FreeSpeech and Censorship: Thread
From the outset, the complaint collides with controlling case law. Take Count II. The argument of Krebs would gut the first amendment and run counter to the clear precedent laid down in Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011). I previously wrote that such lawsuits are a direct
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/09/krebs-files-lawsuit-against-digenova-t... https://onedrive.live.com/?authkey=%21AFtCgSn%2Dq5lrL8c&cid=477107F019583E73&id=477107F019583E73%21779&parId=root&o=OneUp http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/390640 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/376/254/case.html https://newsmax.com/ https://www.twitter.com/newsmax Fired Pussy Christopher Krebs whines to the State to shutter FreeSpeech... " Fired CyberSec Head Krebs Files Lawsuit Against diGenova, The Trump Campaign, And Newsmax Authored by Jonathan Turley, Christopher Krebs, has filed a lawsuit against Trump attorney Joe diGenova over this controversial joke that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and then “shot” for his failures as the former head of U.S. cybersecurity. The lawsuit strikes me as meritless under governing tort doctrines. While Mark Zaid declared that “no rational person” who heard diGenova calling for a person to be drawn and quartered and then shot “would have taken it as ‘jest,’” many of us took the comment as an obvious use of exaggerated rhetoric. While I immediately condemned the language, I did not view it as a serious call for violence. Torts cases of defamation often turn common understanding of such expression as jokes or opinion. The lawsuit not only contradicts governing case law but threatens constitutional protections for free speech and the free press in seeking such tort relief. Joe diGenova gave an interview to Newsmax’s The Howie Carr Show and said that Krebs should be “drawn and quartered” and then “taken out at dawn and shot.” It was a typical over-heated statement of “that guy should be shot” variety. diGenova made it even more absurd by combining it with a medieval method of execution. It was both literally and figuratively an example of overkill. In an interview with the Washington Examiner, diGenova quickly stated that his comment was a joke and not intended as a threat. He stated “For anyone listening to the Howie Carr Show, it was obvious that my remarks were sarcastic and made in jest. I, of course, wish Mr. Krebs no harm. This was hyperbole during political discourse.” The lawsuit names diGenova as well as the Trump campaign and Newsmax. The lawsuit is filed by Charles Fax and Liesel Schopler of Rifkin Weiner Livingston Inc and Jim Walden, Jefferey Udell, Jacob Gardener, Rachel Brook, and Derek Borchardt of Walden Macht & Haran. It is not clear who the opposing defense counsel will be in the case. The lawsuit reads at points more like a political screed in defending the “patriot” Krebs against the “angry mob” fueled by Trump and diGenova who is described as a conspiracy theorist. Count I is a straight defamation claim (against all three defendants). Count II is an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim (against diGenova and the campaign). Count III is an aiding and abetting claim (against Newsmax). Count IV is a civil conspiracy claim. threat to free speech, though I had serious problems with the awarding of costs to the church in a prior column. I was therefore gladdened by the Supreme Court ruling 8-1 in favor of the free speech in the case, even if it meant a victory for odious Westboro Church. Roberts held that the distasteful message cannot influence the message: “Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and — as it did here — inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker.” Roberts further noted that “Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. As a nation we have chosen a different course — to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” The Court in cases like New York Times v. Sullivan have long limited tort law where it would undermine the first amendment. In this case, the Court continues that line of cases — rejecting the highly subjective approach espoused by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent: Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underly- ing the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397, 414 (1989). Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.” Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 574 (1995). The jury here was instructed that it could hold Westboro liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on a finding that Westboro’s picketing was “outrageous.” “Outrageousness,” however, is a highly malleable standard with “an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors’ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression.” Hustler, 485 U. S., at 55 (internal quotation marks omitted). In a case such as this, a jury is “unlikely to be neutral with respect to the content of [the] speech,” posing “a real danger of becoming an instrument for the suppression of . . . ‘vehement, caustic, and some- times unpleasan[t]’ ” expression. Bose Corp., 466 U. S., at 510 (quoting New York Times, 376 U. S., at 270). Such a risk is unacceptable; “in public debate [we] must tolerate insulting, and even outrageous, speech in order to provide adequate ‘breathing space’ to the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.” Boos v. Barry, 485 U. S. 312, 322 (1988) (some internal quotation marks omitted). What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment, and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous. Ironically, these lawyers are espousing the position of the lone dissenter: Justice Alito. The dissent gave little credence to concerns over the constitutional rights raised in the case. He insisted that “[i]n order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner.” It is hard to see how any court could accept Count II and not do precisely what the Supreme Court barred in the use of this tort to limit political and religious speech. Count III and Count IV is equally troubling. It makes sweeping and vague claims of aiding and abetting and conspiracies without support. The comment was clearly part of over-heated rhetoric now common on both ends of the political spectrum. Such claims, if successful, would gut the first amendment. That leaves us with Count I on defamation. That claim is equally dubious from both constitutional and tort perspectives. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth. The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Again, the Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. Krebs is a former public official and a current public figure under Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” He would have to carry the burden of proving that the defendant knew the statement was false or showed reckless disregard for its truth. The problem is the the statement is clearly opinion given in the heat of a contested election. The Supreme Court dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted: It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable. The comment here is clearly “rhetorical hyperbole” that is part of public debate over the 2020 election. Ironically, I have previously criticized President Trump for his calls (here and here and here and here) to change defamation laws to erode protections for the media and free speech. These lawyers and Krebs are doing precisely what Trump has called for. Notably, while I consider this lawsuit to be meritless, I do not believe that any of these lawyers should be charged with bar complaints. That has been the call of Democratic members and many liberal lawyers who want to see bar complaints filed against lawyers challenging the election. I also would not support a campaign like the one at the Lincoln Project (funded by many lawyers) to harass these lawyers or put pressure on their clients. The lawsuit in my view will fail and the legal system will protect free speech from such ill-considered and unsupportable legal claims. Here is the complaint: Krebs v. diGenova "
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/12/09/youtube-will-remove-videos-questio... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UspdphbJAvI Censorship, de-Ranking, and more with Lauren Southern...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2FM6NguzkE The Greatest Threat to Your Freedom Youtube's most popular and controversial voices have all been coming out against Big Tech Censorship and Thought Steering en masse during 2020. Thousands of channels have been demonetized, deranked, algo'd, censored, and deleted. And it's all documented as plain fact for all to see. And 2020's Corona and Elections are proof exemplar without even needing to go into all the other voices. Media and Tech are clear and present dangers to freedom in full effect. WAKE THE FUCK UP!!! And do something. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-LHdEUrGa8 Be braver than douchebags
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 15:44:18 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
And 2020's Corona and Elections are proof exemplar without even needing to go into all the other voices.
lalw, the worthless piece of orange non human shit whom you worship lost the elections. Comparing that to the flu farce (that you support) shows what kind of worthless piece of shit you are.
