[RandomTisk]

My bad, here's a better link. It's hard to find a "mainstream" source because most of the old media is ignoring a lot of newsworthy items these days.

https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/02/13/rand-paul-blasts-y...

It's widely known that Google/Youtube took down any videos where the name of the supposed whistleblower were being mentioned, at least according to a lot of regular content creators who had videos deleted or shadow banned.

[zimpenfish]

> Google/Youtube took down any videos where the name of the supposed whistleblower were being mentioned

Presumably because they didn't want to be exposed to the legal ramifications of broadcasting a crime?

[Thorrez]

Broadcasting a crime is illegal?

[zimpenfish]

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/08/politics/legal-question-o...

> According to the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the disclosure of a whistleblower's name could be a criminal offense if it is intentional, unauthorized and "the United States is taking affirmative measures to conceal the covert agent's foreign intelligence relationship to the United States."

But as many pages about the Whistleblower Act will tell you, this kind of thing is uncharted territory and presumably the exact kind of uncharted territory that gives expensive lawyers for large media companies extreme willies.

[iso947]

Think about why the only sources you can find are those which Wikipedia says

“The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories.”

[jexah]

Remembering that Wikipedia is also heavily biased.

[opnitro]

Yes, however Brietbart used to have a section called "Black Crime"

[RandomTisk]

Link? Also, a major political party used to be pro-slavery, so acknowledging and removing mistakes should be considered a good thing.