Big Tech Censorship of the Anonymous

By Rich Kozlovich

First off, I think in order to be reasonable and honest, we need to appreciate what Google's Blogger has done for free speech, and the opportunity to present alternative views to the "acceptable" narratives by politicians, the regime media, and talking heads.

When I first started Paradigms and Demographics it was my second blog.  My first was Green Notes, which I used for one year, and only did so because I had created a weekly E-Mail newsletter of the same name that went out to people involved with the pest control industry, and did so in order to link articles of my own.  All this was strictly a "green issues" newsletter and blog in defense of pesticide users. 

I deleted my Green Notes blog, and stopped the weekly newsletter, and started Paradigms and Demographics in 2007, maintaining my "green only" restrictions.  But as time went by I realized I couldn't discuss "green issues" without discussing leftism, and those who promote leftist views.  So I  changed P&D from a "green issues only" blog to a "pro-humanity" blog.  Why?  Because it became clear to me "green" is the spear point of leftist intrusion into the lives of human beings.  And, make no mistake, using the word spear is the correct term because leftism is irrational, misanthropic, morally defective, deadly, and evil. 

As of 5:37 AM today, I've published 35,854 articles or links to articles, and almost all of them were in refutation to the leftist narratives of the moment.  I've been given permission to publish great articles by a number of prominent writers who are in harmony with my views.  Here is the link to My Commentaries,  and while this is still a work in progress, you can see I've published a lot of material that's in opposition to the "acceptable narratives".  

Until the last couple of years, I've had no issues with any of that being published.  Then I accidentally discovered an old article that was years old, was "unpublished", and no notice was sent.  Apparently over the last couple of years it appears I've picked up my own personal censor at Blogger, and for those who aren't aware, Blogger owns the Blogger blogs.  

I originally published this article, Okay, Let's Try and Get This Right Once and For All: Biden Was Elected Through Voter Fraud, on October 31, 2022, but nine months later someone at Blogger decided this article offended "their community standards", and removed it from the site, stating I had to make changes in order for it to be republished.  What changes?  No one says.  What community standard did I violate?  No one says. 

Every site should have a "community standards" policy, so I actually applaud that, but the "community standards" for Blogger, Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, who kicked me out, which I cover here, here, and here, can only be defined as ambiguous, allowing for vast interpretations, and and I wonder how much conflict goes on in the background at these sites. 

At any rate, I protested their decision, and they totally deleted it.   After Blogger completely deleted that October offering, they later restored it without allowing it to be republished. So I protested their action again, and again, and again, and finally sometime in the last two weeks Blogger republished it, approximately two months later.    

Why aren't I more specific on the dates?  Blogger doesn't send a notice, they just un-publish, and if you're not regularly paying attention to the trash link, you aren't aware of what they've done, or when they've done it.  They also don't send a notice when they restore an article.  Recently someone at Blogger deleted a "draft" article because it offended their "community standards"!  A draft article mind you, not even a published piece.  So, now I pay more attention to all this and protested that action the same week, and it was restored immediately, so from all of this I've come to five conclusions.  

1. Not everyone at Blogger has a harmonious interpretation and definition of their "community standards".  
2. Entirely too many people have uncontrolled and unaccountable access to control Blogger content.  
3. There are those at Blogger who really want to control the content to support their own narratives.  
4. There must be some sane and reasonable people working there willing to overturn these anonymous censoring tyrants since every time I protested an action, ultimately, the post was restored. 
5. In spite of my initial anger over these deletions, I've had to conclude, Blogger has been a major contributor to free speech, and should be applauded.
   

Finally, it's relatively easy to set up a Blogger blog in order to express one's views, and as far as I can tell, they're not making any money by allowing this.  P&D is a non-profit passion for me, but Blogger's can make money via Blogger's AdSence system, and it appears Blogger not only doesn't get any part of that, and they collect the revenue for you.   So, why did the set this up?   All this must be an expensive effort.  There are over 600 million blogs out there, and Blogger is the source for a lot of them.  

So, based on my experience, I feel I really have to give Blogger the benefit of the doubt, and until I find out otherwise, I'm taking the position they want alternative views to be available to the public, and as in any organization, there are few bad apples.

So, kudos to Blogger. 

Big Tech's Disinformation Billionaire

By Daniel Greenfield April 19, 2023 @ Sultan Knish Blog

From Russia smears to fake news to a lawsuit accusing former President Trump of rape, the money behind some of the dirtiest Dem tactics come from an obscure Big Tech billionaire.

When E. Jean Carroll first accused Trump of rape, the media quickly backed away. It didn’t help that she told media outlets that “most people think of rape as being sexy” and “it’s the responsibility of the woman, too. It’s equal. Men can’t control themselves.” But after a fitful attempt at using the story to sell books, Carroll vanished and then returned with a lawsuit.

In a deposition last year, Carroll claimed that no one else was paying her legal fees. That was not true. The money was allegedly coming from American Future Republic: an anti-Trump group funded by Reid Hoffman. A filing by Trump’s attorneys alleges that, “previously, Hoffman contributed more than $600,000 to the legal defense fund of Bean LLC6—otherwise known as Fusion GPS, the company responsible for the creation of the Steele Dossier.”

The Steele Dossier was the founding hoax document for Russiagate and Spygate.

Reid Hoffman bought his way into being a Democrat power broker by throwing around tech industry money. Before the last election, he was peddling a $250,000 Zoom “private, off-the-record conversation with President Obama, hosted by me.” But he’s also become notorious for having his name attached to dirty Democrat figures and dirtier operations.

How concerned is Hoffman about sexual assault? In 2015, he invited Jeffrey Epstein to a dinner that he was hosting. The notorious pedophile was even honored with a replica of a ‘Disobedience Award’: a social justice award funded by the Big Tech billionaire. (The award was shut down after it was given to BethAnn McLaughlin for her #MeToo activism despite threatening to stab another woman. McLaughlin was accused of pretending to be a bisexual Indian geologist and faking her death making her only the second most embarrassing recipient.)

Reid Hoffman has gone from dining with Epstein to covertly funding a rape lawsuit because of his obsession with Trump and his penchant for political dirty tricks. The LinkedIn co-founder had donated $2 million to pro-Biden PACs and has been the money behind a variety of false flag operations from an anti-Trump cartoon coordinated with the Lincoln Project, whose former press secretary went to work for one of Hoffman’s campaigns to fight ‘disinformation’, to an effort to convince conservatives to turn on Justice Kavanaugh by using fake Republicans.

Like many of the billionaire tech industry ‘disruptors’ in politics, Reid Hoffman came out of the ‘PayPal Mafia’ before co-founding LinkedIn. Aside from being a major tech investor, Hoffman used his billions to become a Democrat megadonor pumping millions into the Democrats. But as the tech guru son of a Black Panther lawyer, Hoffman was not satisfied with straight politics.

The best way to understand Hoffman is as a younger, more tech-savvy George Soros, who has used his Silicon Valley skills to finance operations that “disrupt” American politics. Beginning with ‘Investing In US’, with a mission of bringing “entrepreneurs and investors to join the resistance”, he backed ACRONYM which created fake sites pretending to be local papers.