Media and Tech are clear and present dangers to freedom in full effect.
WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!
shut the fuck up, you fraudulent asshole.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 05:54:33PM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
On Mon, 14 Dec 2020 15:44:18 -0500 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
And 2020's Corona and Elections are proof exemplar without even needing to go into all the other voices.
lalw, the worthless piece of orange non human shit whom you worship lost the elections.
lawl, you still think Trump lost the election. Goes to show the "media" you listen to...
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-youtube-ban-is-un-american-wrong https://theintercept.com/2020/10/15/facebook-and-twitter-cross-a-line-far-mo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSB_fQHbSiA "Media: We're not going to do our job" https://twitter.com/EvanMcMullin/status/1336839561486487553 Executive Director of @StandUpRepublic. Former: CIA ops officer, GOP policy director, independent presidential candidate. "One of the most critical to-do items for the American democracy movement over the next four years will be to more effectively counter domestic anti-democracy disinformation. If possible, it should be done on both the supply and demand sides. We can't ignore this issue any longer. 5:06 PM - 9 Dec 2020" " The YouTube Ban Is Un-American, Wrong, and Will Backfire Silicon Valley couldn't have designed a better way to further radicalize Trump voters Matt Taibbi Dec 11 539 1,236 Start with the headline: Supporting the 2020 U.S. Election. YouTube in its company blog can’t even say, “Banning Election Conspiracy Theories.” They have to employ the Orwellian language of politicians — Healthy Forests, Clear Skies, “Supported” Elections — because Google and YouTube are now political actors, who can’t speak plainly any more than a drunk can walk in a straight line. The company wrote Wednesday: Yesterday was the safe-harbor deadline for the U.S. Presidential election and enough states have certified their election results to determine a President-elect. Given that, we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today (or anytime after) that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election... For example, we will remove videos claiming that a Presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors. This announcement came down at roughly the same time Hunter Biden was announcing that his “tax affairs” were under investigation by the U.S. Attorney in Delaware. Part of that investigation concerned whether or not he had violated tax and money laundering laws in, as CNN put it, “foreign countries, principally China.” Information suggestive of money-laundering and tax issues in China and other countries was in the cache of emails reported in the New York Post story blocked by Twitter and Facebook. That news was denounced as Russian disinformation by virtually everyone in “reputable” media, who often dismissed the story with an aristocratic snort, a la Christiane Amanpour: That tale was not Russian disinformation, however, and Biden’s announcement this week strongly suggests Twitter and Facebook suppressed a real story of legitimate public interest just before a presidential election. How important was that Hunter Biden story? That’s debatable, but the fact that tech companies blocked it, and professional journalists gleefully lied about it, has a direct bearing on YouTube’s decision now to bar Trumpist freakouts over the election results. If you want a population of people to stop thinking an election was stolen from them, it’s hard to think of a worse method than ordering a news blackout after it’s just been demonstrated that the last major blackout was a fraud. Close your eyes and imagine what would have happened if Facebook and Google had banned 9/11 Truth on the advice of intelligence officials in the Bush years, and it will start to make sense that Trump voters in Guy Fawkes masks are now roaming the continent like buffalo. The YouTube decision also came on the same day that former CIA officer Evan McMullin tweeted this: Evan McMullin 🇺🇸 @EvanMcMullin One of the most critical to-do items for the American democracy movement over the next four years will be to more effectively counter domestic anti-democracy disinformation. If possible, it should be done on both the supply and demand sides. We can't ignore this issue any longer. December 10th 2020 526 Retweets3,014 Likes McMullin was the Never-Trump conservative who ran for president in 2016 and received glowing coverage from The Washington Post and other outlets as the man who “stands a fair chance of stealing the red state of Utah from GOP nominee Donald Trump.” The same outlet that blasted Jill Stein’s “fairy tale candidacy” had Josh Rogin write a slobbering blowjob profile of McMullin just before the 2016 election, hailing his “steady personality, honesty, and work ethic” and gushing at the possibility that he might become the first third-party candidate to win a state since 1968. “That,” Rogin noted without irony, “might be his most successful covert operation.” Intelligence officers like McMullin have spent much of the last four years conditioning the public to accept the idea that aggressive steps need to be taken to stop “foreign disinformation” or “foreign interference,” in the media landscape most of all. A move to stop “domestic anti-democracy disinformation” on “both the supply and demand sides” (wtf!?) is a serious escalation of that idea. Signs pointed to this moment coming. This past August, the office of the Director of National Intelligence released an assessment that foreign countries were seeking to spread “disinformation” in the run-up to the election. In October, Virginia Democrat (and former CIA official) Abigail Spanberger piggybacked on that report and introduced a bill designed to cut down on “foreign disinformation.” The law among other things would require that political ads or content produced by foreign governments be marked by disclaimers, and that companies should remove any such content appearing without disclaimers. It would also expand language in the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requiring that any content intended to influence U.S. citizens politically be reported to the Department of Justice. Stipulate that this is all above board, that there’s nothing odd about the Department of Justice monitoring political ads, or registering content creators, or permanent bureaucrats in intelligence agencies publishing their takes on which presidential candidate is preferred by conniving foreign adversary nations. The United States has survived a long time without such procedures, but sure: an argument can be made that any country has an interest in alerting its citizens to foreign messaging. Where it gets weird is when the effort to stamp out “foreign interference” is transferred to the domestic media landscape. Intelligence agencies, think tanks, and mainstream news agencies have been preparing us for this concept for years as well. This dates back to the infamous 2016 Washington Post story hyping PropOrNot, a shadowy organization that identified a long list of homegrown American news sites like Consortium, TruthDig, Naked Capitalism, and Antiwar.Com as vehicles for “Russian propaganda.” Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal two years ago insisted the Russians in attempting to disrupt our lives “will use American voices. No longer the broken English, no longer the payment in rubles. They will become ever more astute in their attacks.” Think-tanks began hyping ideas about “domestic-origin disinformation” and foreign countries “co-opting authentic American voices.” As time passed in the Trump years, we started reading on a regular basis that Russian propaganda efforts would be harder to detect, because they would be routed through people appearing on the outside, like Nexus 6 replicants, to be ordinary human Americans. In late February earlier this year, at the peak of the preposterous campaign to depict Bernie Sanders as a favorite of the Kremlin, David Sanger of the New York Times warned that Russians were purposefully sending messages through “everyday Americans” because “it is much harder to ban the words of real Americans.” When The Bulwark, basically the reanimated corpse of Bill Kristol’s Weekly Standard, wrote some weeks back about Donald Trump holding a “maskless anti-democracy disinformation rally straight out of Vladimir Putin’s dreams,” that language wasn’t accidental. This was part of a P.R. campaign, years in the making, preparing us for the idea that domestic voices can be just as dangerous as foreign ones, and similarly need to be stamped out. The YouTube announcement is the latest salvo in the fight