Corporate culture is going to have biases. These biases are not, as a rule, going to be, "far left," biases.
That video you posted tries to paint a picture of some light conspiracy where YouTube uses the ADL as a citation, and most people on the board of the ADL gave to he Democratic Party.
This a, "far left," ideology does not make. Saying the Democrats are, "far left," is like Saying Paul Ryan is Adolf Hitler. It's an absurd overreaction only a stupid child would make.
As someone who
is far left, I'll tell you that you're reacting negatively to capitalism and then assigning the far left to be in charge of capitalism, no doubt because your masters have told you that they couldn't possibly be the cause of their own actions.
This broad concern the right has about their culture being modified by an outside source that they are alienated from is something Marx was explaining more than a century ago. In the most basic manifesto put out about it, it still makes an appearance:
Marx and Engels wrote:The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
...The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
It is the nature of capitalism to take these things reactionaries and rightwingers hold dear and destroy them. You can be sad about it all you want, but this is the world we live in and have been living in. Your culture, your norms, your everything else have been substituted for that of the capitalist--in this case Google who has all the power.
To go a step further, the work that has been put into creating these videos is something that you have become alienated from because of the nature of private property, the foundation of the tyranny of the capitalist mode of production. What reactionaries are whining about so far as YouTube is concerned is true for every form of labour under capitalism. The work you put into it belongs to someone else now, and you become alienated from the videos you made:
Marx wrote:My work would be a free manifestation of life, hence an enjoyment of life. Presupposing private property, my work is an alienation of life, for I work in order to live, in order to obtain for myself the means of life. My work is not my life.
Secondly, the specific nature of my individuality, therefore, would be affirmed in my labour, since the latter would be an affirmation of my individual life. Labour therefore would be true, active property. Presupposing private property, my individuality is alienated to such a degree that this activity is instead hateful to me, a torment, and rather the semblance of an activity. Hence, too, it is only a forced activity and one imposed on me only through an external fortuitous need, not through an inner, essential one.
My labour can appear in my object only as what it is. It cannot appear as something which by its nature it is not. Hence it appears only as the expression of my loss of self and of my powerlessness that is objective, sensuously perceptible, obvious and therefore put beyond all doubt.[4]
For those of us on the far left, this is of course tragic. Though there is some satisfaction in watching the rightwing hacks that were so proud of their special snowflake feelings come to realize that they too are trapped within capitalism's net.
The result is so predictable as to as have happened before, even in Marx's time:
Marx wrote:As monosyllabic on the platform as in the press. Flat as a riddle whose answer is known in advance. Whether it was a question of the right of petition or the tax on wine, freedom of the press or free trade, the clubs or the municipal charter, protection of personal liberty or regulation of the state budget, the watchword constantly recurs, the theme remains always the same, the verdict is ever ready and invariably reads: "Socialism!" Even bourgeois liberalism is declared socialistic, bourgeois enlightenment socialistic, bourgeois financial reform socialistic. It was socialistic to build a railway where a canal already existed, and it was socialistic to defend oneself with a cane when one was attacked with a rapier.
This was not merely a figure of speech, fashion, or party tactics. The bourgeoisie had a true insight into the fact that all the weapons it had forged against feudalism turned their points against itself, that all the means of education it had produced rebelled against its own civilization, that all the gods it had created had fallen away from it. It understood that all the so-called bourgeois liberties and organs of progress attacked and menaced its class rule at its social foundation and its political summit simultaneously, and had therefore become "socialistic." In this menace and this attack it rightly discerned the secret of socialism, whose import and tendency it judges more correctly than so-called socialism knows how to judge itself; the latter can, accordingly, not comprehend why the bourgeoisie callously hardens its heart against it, whether it sentimentally bewails the sufferings of mankind, or in Christian spirit prophesies the millennium and universal brotherly love, or in humanistic style twaddles about mind, education, and freedom, or in doctrinaire fashion invents a system for the conciliation and welfare of all classes. What the bourgeoisie did not grasp, however, was the logical conclusion that its own parliamentary regime, its political rule in general, was now also bound to meet with the general verdict of condemnation as being socialistic.
This is the far left solution: the violent and bloody overthrow of the capitalist order and establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
You're whining because capitalism didn't benefit you in every way, and looking for anybody to blame started flailing at any enemy you could think of, even if it didn't make any sense in your own propaganda.
Some threads going right now are condemning the Democrats as the far-right Ku Klux Klan. In the same breath, they're Illuminati in a conspiracy to help the Elders of Zion; and a page later they are closet communists opposed to both. IN reality, of course, they are none of these things. They are, like the Republicans, lumbering bourgeois interests seeking to perfect the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie--just based on free trade instead of protection at the moment.
In absolutely no way does this make them a "Far left," party. Nor does it make Google a, "far left," party.
Alis Volat Propriis; Tiocfaidh ár lá; Proletarier Aller Länder, Vereinigt Euch!