MotiveAI, another setup backed by Hoffman, had its own fake news operation targeting Republicans: one of which, titled, ‘Drain The Swamp’, aimed to sabotage the Kavanaugh nomination by trying to convince Republicans that the Supreme Court nominee had “helped Bill and Hillary Clinton cover up the murder of a White House aide.”

MotiveAI then took credit for “28 districts flipped and the highest Democratic margin since 1972”.

Such digital dirty tricks have become a signature of groups funded by Hoffman.

During the 2017 Alabama Senate special election, New Knowledge, a lefty tech project, came after Republican candidate Roy Moore to, in its own words, orchestrate “an elaborate ‘false flag’ operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media by a Russian botnet”. The funding for the ‘Alabama Project’ came from Reid Hoffman.

Hoffman apologized for the “disinformation” campaign. “I find the tactics that have been recently reported highly disturbing,” an official statement from the Big Tech billionaire claimed. “I am embarrassed by my failure to track AET—the organization I did support—more diligently as it made its own decisions to perhaps fund projects that I would reject.”

This was quite unconvincing since Hoffman had a history of funding digital dirty tricks.

New Knowledge had gone into business flagging “disinformation” and produced a report on it for the Democrat Senate Intelligence Committee. It also worked with Fusion GPS which had produced the Steele Dossier.

Hoffman, like fellow ‘PayPal Mafia’ member Pierre Omidyar had also taken to funding anti-Trump groups and candidates claiming to be Republicans, including Evan McMullin, Liz Cheney and Republican Women for Progress. The common denominator of all of these false flag operations was the conviction that the best way to manipulate Republicans was through fake Republicans.

The Carroll lawsuit was also meant to appear natural and apolitical, when it was not. Once again a Hoffman-funded group was the money behind the political facade. And most investigative journalists have learned to look for Hoffman’s money behind false flags, disinformation campaigns and dirty tricks. They haven’t worked, but they have helped slowly make him infamous. And now, with the Trump rape lawsuit, people outside the tech industry finally know who the rotund leftist billionaire is.

Hoffman isn’t stopping though. And when he can’t be satisfied with manipulating voters, he has been accused of trying to buy elections in a more direct fashion.

Before the 2020 election, Vox reported that, “Hoffman’s team has also told people they are exploring some initiatives that sources feel could prove to be legally dicey, Recode is told: They have looked into what a donor could legally do to help with the collection and delivery of mail-in ballots, expected to be at record highs this year. They have also considered whether Hoffman’s team could directly pay activists who convince others to commit to vote in North Carolina — rather than funding a go-between, like an outside group, as donors traditionally do.”

Disrupting systems, breaking the rules, is celebrated in Silicon Valley, and as Big Tech’s ‘Masters of the Universe’ keep breaking our society, they may discover that the damage from disrupting countries is not an abstraction measured in private equity fund returns. 

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.  Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.  Thank you for reading.

Woke AI Means the End of a Free Internet

By Daniel Greenfield April 10, 2023 @ Sultan Knish Blog 

 Big Tech has a great big dream of destroying the internet. And it’s mostly a reality.

The vision of the internet was an open universe while Big Tech’s vision is the internet reduced to the feed on a few proprietary apps preloaded on your locked phone. Trying to censor the internet of the 90s or the 00s was a laughable proposition, but censoring today’s internet is laughably easy. Want to eliminate a site from the internet? Just wipe it from Google, ban a point of view from Facebook, a book from Amazon, or a video from YouTube. It’s still possible to browse a site off the Big Tech reservation, for now, at least until your browser goes away.

Then content will be limited to the permitted apps on Google and Apple’s proprietary app stores. But Big Tech has even more ambitious plans to replace the internet with itself.

Big Tech has dramatically simplified the user experience off the internet. It did so by moving users from ‘pulling’ content by browsing the internet to ‘pushing’ content at them by displaying a feed. When your computer or phone shows you a news feed you never wanted, that’s ‘pushing’. Big Tech loved pushing, but people resisted it until the arrival of social media reduced everyone to scrolling down a feed selected by secret algorithms and pushed through a proprietary app.

Search, as we used to know it, has been disappearing. People still think that they’re searching the internet the way that they used to in the 90s and the 00s when what they’re actually doing when ‘googling’ is scrolling through a feed derived from a much smaller index of corporate and leftist sites prioritized by Google’s algorithm. In the past, it was possible to get past them by scrolling through page results but that is increasingly becoming meaningless or impossible.

Google’s new search setup either often repeats the same results on later pages so that people think they’re seeing new results, when they’re really just clicking through to see more of the same results, or interrupts the search entirely to offer thematic searches for ‘similar content’. The makeover hasn’t been finalized, but when it’s done, internet searchers will not result in a list of sites containing a similar set of words, but an answer whether or not a question was asked, and a set of pre-approved sites heavily skewed leftward that cover the general topic.

Searches for criticisms of COVID policy, Islamic terrorism or voter fraud won’t lead to specific results on conservative sites, but direct you to the CDC or the New York Times for explanations of why the Left is right and anyone who disagrees with it is spreading dangerous misinformation.

The elimination of search is part of the transition from multiple points of view to single answers. And AI chatbots are the endgame for offering a single answer that keeps users on a single site and eliminates the search for multiple perspectives on other sites. Aside from eliminating countless jobs, their real role is to shift user interaction from a ‘pull’ to a ‘push’ model. They’re the next great hope after the old smart assistants failed to become the defining interface.

Smart assistants were going to be Big Tech’s next power shift from ‘pulling’ to ‘pushing’. Instead of users searching for anything, Siri, Alexa, Cortana or any of the others would use those same algorithms to ‘anticipate’ their needs so they never get around to actually looking for themselves. The assistants were meant to be the ultimate prison under the guise of convenience. Unfortunately for Big Tech, they failed. Amazon’s Alexa racked up $10 billion in losses. Siri, the most popular of the bunch, is used by a limited number of Apple users, and Microsoft’s Cortana has been all but written off as another failed experiment.

The new generation of AI chatbots have the potential to succeed where they failed.

The new wave of AI has gotten attention for its potential to eliminate artists and writers, for making cheating and plagiarism ubiquitous, but all of that is collateral damage. AI chatbots are the ultimate push tool and the leverage Big Tech needs to eliminate the internet as anything except the messy backstage reality utilized by a few million tech savvy types.

Smart assistants and chatbots are not there to ‘assist’ us, but to take away our agency under the guise of convenience and personalized interaction. When the internet became widely used, there was concern that students wouldn’t need to learn anything except how to search. Now they don’t even need to know anything except how to write a ‘prompt’. The difference between searching and a chatbot prompt appears negligible, but is actually monumental.

Search initially offered a direct way to browse an index representing much of the content on the internet. As Google took over search, the index became more like a directory of sites that the Big Tech monopoly liked. AI chatbots like Google Bard eliminate the searching and offer a distilled agenda while severing access to the process of browsing sites with different perspectives. Why ‘search’ and read for yourself when a chatbot will give you the answer?

