of videos. The “hate” these oversight staffers claim to be combating seems to only stem from those on the Right.
As online suppression of conservative speech increases, freedom of speech principles seem to be slipping away. What is traditional is discriminatory. What is Christian is bigoted. Dr. Trueman chose a less-than-ideal time to enter the public square. But perhaps he did this on purpose.
“Now we face an era where the threat comes from private industry, and private industry with power,” Trueman said. “Economic, political, cultural, etcetera. That is hard to quantify. How we can maintain traditional freedoms, indeed, whether such is even a possibility at this point, has to be one of the most pressing issues of our day. The fate of democracy hangs in the balance.”
