Kairos v. Google

On December 12, Kairos’ lawyer delivers his conclusions in the Kairos vs Google case.

More than two years ago, in June 2021, YouTube removed our channel the Great Debatean attempt to open dialogue in the midst of Covid-19, inviting « official experts » and politicians, all of whom refused… to talk to our guests (Martin Zizi, Alexandra Henrion-Caude, Vincenzo Castronovo, Kaarle Parikka, Julie Michotte, Frédéric Goareguer, Louis Fouché).

We were contravening YouTube’s « Community Rules », as he put it? But what criteria does a content-hosting platform use to censor scientists and fieldworkers on the basis of the « rules » of a « community »? Which community? What rules? And what are the values behind a platform that claims to be a publisher (and therefore does not select the content it distributes)?

Later, while Kairos was in the midst of legal proceedings against Google, YouTube closed our channel for good, for the same reasons.

Today, the present sheds light on the past to make what we already understood at the time even more obvious: all dissenting voices had to be silenced, so that the proposed remedy (the injection known as a « vaccine ») would appear miraculous and create the illusion of consensus.

Yet who today can still believe that YouTube-Google-Alphabet cared about the common good above all else? Whereas giving it the utmost importance would have meant letting every word be heard. Because what ultimately contributes more to the common good than freedom of expression?

It’s clear today that YouTube was an essential propaganda tool in Covid’s official narrative, and that in this task of content editor, the platform had to censor a medium like Kairos. As a result, by depriving people of information, it has necessarily influenced their behavior, whereas they might have acted differently if they had heard other voices.

Given the many known side effects of vaccines, including premature death, stroke, heart attack, turbo cancer… these choices could have been fatal.

We will always respect the journalist’s first duty, as set out in the Munich Charter: « To respect the truth, whatever the consequences for oneself, because of the public’s right to know the truth ».

What is at stake in this trial is nothing less than the freedom of the press and the right to freedom of expression, which must be pushed to its highest point in order to allow, in the words of George Orwell, to « tell others what they don’t want to hear ». In this respect, it’s easy to understand why vaccine manufacturers and their propaganda departments have no interest in freedom of the press and freedom of expression, which could be detrimental to their marketing strategy, and therefore displeasing to shareholders.

Thank you to our supporters!

Long live the free press!