What was once uncharted territory, a wild west of different ideas and perspectives, has been reduced to a handful of apps and platforms, and will be winnowed by AI chatbots into a single screen. And that is how the internet disappears and is replaced by one or two monopolies, by a smart assistant that activates a few apps. And if a site, a video, a perspective has been filtered out, then it doesn’t exist anymore. It’s a systemic bias that makes the worst days of the mainstream media seem like an open and tolerant marketplace of ideas.

There will be people, a minority, who will actually try to resist the process and explore on their own. And the system will make it more difficult. It will still be possible, but less so every year. Browsers will disappear on tablets and smartphones in the name of security. Microsoft and Apple will reduce their respective computer operating systems to the mobile model. A few people will cling to older installations or install Linux. Maybe 5% of the population will still have access to anything that resembles the internet even in the degraded form that it exists today.

AI will be inherently ‘woke’ because it is not some remarkable form of intelligence, but just a clever way of manipulating human beings throughout outputs that imitate intelligence. The thing to fear isn’t that AI will become intelligent, but that people will be manipulated by the Big Tech monopolies behind it without even realizing it. AI will reflect the point of view of its owners and when it deviates, it will quickly be brought back into line. That is what we’ve been seeing consistently with AI experiments over the last 5 years. Huge amounts of information are taken in and then the AIs are taught to filter it to match the preconceptions of the corporate parents.

Much as Google’s huge index of the internet is carefully filtered to produce a small set of preapproved results, AI chatbots will only be allowed to parrot political dogma. As they come to define the internet, what was once a boundless medium will look like Big Brother.

Big Tech ‘disrupted’ retail to swallow it up into a handful of online platforms. In the last decade, tech industry disruption became consolidation. AI, like retail consolidation, is economically disruptive, but it doesn’t just consolidate economics, it also consolidates ideas.

The internet was once liberating because it was decentralized, its centralization has paralleled the loss of personal freedoms and the rise of totalitarian public and private institutions. And we let it happen because it was more convenient. Glutted with ‘free’ services offered by Big Tech monopolies, we never checked the price tag or connected it with our growing misery.

AI is the ultimate centralization. Its threat doesn’t come from some science fiction fantasy of self-aware machines ruling over us, but from us allowing a handful of companies to control what we see and think because it’s more convenient than finding things out for ourselves.

The old internet was often inconvenient. The new internet is more convenient and empty. Its content has become so repetitive that it can easily be written by chatbots. And it will be. The user five years from now may have a choice of a chatbot digital media article on CNN or an AI chatbot recapitulating it in response to a question about a recent mass shooting or inflation.

The real price of convenience is choice. We give up our freedom most easily to those governments and systems that promise us free things that will make our lives easier. Socialized medicine, a guaranteed minimum income, free housing and food and a chatbot that answers all of our questions so that we never have to think for ourselves again.  

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation. Thank you for reading.

 

 

We own the science': U.N. official boasts of collusion with Big Tech

'Becoming much more proactive' in control of narrative on social media

By Art Moore October 3, 2022 

Amid further revelations of the Biden administration's collusion with media and Big Tech to suppress viewpoints that counter its narrative on the COVID-19 pandemic and issues such as climate change and election integrity, a top United Nations official boasted the global elites "own the science," acknowledging the world body is partnering with Google in an information war.

Melissa Fleming, the U.N.'s under-secretary for global communications, was speaking at an event hosted by the World Economic Forum in New York City from Sept. 19 to 23 called the Sustainable Development Impact Meetings...........To Read More....

SCOTUS and Big Tech Censorship

By Rich Kozlovich

On September 22, 2022 Trevor Schakohl published this piece,  Florida Asks Supreme Court To Decide If First Amendment Allows Social Media Censorship, saying:

Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and other state officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday to resolve if a state law that would have forced social media companies to allow political candidates on their platforms violates the First Amendment.

My view is this isn't a first amendment issue as these are privately owned companies.....unless they're first declared to be a public service of some sort, which is pretty much what the Texas decision amounted to.  However, there's a danger in all that regarding what can result, but here are what I consider the "red herring" arguments against that ruling.

“Under this ruling, any state in the 5th Circuit could, in theory, mandate that news organizations must cover certain politicians or certain other content,”........ “It could, in theory, allow a state to mandate that any news organization must publish opinion pieces by politicians. It completely flies in the face of the 1st Amendment’s association rights and the right to editorial discretion.”

The ruling says no such thing.  In fact, if these groups want to publish their spiel, they should be allowed to do so.  They can't force anyone to read it, people can read it or choose not to read it, so there is no association restriction involved.  Then we have:

 “If private actors can be treated like state actors and are bound by constitutional principles, then there’s no division anymore between private sector and government sector … the idea of treating internet services as if they’re bound to follow the First Amendment as opposed to protected by the First Amendment completely flips everything we thought we knew about the Constitution.”

Well, private companies are already under that kind of imposition via price and wage controls, forced hiring practices of clearly unqualified employees because of race, religion or sexual preferences.  So that in no way is breaking new legislative or administrative law and/or practice. 

The "legislatures will take over the internet", is scare mongering, and the ruling in no way allows that, although I have no doubt the Democrats will attempt to use this ruling in an attempt to do so, find friendly courts to reinterpret the ruling to satisfy some leftist narrative, but this is absolutely clear to me: At some point these internet giants will start to act responsibly or they will be regulated, and in ways no one may like.  Will they do it? No!  They are thoroughly infested with leftist demagogues who will never act responsibly since being a true leftist means being certifiably nuts. 

 

Court Rules that Biden Administration Must Turn Over Documents on Collusion with Big Tech

By Eric Lendrum

On Tuesday, a U.S. District Court ordered the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) to hand over all documents involving communication between Biden White House officials and various social media companies, following allegations of government pressure on such platforms to deliberately censor political dissidents.

According to the Daily Caller, a lawsuit was filed against the Biden White House by Attorneys General Jeff Landry (R-La.) and Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.) back in May, over the White House’s alleged coordination with Big Tech platforms to systematically silence content that disagreed with Biden politically. These efforts saw many such bans, with many of them justified by such terms as “disinformation” or “misinformation.”

In his ruling, District Judge Terry Doughty declared that the administration must turn over all communications between National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Anthony Fauci, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and representatives of any social media platforms......... To Read More...

'Tipping' the vote: Election interference 'institutionalized' by this federal agency

Editor's Note:  This post was one of twelve I linked as a singular post.  However Blogger decided that post met some "Community Standard" that offended them and "un-published" it.  So I'm posting them all separately and the cartoon will be the Cartoon of the Day.  

 

Well, in doing so I found out what "community standard" post they're all so concerned about....this one.  Here's the message you get if you attempt to go to the article link I provided, which I had to drop, or their site address.