against “domestic anti-democracy information,” and the first of many problems with it is its hypocrisy. Do I personally believe the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump? No. However, I also didn’t believe the election was stolen from Hillary Clinton in 2016, when the Internet was bursting at the seams with conspiracy theories nearly identical to the ones now being propagated by Trump fans: Daniel Nazer @danielnazer It's stunning how perfectly the Palmer Report's coverage in 2016 matches today's MAGA conspiracies. But Democratic state AGs were not stupid enough to submit it to the Supreme Court. December 9th 2020 88 Retweets362 Likes Unrestrained speculation about the illegitimacy of the 2016 election had a major impact on the public. Surveys showed 50 percent of Clinton voters by December of 2016 believed the Russians actually hacked vote tallies in states, something no official agency ever alleged even at the peak of the Russiagate madness. Two years later, one in three Americans believed a foreign power would change vote tallies in the 2018 midterm elections. These beliefs were turbo-charged by countless “reputable” news reports and statements by politicians that were either factually incorrect or misleading, from the notion that there was “more than circumstantial” evidence of collusion to false alarms about Russians hacking everything from Vermont’s energy grid to C-SPAN. What makes the current situation particularly grotesque is that the DNI warning about this summer stated plainly that a major goal of foreign disruptors was to “undermine the public’s confidence in the Democratic process” by “calling into question the validity of the election results.” Our own domestic intelligence agencies have been doing exactly that for years now. On nearly a daily basis in the leadup to this past Election Day, they were issuing warnings in the corporate press that you might have reason to mistrust the coming results: Amazing how those stories vanished after Election Day! If you opened any of those pre-vote reports, you’d find law enforcement and intelligence officials warning that everything from state and local governments to “aviation networks” was under attack. In fact, go back across the last four years and you’ll find a consistent feature of warnings about foreign or domestic “disinformation”: the stern scare quote from a bona fide All-Star ex-spook or State official, from Clint Watts to Victoria Nuland to Frank Figliuzzi to John Brennan to McMullan’s former boss and buddy, ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden. A great many of these figures are now paid contributors to major corporate news organizations. What do we think the storylines would be right now if Trump had won? What would those aforementioned figures be saying on channels like MSNBC and CNN, about what would they be speculating? Does anyone for a moment imagine that YouTube, Twitter, or Facebook would block efforts from those people to raise doubts about that hypothetical election result? We know the answer to that question, because all of those actors spent the last four years questioning the legitimacy of Trump’s election without any repercussions. The Atlantic, quoting the likes of Hayden, ran a piece weeks after Trump’s election arguing that it was the duty of members of the Electoral College to defy voters and elect Hillary Clinton on national security grounds. Mass protests were held to disrupt the Electoral College vote in late December 2016, and YouTube cheerfully broadcast videos from those events. When Electoral vote tallies were finally read out in congress, ironically by Joe Biden, House members from at least six states balked, with people like Barbara Lee objecting on the grounds of “overwhelming evidence of Russian interference in our election.” In sum, it’s okay to stoke public paranoia, encourage voters to protest legal election results, spread conspiracy theories about stolen elections, refuse to endorse legal election tallies, and even to file lawsuits challenging the validity of presidential results, so long as all of this activity is sanctified by officials in the right party, or by intelligence vets, or by friendlies at CNN, NBC, the New York Times, etc. If, however, the theories are coming from Donald Trump or some other disreputable species of un-credentialed American, then it’s time for companies like YouTube to move in and wipe out 8000+ videos and nudge people to channels like CBS and NBC, as well as to the home page of the federal Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. This is a process YouTube calls “connecting people to authoritative information.” Cutting down the public’s ability to flip out removes one of the only real checks on the most dangerous kind of fake news, the official lie. Imagine if these mechanisms had been in place in the past. Would we disallow published claims that the Missile Gap was a fake? That the Gulf of Tonkin incident was staged? How about Watergate, a wild theory about cheating in a presidential election that was universally disbelieved by “reputable” news agencies, until it wasn’t? It’s not hard to imagine a future where authorities would ask tech platforms to quell “conspiracy theories” about everything from poisoned water systems to war crimes. There’s no such thing as a technocratic approach to truth. There are official truths, but those are political rather than scientific determinations, and therefore almost always wrong on some level. The people who created the American free press understood this, even knowing the tendency of newspapers to be idiotic and full of lies. They weighed that against the larger potential evil of a despotic government that relies upon what Thomas Jefferson called a “standing army of newswriters” ready to print whatever ministers want, “without any regard for truth.” We allow freedom of religion not because we want people believing in silly religions, but because it’s the only defense against someone establishing one officially mandated silly religion. With the press, we put up with gossip and errors and lies not because we think those things are socially beneficial, but because we don’t want an aristocratic political establishment having a monopoly on those abuses. By allowing some conspiracy theories but not others, that’s exactly the system we’re building. Most of blue-state America is looking aghast at news stories about 17 states joining in a lawsuit to challenge the election results. Conventional wisdom says that half the country has been taken over by a dangerous conspiracist movement that must be tamed by any means necessary. Acts like the YouTube ban not only don’t accomplish this, they’ll almost certainly further radicalize this population. This is especially true in light of the ongoing implication that Trump’s followers are either actual or unwitting confederates of foreign enemies. That insult is bad enough when it’s leveled in words only, but when it’s backed up by concrete actions to change a group’s status, like reducing an ability to air grievances, now you’re removing some of the last incentives to behave like citizens. Do you want 70 million Trump voters in the streets with guns and go-bags? Tell them you consider them the same as foreign enemies, and start treating them accordingly. This is a stupid, dangerous, wrong policy, guaranteed to make things worse. "
https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1339354663716409344 This is incredible. Two weeks before the election Twitter changed how you retweet because they obviously didn’t want certain things to go viral. Now that they got the result they want, they’re going back to the old way. Big tech is manipulating us in ways we can’t imagine. https://pic.twitter.com/J7jH0ogqli "The solution to bad information and bad ideas is never censorship. What censorship is for is to protect bad ideas. Really kooky conspiracy theories are put out as a kind of false flag, to paint genuine people with the conspiracy brush, and to justify censorship." https://twitter.com/NickJFuentes/status/1339379118417326082 Freedom of speech is being fired from your job and banned from Paypal, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Stripe, Air BnB, and Uber because you question the ruling ideology of the American Regime. https://t.co/zm5bnYRoez https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-twitter-idUSKBN28Q2V3 Twitter Inc said on Wednesday that users will be required to remove new tweets that advance harmfully false or misleading claims about COVID-19 vaccinations, in an expansion of its rules on coronavirus misinformation [snip... endless speech and freedom cancellation weasel words]. The following quote has been censored... " In China, you are censored if you: Talk against the government aggressively, and in particular if you attack Xi Jinping or the communist party directly. In America, you are censored if you: Talk about Jews Point out that Jews are the single wealthiest group of people in the world Research the Holocaust Say the n-word Misgender a tranny Make jokes about a dead fat woman Say that trannies aren’t women Oppose homosexual marriage Post black crime statistics Post CDC coronavirus statistics Post about Hunter Biden Ask any questions at all about the coronavirus Ask any questions at all about the coronavirus vaccine Post information showing that Trump won the election There is no reality in which Americans have more free speech than the Chinese. Anyone who tells you that is lying to you on purpose. It is objectively untrue, and it is obviously untrue. There is no way to make the argument in support of this claim, which is why they just ban you if you question it. "
