If true, this is concerning. While many of Paul's views are not popular, I certainly wouldn't say they are harmful.

On another note, this seems like a questionable source. It looks like this is just a rehash of a Zero Hedge article. Zero Hedge has a clear bias, but perhaps is a better source? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-27/youtube-economicall...

At least on the surface, this seems to be a bad decision, and is consistent with a pattern of a lot of other bad decisions around demonetization. Whatever the proclivities of (the more vocal portions of) Ron Paul's fan base, the videos should be judged on their content, not on guilt-by-association. One of Paul's outlets published some racist junk decades ago, but I haven't heard of anything similar recently.

That being said, this "economically censored" rhetoric is seriously weak. There are billions of people who I don't pay to talk; am I "economically censoring" them?

What the heck? Ron Paul? The man was actively censored by Fox News when he was running for president.

He's the only person who's run for office in my lifetime that was legitimately inspiring in a substantive way; explaining policy in detail while diving into the years of policy that have come before to bandaid issues without addressing root causes and then creating bigger problems longer term despite good intentions.

He's the only politician I've ever seen that's run on a platform of root cause correction instead of "I will spend tax dollars on popular bandaids to the latest crisis" policy.

What...the heck?!

Silicon Valley's definition of "Nazi" is getting really, really flexible lately.

What is it that makes people think that private companies have any obligation whatsoever to provide an equal platform to everyone? What did you expect?

> for producing videos that dare to question the neo-liberal, globalist agenda.

Um, no. Why is this bunk on HN?

http://www.jta.org/2017/04/06/news-opinion/politics/stephen-...