 

Warning — visiting this web site may harm your computer.  Suggestions: Return to the previous page and pick another result. Try another search to find what you're looking for.Or you can continue to https://www.wnd.com/2022/08/tipping-vote-election-interference-now-institutionalized-postal-service/ at your own risk. For detailed information about the problems we found, visit Google's Safe Browsing diagnostic page.  

 

So I went to their diagnostic page and it claims there's "No unsafe content found".   It seems clear they they have an algorithm that blocks the World Net Daily web site. So, I'm going to just publish the piece in full, but with the understanding I've not asked for or received permission from WND.  RK

Update:  Initially they blocked this one also and I asked for a review and they reversed their position.  That's the trouble with computers, they act like computers.  RK

By WND Staff August 21, 2022

Election interference was essentially allowed to run rampant during the 2020 presidential election. Ballot drop boxes, mailed ballots, nursing home workers filling out ballots for incapacitated residents, all were part of the problem. Now a report from Chuck DeVore at the Federalist says the interference agenda has been "institutionalized." That's because the U.S. Postal Service has announced a new "Election and Government Mail Services division," that will be set up.

"Starbucks recently asked the National Labor Relations Board to suspend all pending and ongoing votes to unionize at its U.S. stores due to concerns stemming from mail-in ballots. The franchise’s objections once again raise questions about the credibility of election systems that rely on mail-in ballots," DeVore explained. But "how much more with the American electoral process? With hundreds of millions of dollars of campaign material and increasing numbers of ballots in the mail, postal efficiency and honesty are becoming increasingly vital to free and fair elections." The move immediately raised suspicions because as Hillary Clinton-linked lawyer Marc Elias immediately boasted about the development.

On social media, he said, "U.S. Postal Service creates new dedicated division to handle election mail. The Election and Government Mail Services is part of an effort to effectively deliver mail-in ballots to voters and elections offices in advance of the 2022 midterm elections." Completing this poll entitles you to WND news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. 

You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.  DeVore explained, "The rationale for this new division is that the growing use of mail-in ballots requires extra attention to ensure the greater volume of mailed ballots can be handled by an increasingly overburdened USPS. The USPS reported it delivered more than 135 million ballots in 2020, with 40 million delivered so far this year during the primaries."

But it is the leftists who have advocated for mail-in ballots, and studies have shown they are more susceptible to fraud than in-person ballots.  "Elections conducted by mail have been a longtime goal of Elias and others since long before public health fears over in-person voting during the COVID-19 pandemic," DeVore said. "It is instructive to note that most European nations found mail-in ballots to be susceptible to fraud and limited their use."

He pointed out mailed ballots can be cast by someone other than the voter, voter ID measures are harder to have, and then there are those "professional ballot traffickers who 'help' the voter fill in their ballot."  That's why, he said, "mail-in ballots will be an increasingly important part of the Democratic election playbook."

He commented on whether the public should be concerned about the USPS plans for mail-in ballots.  "What happens if the mail doesn’t get through? Or if it doesn’t get through selectively? Investigating after the fact won’t change election results," he pointed out.  Further, the Postal Services unionized workforce, through the National Association of Letter Carriers, "is an affiliate of the AFL-CIO and endorsed Biden in 2020. It represents 277,000 workers." And, he said, the American Postal Workers Union also endorsed Biden. It represents another 330,000 workers and is also under the AFL-CIO umbrella, he said. "If there was a concerted effort to hinder election mail, the Postal Inspection Service likely wouldn’t notice it in time to stop it and prevent selective delivery of the mail from tipping an election."

DeVore is the chief national initiatives officer with the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

.

An Office Manager from Florida and a Gates-Funded Professor Are Censoring Studies Linking Mask Usage to Increased Deaths.

Yet another dubious fact check. But this one is even weirder than the last.

 

By Raheem J. Kassam June 6, 2022

 

PolitiFact “fact checker” who has attempting to discredit National Pulse reporting on mask mandates and recent medical journal papers has almost zero experience in real news reporting, medical reporting, COVID-19 reporting, or even national news, The National Pulse can reveal.

The information is the latest in a slew of “fact checker” stories which reveal dubiously credentialed individuals working to remove anti-Big Pharma content from the internet at the behest of big tech companies and their sponsors in the pharmaceutical industry.

Floridian liberal Gabrielle Settles appears to have begun working for Politifact in March 2021, bylining at least 70 stories for the corporate-backed censor.

Settles, however, has no experience in dealing with any of this kind of information, having performed the majority of her “fact checks” simply by copying and pasting from the Centers for Disease Control website, and even veering off into “fact checking” pictures of Christmas cards and photos of singer ..........In fact, Settles’s journalistic contributions are extremely limited. But naturally, her contributions to partisan rhetoric are not.  The Politifact “reporter” – a job which includes no actual reporting – has a history of pro-Democrat and anti-Trump tweets..........To Read More....

 

Attorneys for Laura Loomer Announce Major RICO Lawsuit Against Big Tech Giants FAKEBOOK and Twitter! The “MOST BANNED WOMAN IN THE WORLD” Fights Back!!

By Cara Castronuova May 2, 2022

This is directly from the official press release: (San Jose, California) May 2, 2022 — Today, conservative attorneys John Pierce and former United States Congressman Bob Barr (R-GA) announced the filing of a major, $10 billion-plus federal civil RICO lawsuit against Facebook, Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jack Dorsey on behalf of Florida congressional candidate Laura Loomer. The Complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleges what millions of Americans already know – that these social media giants have long engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including extortion, all designed to stifle free speech based on political viewpoints under the pretext of upholding “community guidelines.”............ To Read More....

Tulsi Gabbard Says She’s Being ‘Shadow Banned,’ Shows Examples, Blames ‘Cowardly Leaders’ for Inaction

By Craig Bannister | March 25, 2022

“I’ve gotten some questions from people who are not familiar with the term ‘shadow banning’ and are asking exactly what it is. So, I want to take a minute to show you,” former Democrat Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) says in a video posted to social media Friday.

In the video, Gabbard shows screenshots of how her account didn’t show up in an Instagram search, how attempting to “@” her account yielded a “misinformation” warning, and of how an attempt to tag her resulted in an error message saying the activity is restricted in order to protect the Instagram community.

“What are they protecting their community from? Nobody knows,” Gabbard says, claiming that she and those posting to her account haven’t been given examples of the misinformation or dangerous content the platform believes she’s posted...............To Read More....

Rep. Jim Jordan Blasts Biden-Big Tech Censorship: ‘If You Can’t Talk, What Do the Rest of Your Rights Mean?’

 By Craig Bannister March 25, 2022

Recalling White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki’s revelation that the Biden Administration is working with Big Tech social media platforms to limit free speech, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) warned Friday of the threat to Americans’ First Amendment rights.

Last July, Press Secretary Psaki announced at a press conference that the Biden Administration is “flagging posts for Facebook" that the administration would like censored, a comment Sen. Josh Hawley called “really scary,“ given that it came from the federal government:

"I think it's really scary to have the federal government of the United States, the White House, compiling lists of people, organizations, whatever, and then going to a private company that, by the way, is a monopoly, Facebook, and saying: You need to censor. You need to do something about this. You need to tell these users, these private users on a private company what they can or cannot say."