Facebook, Twitter Revert To Pre-Election News Feed Algos After Their Preferred Candidate Wins Election https://www.foxnews.com/politics/facebook-twitter-biden-campaign-donations-c... https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/16/the-biden-teams-tug-of-war-over-fac... https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/17/twitter-public-policy-director-deca... https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1339354663716409344 https://twitter.com/mikehahn_/status/1316716049946021888 Facebook and Twitter have reversed algorithms deployed during the election to prioritize MSM reporting - which, if you recall, peddled the 'Russian disinformation' angle on the Hunter Biden laptop story, as opposed to reporting on its content. Also, unrelated we're sure, Facebook and Twitter execs were giant Biden supporters, and many have joined his transition team and will perhaps be rewarded with positions in his administration. Facebook's algorithm significantly boosted content from outlets such as CNN, the New York Times and NPR, while de-ranking alt-media sites such as Zero Hedge and others. The election algo tweaks were part of a "temporary change we made to help limit the spread of inaccurate claims about the election," according to Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne. Facebook spokesman Joe Osborne told the NYT on Wednesday that the platform is still prioritizing "authoritative and informative news" on "important global topics like elections, Covid-19 and climate change." Twitter, meanwhile, reversed some of its election-influencing measures on Wednesday - announcing the end of a two-step 'retweet' processs on the quote-tweet screen, after acknowledging that it had decreased overall engagement rather than what they deem "misleading information." This is incredible. Two weeks before the election Twitter changed how you retweet because they obviously didn’t want certain things to go viral. Now that they got the result they want, they’re going back to the old way. Big tech is manipulating us in ways we can’t imagine. pic.twitter.com/J7jH0ogqli — Dave Rubin (@RubinReport) December 16, 2020 Both Twitter and Facebook engaged in a cross-platform embargo of the New York Post exposé detailing explosive evidence against Joe and Hunter Biden - which we now know the FBI has been investigating since at least 2018, and wasn't Russian disinformation. Twitter locked the Post's account for 16 days to punish them for reporting the story. What's more, Twitter actively removed Trump ads slinging mud at the former Vice President less than three weeks from the election without explaining how they violated the platform's rules. Twitter has suspended @TeamTrump for posting a video calling Joe Biden a liar who has been ripping off our country for years, as it relates to the @nypost article. 19 days out from the election. pic.twitter.com/Z9FFzridyr — Mike Hahn (@mikehahn_) October 15, 2020 So - with their preferred candidate now set to take office in January, Twitter and Facebook have turned the tap on what we suspect is a far more profitable exchange of information.
https://themindunleashed.com/2020/12/man-publicly-executed-in-north-korea-fo... https://www.insider.com/north-korea-fisherman-publicly-executed-for-listenin... https://www.rfa.org/english/news/korea/execution-12172020205217.html " Chongjin is said to have been turned in by by one of his crew members at a fishing base in the port city of Chongjin, where his crew member confessed his “offense” to authorities. It’s believed that Chongjin, who was once a radio operator in the military, had started listening to foreign broadcasts while on service. Chongjin was charged with “subversion against the party. It seems that the authorities made an example out of Choi to imprint on the residents that listening to outside radio stations means death. " Sounds like the Leftist USA and its Social Media Censorship and Cancellation Regime. More on that... https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/ai-can-predict-twitter-users-likely-spread-... https://www.activistpost.com/2020/12/ai-predict-who-share-disinformation.htm... https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.325 Findings could help governments and social media companies such as Twitter and Facebook better understand user behaviour and help them design more effective models for tackling the spread of [dis]information. Look how they crapflood and censor each other's ability to read in order to fuck you over... " https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-116HR133... In the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi: "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it." Because, as Utah Senator Mike Lee so rambunctiously pointed out tonight, the bill is so huge that Lee said it will take three hours just to print out. And they’ll still have to vote on the bill tonight. It’s unreal. 1/4 This is the spending bill under consideration in Congress today. I received it just moments ago, and will likely be asked to vote on it late tonight. It’s 5,593 pages long. I know there are some good things in it. I’m equally confident that there are bad things in it. pic.twitter.com/SoWXnEWYfV — Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) December 21, 2020 Lee noted that "this is by far the longest bill I've ever seen," and added that members won’t be allowed to amend the bill in any way: Here’s the really sad thing: we’re being told that there will be no opportunity to amend or improve it. As a result, nearly every member of Congress - House and Senate, Democrat or Republican - will have been excluded from the process of developing this bill, which will cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars. This process, by which members of Congress are asked to defer blindly to legislation negotiated entirely in secret by four of their colleagues, must come to an end. It won’t come to an end until no longer works for those empowered by it. That can happen, but only when most members of both houses and both political parties stop voting for bills they haven’t read—and, by design, cannot read until after it’s too late. And so it came to pass that the House passed the bill... without a single member possibly being capable of reading it: *HOUSE HAS VOTES TO PASS COVID RELIEF-FUNDING BILL; VOTE ONGOING And in case you wondered just what is in it, we summarized the most egregious pork here... and what needy Americans will care about here. * * * Earlier: There was some confusion on Monday afternoon when the release of the full text of the stimulus bill was prevented due to a computer glitch, because the file was - no joke - corrupt. It’s worse than printer delays. They cannot get the Covid relief/govt funding bill uploaded to the internet. the computers keep bugging out, several sources told me. have heard about a corrupt file in education piece of the bill. all sections need to be combined into 1 file — Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) December 21, 2020 But that was promptly resolved (we can only hope the hacked password wasn't Pork123), and moments ago Congress released the full text of the bill... all 5593 pages of it. Needless to say, the bill is chock-full of garbage: This bill is beyond. Example: It literally legislates the process for the reincarnation of the Dalai Lama. See pg 5099 of the PDF. — Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDNews) December 21, 2020 Good luck to anyone tasked with reading this porkulus monster from cover to cover. "
The Invisible Influence of Big Tech on Politics & Elections - Allum Bokhari #Deleted https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFJfGphZBmQ #Deleted: Big Tech's battle to erase the trump movement and steal the election https://deletedbook.com/ Trump won.
https://www.propublica.org/article/leaked-documents-show-how-chinas-army-of-... China censors and manipulates corona (and everything else), just like the USA does now too.
