40 petitions

Update posted 2 hours ago

Petition to Google, Inc, YouTube, Sundar Pichai

Fire Susan Wojcicki as YouTube CEO

Since February 2014, Susan Wojcicki became Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of YouTube, which is part of Google. Under her leadership things started to went downhill and caused the reputation of YouTube and Google from the copyright controversy to the 2016 controversial YouTube PR Nightmare known as The Ad-Friendly Monetization Policy which was severely criticized by various YouTubers that the new rules censors and silenced YouTubers' freedom of speech and their platforms by demonetizing YouTube videos that deals with controversial subjects (like tragedies, natural disasters, politics, health, and etc.) and YouTubers loved Freedom Of Speech, but the new Ad-Friendly Monetization rules are still a dire form of Censorship by TPTB at Google and YouTube. The current Ad-Friendly Monetization Policy is still unfair to YouTubers. We also want that policy abolished or changed for the better. The controversial Ad-Friendly Policy at YouTube is one of the few reasons YouTube went downhill and turn for the worse and into the wrong direction. The PR Nightmare has to be fixed, make YouTube and Google go into the right direction by having common sense rules like No Tolerance Policy on YouTube Trolls, False Flagging, and censoring music just like Internet Vigilantes like UMG_MK trying to do a witch hunt on removing YouTube videos of songs by The Beatles. We want YouTube and Google go into the right direction and fire YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki and Make YouTube Great Again!

Spencer Karter
22,833 supporters
Update posted 4 weeks ago

Petition to Lydia Polgreen

Tell the HuffPost to Restore My Censored Article

As a longtime contributor to the Huffington Post I posted an article about Russia-gate to the site on November 4. Within 24 hours it was retracted. I have never heard from Huffington Post editors about this decision. As a reporter for mainstream media for more than two decades, including almost seven years at the Wall Street Journal, six years at the Boston Globe and ten years for the Sunday Times of London, I know that a newsroom rule is that before an article is retracted the writer is contacted to be allowed to defend her or his work. This never happened. There was no due process. An email I wrote to a HuffPost editor asking why it was retracted was ignored.  I can now only conclude that the decision was not for editorial, but for political reasons.  Like the word fascism, censorship is over-used and mis-used, and I avoid using it. But I can come to no other conclusion than that this is an act of political censorship. I am non-partisan as I oppose both major parties. I am a reporter who follows the facts where they lead. And they lead to an understanding that the Jan. 6 intelligence “assessment” on alleged Russian interference in the election was based on opposition research, not serious intelligence work. I captured a pdf of the censored article here: I've received a lot of support since the censorship became known. Ron Paul interviewed me about it on his TV show, The Liberty Report.  Journalists Tariq Ali, Max Blumenthal, Margaret Kimberley, Sam Husseini and Pepe Escobar have shared it on social media. Pepe said I "killed" the story. Peter Lavelle, host of CrossTalk, asked me about it on the show. ZeroHedge wrote a widely-read piece about it, Mike Whitney referenced it on CounterPunch, and former CIA-analyst Ray McGovern kicked it all off by first exposing the censorship on his blog. Someone actually took the time, 27 minutes and 13 seconds to be exact, to read the entire article on YouTube. Here is my interview with Ron Paul And with Peter Lavelle (other guests are Tim Black and Steve Malzberg) Anyone of course is free to disagree with my interpretation and analysis of the facts, but not with the facts themselves. Disagreement with a point of view is not grounds for retraction. It is the very essence of censorship. Lydia Polgreen, editor-in-chief of the HuffPost, can be reached at Ask her to either explain why the article was retracted or to restore it to the HuffPost.  My email address is

Joe Lauria
3,492 supporters
Started 1 month ago

Petition to Mayor of Temple: Danny Dunn, City Council Member Susan Long, City Council Member Mike Pilkington, City Council Member Judy Morales, Mayor Pro-Tem Tim Davis, City Manager Brynn Myers, Library Director Leigh Gardner, Alesia Dawson, Paula Ortiz Hendy, Robert Curtis, Meg Pitrucha, Evelyn Cockrell, Joyce Adams, Stacie Kline, Petara Monroe-Woodberry

Protect the Temple Public Library's right to display information!

An Overview:Following a protest of informational displays about the LGBT community at the Temple Public Library, city officials in Temple, Texas are working on writing a policy governing the display of books and other information at the public library. The policy will also include criteria that subject matter would be required to meet as well as a process for gaining approval for informational displays. Tell library and city officials in Temple to protect the library staff's right to provide information about the LGBT community. The Story:The Temple Public Library, like all public libraries, is a safe, inclusive space designed to provide information to all members of the community. In June of 2017, the library set up two displays with information about the LGBT community. A bulletin board with information was on display for a month, and a book display with a book list of LGBT themed books was on display for a week. The displays garnered more positive than negative reactions from the public until two months later in October when a local branch of an activist group called Concerned Christian Citizens sought to discourage library officials from supporting the LGBT community at the quarterly meeting of the library board. Protesters spoke against the displays, suggesting that they promoted a "deviant" lifestyle and requesting that information about the immoral nature of the LGBT community also be displayed in the library. The Facts:Article II of the American Library Association's Library Bill of Rights states that "materials should not be proscribed or removed because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval" and article III says "libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment." The ALA website offers further interpretation of these articles with regard to bulletin boards and displays saying that "libraries should not shrink from developing exhibits because of controversial content." To put into policy or practice any guidelines that inhibit a librarian's ability to provide information to the public or to allow for the censorship of such information through an arduous approval process would go against the ALA's guidelines.The American Library Association's Office for Diversity, Literacy, and Outreach Services assists librarians "in creating responsible and all-inclusive spaces that serve the entire community" while ensuring that resources are made available to traditionally underrepresented groups. The ODLOS outlines traditionally underrepresented groups to include "gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people" among others. Notably missing from the list are religious groups or activist groups. The ALA states that the LGBT community's "access to libraries may be limited or prohibited by many issues including...materials [that] can often be censored under partisan or doctrinal disapproval, environments which are not welcoming or inclusive of GLBT people..., and programs which do not address the GLBT experience." Stifling the representation of the LGBT community or pairing representation with information from religious or activist groups which might slander this community would contradict librarians' efforts to create a safe, inclusive space that provides information to the entire community.

Roxann Patrick
3,077 supporters