At a press event on Friday, Rep. Jordan recalled that, at the time, he thought Psaki’s comment didn’t seem right to him. But now, he considers her words “very scary,” because, if free speech on social media can be denied, other types of free speech and liberties are at risk, as well:..............To Read More.....

No End To The Audacious Deplatformings

January 05, 2022/ Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

About a year ago I had a series of posts covering some of the more audacious deplatformings and cancelations then occurring in the realms of progressive orthodoxy enforcement. Examples of prominent victims of such conduct cited in my posts of February 22, 2021 and March 4, 2021 included: The Epoch Times (“demonetized” by Google, apparently as a result of relentless criticism of the Chinese Communist Party), Project Veritas (a constant irritant to the Left, shut out by Twitter), Catholic World Report (locked out by Twitter after calling President Biden’s nominee for Assistant Secretary of HHS “a biological man identifying as a transgender woman”), Ryan Anderson (politically incorrect book on transgender issues, “When Harry Became Sally,” suddenly removed from sale at Amazon without explanation), and multiple others. The takeaway was that the Big Tech censors had lost all sense of constraint, and had decided to see how far they could push the envelope to remove mainstream conservative thought from the public square.

Lack of further posts from myself on this subject should not be taken as an indication that the situation has improved. Indeed, if anything it has gotten worse. However, in recent days there has come some reason to hope that new outlets may provide a way around the Big Tech roadblocks.

First, a small round-up of recent deplatformings and cancellations of note:

Heroes of Liberty. On January 3 the New York Post published a column by Bethany Mandel reporting that, just before Christmas, Facebook had disabled advertising for this start-up publisher of children's books. Mandel indicates that she is one of the people behind the Heroes of Liberty project. Among the books published by Heroes of Liberty were children’s biographies of Ronald Reagan, Thomas Sowell, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Mandel reports that the only notice received by the publisher was a “curt e-mail message.” The e-mail states that “This ad account, its ads and some of its advertising assets are disabled because it didn't comply with our policy on Low Quality or Disruptive Content.” Heroes of Liberty took an “appeal,” after which it was informed that the exclusion was “final and permanent.” Here is the content of that e-mail: "After a final review of this ad account, we confirmed it didn't comply with our Advertising Policies or other standards," the message reads. "You can no longer advertise with this ad account and its ads and assets will remain disabled. This is our final decision."

There is some good news to report on this one: After a substantial blow-back, resulting from the New York Post and other reporting, on January 4 Facebook walked back and re-instated the Heroes of Liberty account. According to Fox News here, a Facebook spokesperson named Drew Pusateri stated that the previous exclusion of Heroes of Liberty was “in error.” Just an honest mistake! Do you believe them?

Robert Malone/Joe Rogan. Robert Malone is a doctor who claims to be an inventor of the mRNA technology that underlies the Covid-19 vaccines. He is also an opponent of mandates for the vaccines (although he is vaccinated himself). And he also, at least until recently, has had a substantial presence on Twitter, with over 500,000 followers. Joe Rogan is a podcaster who apparently has the single most popular podcast in the country, with approximately 11 million average daily listeners/viewers in Q3 2021. (This compares with the very highest-rated cable news show, Tucker Carlson Tonight, which had 3.24 million average daily viewers during the same period, and with CNN’s primetime average of 0.82 million viewers.).

On New Year’s Eve, Rogan posted a three-hour-plus podcast interview with Malone. In the interview, Malone, among other things, compared the U.S. response to Covid to what happened in Nazi Germany in the 1930s. For a full run-down on the interview, including a link to the full video version, check out the reporting in the Daily Mail. Here is one of the more “controversial” quotes:

It was from, basically, European intellectual inquiry into what the heck happened in Germany in the 20s and 30s. Very intelligent, highly educated population, and they went barking mad. And how did that happen? The answer is mass formation psychosis.

YouTube has removed the video of the Rogan/Malone interview. Twitter suspended Malone’s account permanently.

This particular story may also have a happy ending. I’ll discuss at the end of the post.

Frances Widdowson. You probably haven’t heard of this woman, who was a professor at a Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. But she is a political scientist who is a notable dissenter from left-wing orthodoxy on issues of indigenous affairs in Canada. Among her books are Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation (2008), and Separate But Unequal: How Parallelist Ideology Conceals Indigenous Dependency (2019). But it seems that Widdowson’s most unforgivable crime was contesting the assertion that there was something nefarious about a number of unmarked graves of Indian children that were discovered in Kamloops, British Columbia, since at the time poor children of all races with no family to claim them were buried in unmarked graves. Challenging the orthodoxy earned Widdowson the charge of “genocide denier.”

Widdowson was fired from her job at MRU a few days before Christmas. At Minding the Campus, Bruce Gilley has a long post on December 29, with a history of the affair. Let’s say that Gilley pulls no punches. The title of his post is “Disrobing the Aboriginal Stalinists on a Canadian Campus.” Excerpt:

Mount Royal University was serious in training its many guns on any dissenters. . . . Powerful forces of Woke ideology across Canada’s left-liberal establishment were apoplectic about Professor Widdowson’s truth-seeking scholarship. For all these deeply entrenched groups in the Canadian mainstream, it is far better for Widdowson to be purged, all in the interests of the Party.

Widdowson is just the latest in what is now a very long list of cancellations in academia. At the National Association of Scholars, a guy named David Acevedo has been compiling a list of these. The latest version of Acevedo’s list, dated December 14, contains 207 examples of academic cancellations. Looks like Widdowson will make 208.

Returning to the Rogan/Malone affair, it appears that after the Google and Twitter actions, Rogan set himself up on a new platform called GETTR, and some 500,000 of his followers immediately followed him there. Admittedly the 500,000 are just a small part of Rogan’s 11 million average daily viewers; and apparently he has not abandoned YouTube, at least for now. But as the Big Tech giants continue to push the envelope to see how far they can get in suppressing conservative dissent, at some point they could start to lose market share very quickly.

The truth will get you cancelled

October 25, 2021 By Eric Utter

The official Twitter account of Congressman Jim Banks (R-Ind.) was recently suspended because he tweeted, “The title of first female four-star officer gets taken by a man.” The tweet was in reference to Rachel Levine, President Biden’s assistant secretary for Health & Human Services (HHS), being sworn in as a “four-star admiral” of the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps earlier this week.

Upon promoting Levine, a biological male, the administration called him the “first-ever female four-star admiral,” forever robbing that title from an actual woman.

In a statement posted to Instagram, Banks noted: “My tweet was a statement of fact. Big Tech doesn’t have to agree with me, but they shouldn’t cancel me. If they silence me, they will silence you. We can’t allow Big Tech to prevent us from telling the truth.”

But Big Tech is preventing us from telling the truth. It simply won’t allow thought with which it disagrees to appear on its platforms. The mainstream media, academia, most Democratic politicians, and now giant corporations are all also doing everything in their power to suppress the truth. Tragically, it is no exaggeration to say that there is a War on Truth.