On Sat, 26 Dec 2020 01:47:21 -0500 grarpamp turd <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
https://www.propublica.org/article/leaked-documents-show-how-chinas-army-of-...
'censor the coronavirus' new low for the worthless piece of shit/US military agent 'grarpamp'. notice that the grarpamp bot is going to also spam some other random shit that doesn't fully parrot the fascist flu farce, pretending that he is a 'libertarian' turd who 'opposes' govcorp. So yeah, another spamming bot on this fine mailing list.
https://disrupttexts.org/ https://www.scribd.com/document/489011066/Schoolhouserights-org-Nevada-Compl... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/02/symbols-subtle-oppression-virginia-jud... https://jonathanturley.org/2016/12/13/penn-students-remove-portrait-of-shake... https://www.theepochtimes.com/proposed-house-rules-seek-to-erase-gendered-te... https://www.dw.com/en/austrian-village-of-fucking-decides-to-change-its-name... https://marvellousmaps.com/ Military base, school, road names. Statues destroyed. History erased away from future insight. Books burnt, flags banned, markets closed. Workplace and school indoctrination camps, else fired and failed. Arbitrary discriminatory overquotas inequal to population metrics. Identitarian and sjw promoted instead of qualifications. Fewer options for freedom, free speech, free ideas, free living and free association. Etc. Endless streams of topical news all easily found. Will 2020/2021's actions re subject line be felt worthwhile, or ridiculous, or harmful? https://www.axios.com/news-cycle-2020-google-trends-chart-8a27fc67-2dd0-45b6... Apple is ensuring that it will retain its access to Chinese markets, particularly after Beijing's recent rousting of Alibaba over some seemingly innocuous comments made by CEO Jack Ma. In addition to the 39K games removed from the platform on Thursday, Apple also removed another 7K or so non-game apps. https://www.rt.com/russia/511094-fine-bill-media-outlets-shadow-banning/ https://www.theepochtimes.com/deception-and-suppression-a-year-of-beijings-v... https://campusreform.org/?id=16525
https://www.projectcensored.org/category/the-top-25-censored-stories-of-2019... https://www.projectcensored.org/senate-bill-challenges-online-encryption-con... "The EARN IT Act appears to have received no coverage by any of the major network or cable TV news outlets."
https://www.theepochtimes.com/proposed-house-rules-seek-to-erase-gendered-te...
https://twitter.com/GReschenthaler/status/1345866081815187459 The prayer to open the 117th Congress ended with “amen and a-women.” Amen is Latin for “so be it.” It’s not a gendered word. Unfortunately, facts are irrelevant to progressives. Unbelievable. pic.twitter.com/FvZ0lLMDDr — Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (@GReschenthaler) January 3, 2021
https://rumble.com/embed/v9wl35 Censorship causes violence https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/1347289861091450882 Michelle Obama Calls for Censorship, Bans, this FRAUD lies profusely too "peaceful summer protests" lol https://100percentfedup.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ErKIpXiXIBAc8pH-1034x... https://100percentfedup.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ErKIpXmXEAcFuoo-1034x... https://100percentfedup.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/zuckerberg.jpeg Zuckerberg Spews Toxic Censor Waste Parler CEO John Matze https://parler.com/post/23a2c1d63ea94c74b04d03917ad03339 https://youtube.com/watch?v=_nQ1inav47U Parler John Matze https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1276200378296664066 " Parler CEO John Matze made a bold statement on his rapidly growing social media platform this morning: If free speech truly is the enemy and we must restrict and censor the voices of people to keep our country safe then our country is already lost. If one man’s voice is a threat to our nation but his holding of the presidential office is not, than it is apparent the powers of the presidency are less powerful than a single voice. Why should any of us settle to giving up our rights to free speech? It’s clear that Facebook and Twitter believe the ends justify the means. They believe the American people are weak. They insult our founding fathers by suggesting Zuckerburg and Dorsey know what is best for us. Parler is not an arbiter of truth. We believe in you. We believe you are wise enough to decide for yourself and trust that given access to all information we can self govern. The solution is clear. If you believe in free speech, and our founding principles of our republic, then we must liberate others by promoting free speech Parler. " Tiffany Trump posted a comment about her father being banned from Twitter, asking: “Whatever happened to free speech?” " Parler: You won’t find it on the Twitters with all those bird brains in charge. They are not a platform but a publisher. They don’t want free speech and as a byproduct, they must not like democracy. A functioning democratic republic and democratic process requires discussion, debate and access to information. We the people must make our own choices, determine for ourselves what is true and false. We must be our own fact checkers. None of this can be done without free speech and free access to information. We must liberate ourselves from their manipulation and dystopian tactics of control. " Senator Ted Cruz promoted Parler on Twitter while bashing “big tech” giants Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, platforms that silence those with whom they disagree. In his video, Cruz warned about the danger of the big tech giants having the ability to affect the November elections outcome. I’m proud to join @parler_app — a platform gets what free speech is all about — and I’m excited to be a part of it. Let’s speak. Let’s speak freely. And let’s end the Silicon Valley censorship. Follow me there @tedcruz! pic.twitter.com/pzUFvhipBZ — Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) June 25, 2020
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, January 8, 2021 1:25 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: ...
If one man’s voice is a threat to our nation but his holding of the presidential office is not, than it is apparent the powers of the presidency are less powerful than a single voice. Why should any of us settle to giving up our rights to free speech? It’s clear that Facebook and Twitter believe the ends justify the means. They believe the American people are weak. They insult our founding fathers by suggesting Zuckerburg and Dorsey know what is best for us. Parler is not an arbiter of truth. We believe in you. We believe you are wise enough to decide for yourself and trust that given access to all information we can self govern. The solution is clear. If you believe in free speech, and our founding principles of our republic, then we must liberate others by promoting free speech Parler. "
When I yelled "FIRE!" in the crowded theater, I was just exercising my right to free speech. I felt like it! All of you people, you're smart enough to know if there is a fire or not. I believe in you! Fire! Fire! Fire! best regards,
On Friday, January 8, 2021, 11:26:26 AM PST, coderman <coderman@protonmail.com> wrote: ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Friday, January 8, 2021 1:25 PM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: ...
