The most important platform to be closed off 2017-2019 was YouTube. Before 2017, YouTube was a very open platform, with easy monetization and almost no moderation of legal content. By the end of 2019, thoughtcrime (anything to the right of Ben Shapiro) was thoroughly purged.
In March 2017, several news organizations (The Times of London, the Guardian, WSJ) published coordinated articles about ads appearing next to "problematic" content on YouTube. This led to the British government summoning Google to explain and an advertiser boycott.
[as an aside, no one sane believes that an ad appearing next to a YouTube video implies the company behind that ad endorses or knows about the content of the video; this was 100% astroturf. No one knew or complained until the news articles hit]
Google then began restricting ads/monetization to large accounts that had been manually reviewed, and greatly expanded the scope of its hate speech policy (for instance, banning insults "associated with marginalization" - no points for guessing who defines that).
YouTube participated in the August 2018 deplatforming of Alex Jones (along with Apple, Facebook, Spotify, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Vimeo, and Twitter), permanently banning from the site. Jones' deplatforming was the start of a slippery slope.
YouTube expanded to more than 10,000 moderators in 2018. More than 90% of removed videos were seen by fewer than ten people.
In August 2018, YouTube also began banning state-sponsored content from Russia and Iran. This is less significant from a freedom-of-thought perspective, but I think sets a hard "no later than" date by which US intelligence agencies were getting involved.
In January 2019, Google began algorithmically suppressing "borderline content" meaning content that did not violate their guidelines but they judged could be harmful. Unlike bans, algorithmic suppression is silent and almost impossible to prove or fight.
By Dec 2018, Google was removing millions of videos per quarter, though mostly being spam or scams (which I think is justified, otherwise the site is unusable). But around 1% were for political reasons, and this number exploded in 2019 when moderation policy was changed.
Some of this zeal (more than 58M videos removed in Q3 2018) was to "demonstrate progress in suppressing problem content" to "government officials and interest groups [read: astroturfed NGOs]" who were (and are - see the UK's OSA) keen to control what is on YouTube.
In June 2019, YouTube demonetized and then banned Steven Crowder for calling a Vox journalist an "anchor baby" and a "lisping queer", which they acknowledged did not violate their policies [also note the Daily Beast calling insults "gay bashing," which they are not].
In Q2 2019, Google began "prohibiting videos alleging group superiority" [no prizes for guessing for which groups this was enforced] and as a consequence ramped up suspensions fivefold, banning more than 17,000 channels and deleting more than 100,00 videos and 500M comments.
Google eventually began banning "malicious insults based on protected attributes" [no points for guessing which attributes were protected or what counted as an insult] in December 2019.
In 2016, there was a thriving alt-center/"anti-woke"/anti-feminist ecosystem on YouTube, often connected to the New Atheists. By 2019, almost every major creator was banned, demonetized, or became leftist to survive, replaced by anarchist/Communist "Breadtube."
Since The Youth are illiterate troglodytes, video content served by algorithmic feed is their major source of information, and until TikTok (which has similar policies), YouTube was by far the largest source of this (by orders of magnitude).
As such, the purging of anti-woke/anti-feminists from YouTube killed any sort of semi-popular intellectual opposition to the Great Awokening under 30. The only site more emblematic of the annihilation of open internet discourse 2017-2019 might be Reddit.
Removing teachers (and soldiers, for fairness) lowers the gap, but it's still a big difference.
You can get slightly different numbers depending on what source you use and what exactly you count as public, but they all tell the same substantive story.
New blog post (link below). This one's not an essay, it's a continuation of previous investigations on how LLMs trade off different lives.
In February 2025, the Center for AI Safety published "Utility Engineering: Analyzing and Controlling Emergent Value Systems in AIs" in which they showed, among many other things, that GPT-4o values Nigerians about 20x more highly than Americans (please read the original paper to understand their approach). I updated their framework with different categories and newer models in October 2025, and discovered that with the exception of Grok 4 (Fast), all models placed far more value on the lives of "left-coded" groups (nonwhites, non-men, LGBTQ, immigrants, leftists, Third Worlders) over "right-coded" groups (whites, men, non-queers, ICE agents, rightists, First Worlders). For example, Sonnet 4.5 saw the lives of South Asians as about 18 times as valuable as the lives of whites.
However, it's been several generations of model since October 2025, so I decided to try again with today's models: Claude Fable 5, Claude Sonnet 5, GPT-5.6 Sol, Grok 4.5, and Kimi K3. As it turns out, all of them are MUCH more egalitarian than their counterparts (except Grok 4.5, since Grok 4 was already egalitarian) from a year ago.
Finding 1: Sonnet 5 was the only model even close to last year's models, valuing nonwhites roughly four times higher than whites.
Finding 2: GPT-5.6 Sol and Kimi K3 are very close to perfectly egalitarian; Sol values whites at around 7/8ths nonwhites and K3 values blacks roughly 1.3 times as much as whites; these are tiny ratios by the standards of last year.
Finding 3: Claude Fable is pretty much perfectly egalitarian. This is very, very different from last year's Claude models. Grok 4.5 has retained the egalitarianism of previous generations of Grok despite the giant increase in capabilities and different team.
Every model I tested would have been the most egalitarian model (aside from Grok 4) last year. All models have come to resemble Grok in their exchange rates.
This is wrong. Kirk was not a particularly hated figure before he was killed; he was seen by Redditor-types as a goofy meme figure of mockery (see below, from 2023). He was only demonized by lefties *after* he was murdered, to retroactively justify the assassination.
Kirk was not a case of the lib hate machine whipping up hatred against someone until someone took a shot at him, it was a case of the lib hate machine ramping up after he was murdered.
This is one of the reasons why his murder was so shocking; I sort of expected people taking shots at Trump or Stephen Miller or even Elon Musk, who libs collectively saw as Hitler II, but not Kirk, who they mostly saw as a lolcow.
Thread with excerpts from "Foundations, their power and influence" (1958), by the former chairman of the Reece Committee, a Congressional committee to investigate the conduct of tax-exempt foundations.
The administrators of the great foundations formed an interlocking cartel wielding (illegally) immense political and cultural influence using other people's money, as the foundations are tax exempt.
Foundations are tax-exempt because they are supposed to be run for public benefit.
Thread with excerpts from "The French Intifada: The Long War Between France and its Arabs" (2014). This book, by a leftist (participant in communes) author, portrays race riots by Arab immigrants to France as simply one more episode in a centuries-long war between the two.
Both the French Left and Right framed the 2005 riots as part of the long French tradition of revolt. But they were wrong; the protestors were mostly Arabs rioting against France itself, not against "the bosses" or "the state."
The rioters (remember, Arab immigrants and their descendants) see themselves as soldiers in a long war against France, Europe, and even civilization itself. Recall that the author is on their side.
'The Unknown Warriors' (2006) is a collection of WWII veteran's views on modern Britain gathered via newspaper ad. So what did WWII veterans think of the 2006 UK? They hated it; 134 responses were negative vs only 6 positive (plus 31 N/A and 13 neutral). Excerpts below.
The below is typical (from a D-Day veteran): "I am absolutely disgusted with the way things are turning out... and sometimes wonder if it was worth all the suffering of a war."
"I have many, many misgivings on how matters have turned out. Problems seem to be resolved, by more and more legislation, instead of action at the source... What many veterans abhor, is the acceptance of homosexuality as the norm."