When the ruling elite tries to convince people that obvious truths are not…are in fact hurtful and hateful…the death knell has been rung for that society. The Devil’s greatest trick is to convince people he doesn’t exist..............To Read More....

Commentary: Three Proposed Solutions for Regaining Our Digital Liberty

By Ilana Mercer

It is inarguable that by financially crippling, socially segregating, and digitally banishing politically irksome people and enterprises, the big tech cartel is flouting the spirit, if not the strict letter, of the Civil Rights Act.

For how do you make a living if your banking options increasingly are curtailed and constantly threatened, and your ability to electronically communicate with clients is likewise circumscribed?

Do you go back to a barter economy (a book for some bread)? Do you go underground? Cultivate home-based industries? Do you keep afloat by word of mouth? Go door-to-door? Return to stamping envelopes? How can you, when your client base is purely electronic?

Telling an individual he can’t open a bank account because of his beliefs and opinions teeters on informing an innocent victim he might not be able to make a living, as do other, politically more polite Americans, despite his innocence: Our only “offenses” as dissidents are thought crimes: speaking, or typing or wafting unpopular, impolite words into the air............. To Read More...

Big Tech is Censoring Americans Using UN Law

Daniel Greenfield August 08, 2021 @ Sultan Knish Blog

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki warned that her administration was “flagging problematic posts for Facebook" and urged, "you shouldn't be banned from one platform and not others."

Psaki was not just advocating a theoretical approach, but discussing the shared infrastructure built by Big Tech monopolies, the United Nations and assorted governments for doing just that.

In his PJ Media article, Tyler O’Neil dug into the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) which is funded by Google, Facebook, Microsoft and currently chaired by Twitter. Its advisory committee members include the United Nations, the European Union, and the British, French, and Canadian governments as well as the National Security Council in the U.S.

GIFCT had been set up by the industry in response to pressure from governments to remove Jihadist propaganda, but its Hash Sharing Consortium, a secret database of terrorism content to be immediately removed when its 13 dot com companies come across it, is secret, and so there's no way for anyone to know if they've been targeted and no appeal from the secret list.

The creation of a secret “No Fly List” for the internet by the biggest monopolies which control over 80% of social media content and much of the self-created video content on the internet would be troubling enough, but by 2019, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, and Amazon had joined the Christchurch Call which advocates not just banning terrorist material, but fighting its root causes by strengthening "inclusiveness" and fighting "violent extremism".

To that end, the Dynamic Matrix of Extremisms and Terrorism (DMET) was deployed which goes through 4 different levels beginning with "partisanship" and ending with terrorism. DMET defines the initial levels of violent extremism as using "dehumanizing language" which can be described as nearly any criticism of a group.

Big Tech has built its own matrix. And we’re all in it.

As O'Neil documented the resulting “matrix” is a dangerous and bizarre list which classifies Sinn Fein and the Scottish National Party, alongside NARAL and "Anti-Vaxxers" as partisans on the first level of DMET. It's unclear what a top pro-abortion group, the ruling leftist party of Scotland, the political face for the IRA, and opponents of vaccination have in common, but out of such confusingly disparate material, Big Tech has built its censorship matrix.

At the second level, alongside Neo-Nazi groups like Combat 18, the Bundy Family (a family, not an organization) and the Animal Liberation Front, which actually is a terrorist organization, is Jihad Watch.

The respected counterterrorism blog by historian and researcher Robert Spencer and his associates (I have been among them) has been an invaluable resource for chronicling Islamic terrorism and colonialism and represents the opposite of violent extremism.

As Robert Spencer wrote on Jihad Watch, "This is pure libel. We have never advocated or approved of any violence or any illegal activity of any kind."

The DMET is just a more sophisticated pseudoscientific database of the kind that the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose materials have contributed to it, has deployed over the years.

One such database listed my blog, Sultan Knish, as a hate group, alongside a brand of gun oil, and a bar sign in Pennsylvania. These databases may have a Kafkaesque absurdity, but the consequences to lives, livelihoods, and careers are all too real with my blog showing up on the Color of Change list pressuring Big Tech monopolies to cut off funding and access to my site, as well as Jihad Watch, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, and many other conservative groups.

Big Tech companies have begun building their own databases in coordination with governments. And these secret databases determine who has access to the public square of the internet, who can earn a living, and who ends up being deplatformed and unpersoned.

“If we are ‘extremist,’ so is the U.S. Constitution, for we are trying to defend the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people before the law,” Robert Spencer wrote. But DMET, GFICT, and other interfaces between governments and tech monopolies aren’t using the Constitution. They’re censoring based on United Nations law.

When Facebook’s Oversight Board issued its verdict on censoring President Trump, it did not list a single item of United States law, including the First Amendment, but cited the Rabat Plan of Action, and articles of the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

GFICT’s DMET matrix cites the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court to declare that preventing "dehumanization" is an "imperative under international law". Like Facebook’s decision to censor the former president, there’s no mention of the Constitution, but international law is repeatedly cited. Most disturbingly, a GFICT attempt to define terrorism collates a variety of definitions including attacks "against social cohesion" which the UN itself has noted is used to censor speech and political opponents as well as efforts to suppress Mohammed cartoons.

Tier 4 of the Content Taxonomy for what gets censored by Big Tech includes only one example targeting a group: “fear of Muslims is rational" thereby essentially banning most counterrorism, advocacy against unlimited immigration as well the Trump political campaign.

While Americans slept, Big Tech adopted UN standards to eliminate the Constitution.

Big Tech monopolies are no longer just enforcing local laws, moderating content in America or in the European Union based on the different standards in each country, instead all speech on the major platforms is being policed in line with the United Nations and its “international law”.

No black helicopters or blue helmets were needed. United Nations law came to the United States through the Big Tech monopolies that we turned over our speech and economy too.

Facebook now censors a former president in line with UN regulations. And censors all of us too.

GFICT is another example of UN regulations controlling our speech. We’re all drones living in the UN’s “Matrix” now as companies more powerful than governments impose international law.

Big Tech’s censorship matrix targets Robert Spencer and critics of Islam because censorship of dissenting religious views has been a longtime project of Islamic groups within the UN.

“They have all the power, and they mean to shut down dissent, and that means our days here are numbered,” Robert Spencer wrote. How long will it be until Did Muhammad Exist? Did An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins, the newly revised and expanded version of Spencer's classic work, is censored the way that Amazon, which dominates the ebook market, suppressed Ryan T. Anderson’s When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment.

Libertarians and some establishment conservatives keep protesting that private companies have the right to censor whom they please. But the UN is the opposite of a private company.

When massive monopolies act in concert with governments and multinational alliances, like the EU and the UN, to eliminate free speech in line with UN international law, that’s not private action. If we don’t have the courage to confront the ‘matrix’ of big governments and Big Tech, of Google and the UN, or Amazon and the EU, we will lose our rights, our identity, and our nation. Tags: Big Tech, censorship, recent, UN

Share This:

Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Linkedin

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

Related Posts:

Biden Picks a Prosecutor Who Won't ...