If one man’s voice is a threat to our nation but his holding of the presidential office is not, than it is apparent the powers of the presidency are less powerful than a single voice. Why should any of us settle to giving up our rights to free speech? It’s clear that Facebook and Twitter believe the ends justify the means. They believe the American people are weak. They insult our founding fathers by suggesting Zuckerburg and Dorsey know what is best for us. Parler is not an arbiter of truth. We believe in you. We believe you are wise enough to decide for yourself and trust that given access to all information we can self govern. The solution is clear. If you believe in free speech, and our founding principles of our republic, then we must liberate others by promoting free speech Parler.
When I yelled "FIRE!" in the crowded theater, I was just exercising my right to free speech. I felt like it!
All of you people, you're smart enough to know if there is a fire or not. I believe in you! Fire! Fire! Fire!
Is it okay to yell, "MOVIE!" in a crowded firehouse?
https://100percentfedup.com/delta-airlines-places-utah-patriots-who-confront... https://thefreethoughtproject.com/facebook-blocking-ron-paul-shows-tech-cens... Facebook Blocking Ron Paul Shows Tech Censorship is Not About Trump, It’s About Suppressing Dissent Matt Agorist January 12, 2021 https://twitter.com/RonPaul/status/1348694943905308672 https://thefreethoughtproject.com/facebook-post-selling-child/ https://thefreethoughtproject.com/former-top-level-facebook-executive-claims... Dr. Ron Paul who has been a champion of peace and liberty for decades was unceremoniously blocked from his own page on Facebook Monday. Facebook claimed Ron Paul, who has long promoted everyone getting along, civil liberties, police accountability, and ending US wars, was repeatedly going “against our community standards.” “With no explanation other than “repeatedly going against our community standards,” Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified,” Ron Paul tweeted out Monday afternoon. With no explanation other than "repeatedly going against our community standards," @Facebook has blocked me from managing my page. Never have we received notice of violating community standards in the past and nowhere is the offending post identified. pic.twitter.com/EdMyW9gufa — Ron Paul (@RonPaul) January 11, 2021 This happens to be the exact same notice the Free Thought Project received at the end of last year. We never once got a warning. We never once published anything false, and we always promote peace and liberty. Coincidentally, despite not supporting Trump and calling out his crimes and the deceptive tactics of Qanon for four years, nearly every single person involved with the Free Thought Project received a 30 day ban on Friday as part of the mass purge of Trump supporters on Twitter and Facebook. Dr. Paul’s ban is exceedingly egregious given the fact that he has never once advocated violence, nor did he support the march on the capitol last week. Instead, Paul has been an outspoken proponent for breaking through the two-party paradigm and addressing issues that actually affect our lives like the police state, big government, and the Federal Reserve’s control over the U.S. monetary system. Few people in modern history have spawned an awakening of the masses like the former Congressman. Throughout his tenure in Congress, Ron Paul was known as ‘Dr. No’ because he voted on 100% principle. Unlike any of his peers, Ron Paul was often the single ‘no’ vote on many issues. He never voted for wars, or to advance the police state, or to bailout big banks and corporations. He was a true hero to freedom. One of Ron Paul’s most defining moments of his career was waking people up to the corrupt history of the Federal Reserve and the problems this privately owned central bank causes throughout the world. He even wrote a book about it, while he was still in Congress, titled, End the Fed. Since his days in Congress have ended, Dr. Paul has dedicated his life after D.C. to continue spreading the message of liberty. For several years, he has run the Liberty Report which covers the current practices of government corruption along with many other issues. Through banning Paul, Facebook is essentially telling the world that it is pro-war, pro-police state, pro-Federal Reserve, and pro-cronyism in general. As he is non-violent, pro-peace, and pro-free speech, Ron Paul poses no threat of inciting violence or armed insurrection. For simply being anti-corrupt establishment, he was banned. This is huge problem. It is no secret that Facebook is a leviathan of corruption, censorship, spying, and an outright divide-stoking platform that has been a part of facilitating a massively bicameral society that is ripping apart. Thanks to its algorithms that keep users in their own partisan bubbles, billions of people across the planet who get most of their information from Facebook, have fallen into a bias-confirming slumber and react with anger, and sometimes violence, when presented with factual information that challenges their Facebook-constructed world view. It is leading to mass ignorance, the shouting down and eventual censorship of peaceful ideas, and hatred for our fellow man. Social media, and the mainstream media have almost single-handedly fanned the flames of the fire of divide in which we currently find ourselves. Even former high-level executives inside Facebook have come forward to attempt to alert the world to technocratic dystopia this social media platform is creating. For years, the Free Thought Project has been screaming this information from the rooftops. Yet it was never bad enough for most people to pay attention. Well, now it is. As anyone with half a brain understands, censorship does not stop ideas from spreading. Bad ideas need to be defeated in the public arena of debate. When you ban them, you not only prevent them from being defeated in the public arena, you give credence to those who espouse them. These tech giants know this, which is why the conspiracy theorist in me thinks they are attempting to provoke a horrifying response. As we reported this week, three individual, unelected, unaccountable corporate monopolies (Amazon, Google, Apple) colluded to silence political content with which they disagreed. Joe MAGA, who may be on the verge of snapping, whose been unemployed for a year, arguing about ridiculous Qanon theories on Facebook, only to be banned and pushed to Parler, and then banned once more, is thinking to himself right now that the establishment is out to get him and he’s right. Unfortunately, thanks to this attack on anti-establishment voices, thousands of Joe MAGAs are likely googling the ingredients for pipe bombs, right now. Just like the war on terror creates more terrorists, censorship is wind in the sails of extremism. The reaction to the chaos at the capitol by big tech and the establishment will undoubtedly make things far worse, thereby allowing the feds to roll out even more draconian measures in the name of national security. Most Americans will accept these measures in the name of “keeping them safe,” and freedom will die with nary a whimper. By banning Ron Paul they are letting the world know that it’s not just about Trump inciting riots or the raid on the capitol. They are letting the world know that they are who gets to decide what information can be shared online and they do not care about the potential for extremism and despotism these actions create.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-status-coup https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2021/01/10/officer-crushed-capitol-riot-video-... https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2021/01/13/capitol-rio... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_94jF4y6LlU https://twitter.com/JordanChariton/status/1351231373873446914 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/virginia-gun-rally-threats-of-violence-richmond... https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/gun-rally-virginia-lo... https://twitter.com/YouTube https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube https://twitter.com/StatusCoup https://twitter.com/JonFarina https://t.co/PzD5EmR4MU https://twitter.com/JordanChariton/status/1351231373873446914 https://twitter.com/krystalball/status/1351277968350437377 https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1351277774640713730 https://twitter.com/andrewkimmel/status/1351295386888110086 https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-ford-fischer https://www.nbc4i.com/news/local-news/protesters-start-gathering-at-ohio-sta... https://sports.yahoo.com/exclusive-fbi-warns-of-potential-boogaloo-violence-... https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://news2share.com/start/2020/07/04/armed-boogaloo-and-blm-activists-joi... https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/ohio-statehouse-protests-1-17-21 https://twitter.com/FordFischer/status/1353722281135120385/photo/1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKDAp-4Hhs8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OXFmnTtO6s https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/19/goog-s19.html https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-conspiracy-theories-media-misinforma... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/13/technology/telegram-signal-apps-big-tech.... https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-rush-to-live-video-facebook-moved-fast-and-b... https://www.theverge.com/2019/4/9/18302187/google-youtube-anti-hate-live-str... https://statuscoup.com/laid-off-general-motors-worker-gm-couldnt-care-less-a... https://statuscoup.com/members-exclusive-seattle-homeless-epidemic-reporting... Meet The Censored: Status Coup Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News, On January 6th, Jon Farina, photographer and videographer for Jordan Chariton’s Status Coup outlet, captured horrifying images. At the Capitol, a pro-Trump mob tried to burst into the building, and a police officer who attempted to intercede was caught in a door. He cried out in pain, but the crowd was indifferent, chanting, “Heave, ho!” as they tried to break in. Farina, in the middle of the physical mayhem as photojournalists often are, caught the scene up close while 30,000 people watched the live feed. Farina’s footage rocketed around the world, and major press outlets celebrated his work as an example of hard-hitting reporting. CNN did a laudatory story about the freelance photojournalist, with Pamela Brown asking Farina to “bring us inside the mayhem.” Other outlets like USA Today quoted his recollections of that day, and the likes of Steven Colbert on CBS, as well as ABC News, NBC, MSNBC, CNBC, the Guardian, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, the New York Post, the Daily Mail, and others used it as fodder for outraged coverage of the riot: For a week or so, Status Coup was feted for service on the front lines of responsible journalism. Nearly two weeks later, on January 18th, another Farina live stream was shut down by YouTube, thanks to policies that will make it very difficult for non-corporate media going forward to do live reporting. In fact, it’s not a stretch to say that if the incident from the 18th happened earlier, we may never have gotten the Capitol pictures. On the 18th, Farina was in Richmond, Virginia, where a significant rally of pro-gun protesters was expected. There had been widespread reports warning of unrest. CBS relayed FBI fears of “credible threats of violence,” while the Washington Post said officials were “on edge” ahead of the Martin Luther King Day protest, gearing up for a full-scale assault: Members of the National Guard are on standby. Plywood covers the windows of the State Capitol. Tall metal barricades surround Capitol Square, with police vehicles idling on pathways just inside locked pedestrian gates. Downtown streets will be closed; signs warning against carrying guns have gone up around the city. “The violent, lawless insurrection and assault on democracy and its institutions that unfolded last week in Washington, D.C., will not be tolerated in the city of Richmond,” Mayor Levar Stoney warned on Thursday. The threats may have been credible, but when Farina began live-streaming to an audience of 6,000, the event turned out to be peaceful and unremarkable, though not without interest from a news perspective. “Frankly, there might have been more press than protesters,” Status Coup’s Chariton said later. “And while it was live, it was pretty informative. Jon talked to 4-5 people, and they pretty much all made it clear that they weren’t Trump supporters, that they didn’t support what happened in the Capitol. They were pretty relaxed compared to the propaganda ahead of time.” Despite the seeming unremarkableness of the event, it shut down abruptly mid-feed. Chariton assumed something happened on Farina’s end. “Then I got an email from YouTube, telling me we’d violated their ‘Firearms Policy.’ I wasn’t aware they had a firearms policy.” OUTRAGEOUS... Now @YouTube @TeamYouTube just REMOVED @StatusCoup & @JonFarina's Livestream reporting from PEACEFUL Virginia gun rights rally bc "we think it violates our firearms policy." HOW ARE JOURNALISTS SUPPOSED TO CHRONICLE HISTORY IF YOUTUBE-AND OTHERS-ARE OUTLAWING IT? pic.twitter.com/PzD5EmR4MU — Jordan (@JordanChariton) January 18, 2021 Chariton went onto Twitter to announce what happened, and after a few well-known media figures like Krystal Ball and Ryan Grim complained, YouTube restored the content. Other independents covering the rally, however, like Andrew Kimmel, never had their content restored. The serious consequence of the Virginia episode was not so much the lost coverage of the rally, but what Chariton had to tell Farina after the event. Well-known for covering labor issues, homelessness, and especially the Flint water crisis, Status Coup had been growing, in large part because of live stream content. Now, however, the possibility that YouTube might issue a strike against his channel, or take it down altogether, forced him into a difficult decision. “I had to tell [Farina] not to go live anymore,” he says. One person at the same rally wasn’t surprised by what happened. Videographer and well-known protest shooter Ford Fischer of News2Share, the first profile subject of “Meet the Censored,” was also in Richmond to shoot the event. He didn’t get taken down by YouTube, but only because he didn’t bother trying to go live. “I was there on January 18th and didn’t stream it, because I knew it’d get banned,” Fischer says. “I filmed basically the same rally on January 17th and it did get banned.” The January 17th rally Fischer referenced was a pro-gun rally in Columbus, Ohio, that in the wake of the Capitol riot garnered significant advance media coverage. Once again, headlines like “FBI warns of Potential Boogaloo Violence During January 17th Rallies” primed audiences to expect the worst, and also to make a direct connection with the January 6th events. In fact, Twitter cited the coming Ohio rally in its post announcing the closure of Donald Trump’s account, describing the Ohio event as a possible “secondary attack”: Plans for future armed protests have already begun proliferating on and off-Twitter, including a proposed secondary attack on the US Capitol and state capitol buildings on January 17, 2021. According to Fischer, the Twitter announcement didn’t exactly make sense, because the protesters in Ohio were more of a libertarian ilk, and, as Farina and Chariton discovered in the Virginia crowd, not so clearly aligned with Trump as Twitter and other media outlets may have imagined. Fischer has frequently covered events involving the gun-toting Boogaloos, whom he describes as anti-authoritarian and less likely to be Trumpists than to profess a pox-on-both-houses attitude to Trump and Joe Biden both (“You might hear something like, ‘Unless you put Ron Paul on the ballot, I’m not voting,’” he says). Although there’s significant national interest in the group, both among supporters and detractors, Fischer says “I’ve basically stopped trying to live stream rallies involving Boogaloos.” Back on July 4th, 2020, he shot a live stream of a joint armed rally of Boogaloos and Black Lives Matter, protesting together against police violence — here again, we see the significant political differences between Trump