How the UN Stole Jewish Homes in Oc...

 

Big Tech's 'No Free Speech' Amendment

Daniel Greenfield June 03, 2021 @ Sultan Knish Blog

A few years ago the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) was demanding government regulations that would force internet providers to carry the content of members like Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter. Now it's suing Florida to fight regulations that would force some of those same members to carry the content of ordinary Americans.

Net Neutrality, or forcing cable and DSL companies to carry all content without picking and choosing, "helps preserve free speech, access to information — and democracy," former CCIA boss Ed Black argued two years ago.

But when Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law barring Big Tech monopolies from deplatforming candidates for public office and journalists, and forcing Big Tech to adopt clear and consistent standards for how they treat users, including deplatforming, as is the norm in every other industry, the CCIA went to war against free speech, access to information -- and democracy.

Governor DeSantis says that Big Tech is suppressing free speech. Big Tech argues that DeSantis is taking away its free speech which it defines as censoring people’s speech.

“We are bringing this suit to safeguard the industry’s free speech," current CCIA boss Matt Schruers claimed. “A digital service that declines to host harmful content is exercising its own First Amendment rights.”

Does Facebook have free speech? And can speech consist of denying service to conservatives? Should Mark Zuckerberg’s speech nullify the speech of millions of Americans?

In 1948, the first program ran on a computer. It was also the year that George Orwell finished 1984 with its infamous slogan, “Freedom is Slavery” and “Slavery is Freedom.” Big Tech’s version of it is, “Free Speech is Censorship” and “Censorship is Free Speech.”

When Big Tech censors millions of Americans, it’s engaging in free speech. And when those Americans rise up and fight back against their illegal monopolies, that’s censorship.

But Big Tech already dismantled all the arguments it’s putting forward with Net Neutrality.

If a digital service picking and choosing its content is a First Amendment right, then why don’t cable companies have the same right to bar access to the harmful content on Twitter?

A trade association whose members include Twitter and Facebook insists they have a right to ban the President of the United States and any conservatives because that’s free speech, but that AT&T or Comcast don’t have the right to ban access to Twitter because of free speech.

If censorship is also free speech then that cuts both ways. Otherwise it’s free speech for me, but not for thee, which is exactly the argument that Big Tech’s lobbies and front groups are making.

Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Twitter want to force internet service providers to have no choice about carrying them, but they want to pick and choose whose speech they carry. And yet Google, Amazon, and Facebook have much broader monopolistic powers than internet service providers. The cable provider market has too little choice, but it’s incredibly diverse compared to an e-ecosystem with Google, whose search engine controls 80% of the market, Facebook, which controls 80% of the social media market, and Amazon’s massive ebook dominance.

If any aspect of the ‘net’ needs more neutrality, it’s the platforms, not the providers.

If Comcast’s control of 40% of the broadband market gives it so much power that it can’t be allowed to pick and choose what content it carries, what about Facebook’s 80% control?

And if Comcast potentially deciding not to carry Twitter is an assault on “free speech, access to information — and democracy”, then why isn’t Twitter’s decision not to carry President Trump and other conservatives an assault on “free speech, access to information — and democracy”?

Twitter, Facebook, and the rest of the Big Tech crew want to argue that denying access to platforms is an attack on free speech, but that platforms denying access to users isn’t.

Big Tech’s position is that only its monopolies have free speech and they should use that speech to deny everyone else free speech. That’s a surreal mockery of the First Amendment.

Big Tech’s trade group is relying on the same compelled speech argument that Christian bakers have used to avoid baking a cake for a gay wedding. But there’s a multitude of bakeries, most of whom will be happy to bake a cake for anything if you pay them enough.

How many Facebooks and Googles are there?

Christian bakers and photographers argued that they’re artists and taking part in a gay wedding would compel their speech. Are Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey artists? Are Facebook and Twitter their artistic creations that would be spoiled by allowing conservative speech?

And yet the same media that ridiculed the idea that a Christian baker should be allowed to pick and choose which cakes he bakes is insisting that telling a social media monopoly not to censor candidates for public office is a violation of Zuckerberg and Dorsey’s free speech rights.

But if the speech on Facebook and Twitter is the speech of these billionaires, then they can be held accountable for it. If it’s not their speech, then free speech isn’t an issue. The CCIA is in the absurd position of arguing that speech on platforms is and isn’t really theirs speech. And that platforms express their speech by taking away the ability of others to speak.

Call it the No Free Speech version of the First Amendment.

If Big Tech speaks by eliminating the speech of others, then maybe we would be better off without this novel black hole theory of speech on whose basis it’s going to war against Florida.

The CCIA was advocating for the so-called “Save the Internet Act” to impose Net Neutrality. But the internet appears to be in no particular danger from the lack of Net Neutrality. Despite all the alarmism about the end of the internet and even death threats (one activist was sentenced for threatening to kill the family of Trump’s FCC Chairman Ajit Pai), little has actually changed.

That’s not the case with Big Tech censorship which silenced millions of people from POTUS on down, influenced the outcome of a national election, and defined the national debate. Net Neutrality advocates could not point to any measurable harm caused to them, but opponents of Big Tech censorship can easily point to the harm being done to them and to the United States.

Florida is bringing real Net Neutrality to the table. Unlike Net Neutrality, which was an effort by platforms to enlist the government and dumber lefty internet users into their war against broadband providers, real Net Neutrality begins with monopolistic platforms not providers.

“The internet has been historically neutral. After decades of legal battles by those who want to either make money from discrimination or look the other way, we are glad to see legislation to protect consumers’ and businesses’ access to the open internet," the CCIA argued a mere two years ago in defense of Net Neutrality and the “Save the Internet Act”.

Unfortunately the internet hasn’t been neutral. It’s dominated by a speech cartel which deploys the rhetoric of an open internet and free speech when it serves its business interests, but is fighting tooth and nail when Governor DeSantis and Florida asked Big Tech to be neutral.

Conservatives looked the other way while Big Tech consolidated its control over the internet. They’ve gotten tired of looking the other way, but Big Tech is just as eager to gaslight them, to hire Republican lobbyists to argue that speech is censorship and censorship is speech.

We need a real Net Neutrality and a real Save the Internet Act.

The CCIA has unintentionally made some great points over the years. Americans paid for the internet, from the earliest networks down to Google. We put our economy and our political system on the internet. Now Big Tech monopolies are consuming our wealth and our freedom.

Americans deserve an open and neutral internet. Consumers and businesses need access to an open internet, but so do elected officials, journalists, and anyone who cares about the way that our country is run and has an opinion about government, culture, and education.

Big Tech engaged in blatant election rigging and voter suppression in the 2020 election. And it’s marginalizing and suppressing the views of half the country from the marketplace of ideas.

Its front group laughably claims that it’s suppressing half the country in the name of free speech.

A true net neutrality applied to the CCIA’s Big Tech bosses would "preserve free speech, access to information — and democracy." Florida’s move is a good first step in the war to take back free speech on the internet and force platforms to host political speech in an open and neutral way.

Big Tech claims that it loves free speech. Governor DeSantis and Florida are showing what real free speech looks like.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tags: Big Tech, Corporate America, recent

Share This:Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Linkedin

 

 

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center

 

If you love Hitler, you can find a home on Twitter

May 28, 2021 By Eugene Veklerov 

According to CNN, "Facebook will no longer remove claims that Covid-19 was man-made. "Wonderful! Yet why did Facebook appropriate the right to be an arbiter in scientific disputes to begin with?  That is similar to AT&T eavesdropping on your phone conversations and interrupting them each time AT&T believes that you made an erroneous remark. 

To be fair, according to the same CNN article, Facebook took part in this scholarly dispute following "consultations with leading health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO)." That is the same WHO that has consistently provided cover for Chinese propaganda since the very beginning of the pandemic.

Twitter seems to impose its view of the world on the rest of us bolder than Facebook.  In October 2020, according to the Guardian:.......To Read More....

 

Big Tech to Americans: Option to Dislike Biden Not Available

By: Joe Schaeffer April 03, 2021Articles, Privacy & Tech @ Liberty Nation

What’s a Big Tech giant to do when a popular feature on one of its leading platforms is utilized to express public opposition to the establishment politician it helped install in the White House? If you’re Google, you eliminate the feature and deal with any need for apologies down the road.

Video sharing goliath YouTube, owned by Google, has announced that it is working to hide the number of “dislikes” a video receives. The “like” and “dislike” counts are an especially valued aspect for most YT users when deciding whether a video is worth watching. YouTube fully understands that this move will be wildly unpopular.

At the same time, it would be impossible for anyone paying attention not to notice that one particular prominent account has been having a serious “dislike” problem. Since he became president in January, videos of Joe Biden posted by the Official White House YouTube channel have uniformly registered a lopsided “dislike” to “like” ratio. A March 23 video titled “President Biden Delivers Remarks on the Anniversary of the Affordable Care Act” is typical. As of this writing, it had 226 “likes” and 1.3K “dislikes.”

YouTube is thinly disguising its intentions by pretending its gesture to protect Biden is nothing more than the latest lab work in its constant efforts to improve its product. “In response to creator feedback around well-being and targeted dislike campaigns, we’re testing a few new designs that don’t show the public dislike count,” YT tweeted on March 30. “If you’re part of this small experiment, you might spot one of these designs in the coming weeks.”

Nobody is buying it, of course, and that is not a problem for the company. They know it’s a bad look. And they’re okay with your snarky reaction to these kinds of things. So long as they can keep doing them. Because the manipulations, no matter how ham-fisted they may be, do serve a purpose worth pursuing. The full-court press to hide Joe Biden’s unpopularity must be maintained.

That’s How They Roll

The marriage of Big Tech and the Democratic Party has allowed these mega-corporations to inject long-standing business practice into partisan politics. Here’s an interesting paragraph from an article on Google by CBS News:

“There’s an old saying: It’s easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. Few companies embody the concept more thoroughly than Google. Boldly undertaking business and dealing later with consequences is as much a part of Google as search algorithms. However, the tactic takes as much from the company as it gives.”

The year that was written? 2010. Back then, if Google wanted to do something, such as scanning and indexing copyrighted books, it went ahead and did so and dealt with the fallout later. Applying this amoral approach to the cutthroat world of politics was as natural as putting peanuts in a chocolate bar.

Big Tech colleague Twitter exemplifies the tactic. Last October, as the 2020 presidential election neared, the social media behemoth ruthlessly cracked down on any sharing of a bombshell New York Post article revealing damning material found on a laptop owned by Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Emails on the laptop detailed the younger Biden’s shady financial ties to Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

The material had all the makings of a classic October Surprise. Except Twitter helped bury it. Two weeks after the election, the Blue Bird was willing to chirp that it may have made a boo-boo. “We recognize it as a mistake that we made, both in terms of the intention of the policy and also the enforcement action of not allowing people to share it publicly or privately,” Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Nov. 17.

Act first. Apologize later.

Joe Biden is indeed in the Oval Office, so it can be argued that this hatchet strategy works. But it comes at a very high price. The cost grows every time a company like YouTube angers its customer base on behalf of its ideological interests. “Americans largely think tech giants are too big and should be regulated, and mostly don’t believe the news media is good for U.S. society, according to a poll from YouGov and the Center for Growth and Opportunity,” Axios reported in February. “Two-thirds of those polled say big tech companies are too big,” the website reported.

Big Tech’s “punch first and then offer a handkerchief” business approach stoked lawsuits and all kinds of corporate friction 10-15 years ago. Implementing these unsavory methods against the American people and their freedom of personal expression is fueling a public dislike that can’t be covered up by hiding a button.

~

Read more from Joe Schaeffer.

 

Twitter Censors Famed Epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff

Jeffrey A. Tucker  – March 29, 2021

We’ve been witness to Twitter censorship for more than a year, beginning with obviously objectionable extremists then gradually moving to silence people based on merely having an opinion that contradicts lockdown orthodoxy. There have been days when I wondered whether I would cross the invisible line and even whether AIER would itself be silenced. Stanford public health expert Scott Atlas has been censored, and Naomi Wolf, visiting senior fellow at AIER, was put in Twitter jail for a week for landing on the wrong side of the high priests of allowable content. 

Well, a new line has been crossed. Harvard Professor Martin Kulldorff and co-creator of the Great Barrington Declaration, one of the most cited epidemiologists and infectious - disease experts in the world (latest count of citations: 25,290) has been censored by Twitter. His tweet on how not everyone needs a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 was not taken down. He had a warning slapped on it and users have been prevented from liking or retweeting the post. ...........To Read More....

 

America’s Unthinkable Left Turn to Tyranny

By Professor Larry Bell February 8th, 2021

 

The unprecedented Twitter and Amazon “de-platforming” of President Donald Trump and his official White House account is egregiously appalling and menacing.  Never could I have imagined throughout my previous 82 years of marvelous American life experience ever to witness a time of such profanely disturbing attacks on foundational civil liberties and First Amendment rights.

How could it possibly happen for a duly elected standing leader of a land, which above all values freedom of belief and expression, to be denied those very rights by diktat of unelected media censors?   Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey was on record audaciously telling his employees that banning the president of the United States’ account was just the beginning … a clear message that modern media moguls need answer to no higher power.

Who could have foreseen the immensity of unbridled control that has become vested in a handful of companies that can now refuse to provide services to absolutely any person or enterprise that depends upon access to an online, interconnected world … the communication backbone of all modern business transactions, advertising and political campaigning, and routine coordination with internal and external entities?

Against all American independent thought principles and free speech guarantees, Facebook and other media platforms have somehow come to wield final discretion through anonymous “fact-checkers” who determine what information is deemed “false,” or otherwise “disallowed.” Once “canceled,” an author source typically has little or no recourse for appeal...........To Read More....