supporters and some of these pro-gun groups — only to have the live stream interrupted, on the same grounds that it violated Google’s firearms policy. Nonetheless, Fischer attempted to shoot the January 17th rally, among other things because of the obvious public interest in the event, which was heavily covered by the mainstream press. Local TV affiliates associated with networks like ABC and CNN covered the January 17th rallies in Columbus and in other locations, even broadcasting live. However, when Fischer tried to live stream, he was cut off in short order by a notice identical to the one received by Chariton. He was reminded that YouTube “does not allow live streams showing someone holding, handling, or transporting a firearm.” The policy presents obvious head-scratching issues. For one, as Fischer points out, virtually all police carry a firearm, so “there’s obviously some subjectivity in what’s being enforced.” Furthermore, the rule doesn’t seem to apply to major corporate outlets, a double-standard problem that’s a constant in this universe. In an even more bizarre recent incident, YouTube this past weekend removed video Fischer shot on January 6th — not live footage, but still — of the crowd listening to Donald Trump before the Capitol riot. This time, the grounds were that the content advanced “false claims that widespread fraud errors or glitches affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.” Fischer supposes the issue has to do with the fact that the unedited, single-shot video — which is focused mainly on the crowd reaction — caught Trump’s own words. This might make sense, except that Trump’s speech that day is still on YouTube, as broadcast by several CBS affiliates, among others. As with Farina, Fischer’s Capitol protest footage was picked up by numerous major outlets, including CNN, NBC, CBS, BBC, and others, but the system seems to incentivize independent shooters to distribute footage through corporate outlets only, rather than conveying directly to their own audiences. “I absolutely think there’s a campaign against independent content creators, especially live,” Fischer says. “Major outlets face no such technical issues.” This makes any attempt to build an alternative news outlet a steep uphill climb, even when there’s a positive audience response, as Chariton has found out. Formerly with The Young Turks, Chariton’s niche is national news from a left/progressive perspective, with special emphasis on the area where corporate outlets once had a near-monopoly, e.g. on-location production of images and reporting. Typically, alternative media outlets can’t afford to travel much and often have to rely on wire services and commercial coverage for primary source material, especially for expensive beats like the presidential election. Chariton emphasizes going to hot spots like Flint and to election campaign events to generate original images and video interviews, an innovative alt-media take on national news coverage. Live stream coverage had been a major part of their formula. The Ohio and Virginia incidents underscore two developments involving platforms like YouTube/Google, Facebook, and Twitter in recent years. The first is the campaign to stress what Google calls “authoritative content,” which up-ranks articles and videos issued by major corporate news outlets like CNN or CBS, while decreasing traffic for independent sites on the left, the right, and in between. The second has been an effort to close loopholes in the platforms’ content moderation regimes. In the wake of the Capitol riot, this trend intensified. After the “insurrection,” a series of trial-balloon stories appeared in the press, suggesting that Internet nooks and crannies where conspiracy theory and misinformation proliferate might need more aggressive cleaning. The AP warned that “Apple and Google, among others, have left open a major loophole for this material: Podcasts.” The New York Times meanwhile reported on an exodus of millions of users who, fearing a Big Tech crackdown, jumped to encyrpted sites like Signal and Telegram. The Times quoted the head of the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Louis Grever, as saying such sites allow “groups that have an ill intent to plan behind the curtain.” Noting the situation “worried U.S. authorities,” the piece suggested the migration might “inflame the debate” over encryption. Podcasts, encrypted apps: how about live programming? Pundits had long worried that live stream capability was allowing the broadcast of violence and hate speech. In the hands of alternative media, however, the tool posed another problem, in the form of simply showing offensive reality. In the cases of people like Fischer and Chariton, however, it’s unclear how platforms like YouTube understand the documentation of political demonstrations. If you film a neo-Nazi running his mouth, should you be banned for covering his hate speech? If you show a gun-rights activist carrying a gun, are you yourself engaging in pro-gun activism? For independent outlets like Status Coup, these questions pose a serious problem. Because they’re dependent financially on platforms like YouTube to reach subscribers, they can’t afford to take the risk of being shut down. But how can alternative media operate if it doesn’t know exactly where the lines are? Also, how can such outlets add value when its one advantage over corporate media — flexibility, and willingness to cover topics outside the mainstream — is limited by the fear of consequences from making independent-minded editorial decisions? “It’s pretty horrible,” Chariton said, “if we have to consider not doing our jobs, out of fear that YouTube is going to remove our content, or remove our channel without warning (like they’ve begun doing to other, smaller channels)." The standard response to complaints about incidents like this is that YouTube and Google are private companies, and no one has a right to a platform on a private space. Chariton acknowledges this and concedes there are alternative platforms, like Rokfin, a video-sharing alternative to YouTube. For the foreseeable future anyway, however, it would be nearly impossible to build a successful alternative video-based channel without the assent of the small handful of major tech platforms that dominate media. “People live on YouTube and Facebook,” is how Chariton puts it. I asked him a few more questions about the future of live content, and what happened on January 18th: TK: How has the ability to produce live content affected your business? JC: Status Coup was up 20,000 subscribers since November, in large part because we were covering stories like the “Stop the Steal” movement and other issues related to the election. I’d say 95% of that content was live content. We’ve done a lot of stuff, from coverage of GM’s decision to lay off 15,000 workers to the epidemic of homelessness in Seattle, to repeated reporting trips in Flint covering the ongoing water crisis. It’s a major part of the business. It costs two to three grand for us to take a trip somewhere, and it’s already tight, but if we’re restricted in any way from doing live, that’s a blow because it brings in a significant amount of our revenue (which we need to then fund future in-the-field reporting trips). TK: What happened in Virginia to affect your decision-making about live content going forward? JC: I had to tell my cameraman not to go live… They’ve already shown they’re willing to take down some outlets entirely, without warning. The email YouTube sent me, I felt they could consider that a warning, and the next time, they could either give us a copyright strike, or remove us. I just can’t afford to take that risk. TK: Do you see this as part of a wider effort to close informational loopholes at these platforms? JC: It’s already documented that YouTube has been hiding independent channels in a cave, while elevating “authoritative” channels like — according to YouTube — CNN and Fox News. That’s Silicon Valley basically just saying outright, “We’re elevating some sources at the expense of others…” Unless you’re a major outlet that has a line to YouTube, you don’t have any way of clearing up these episodes. It’s easier to talk to someone at the CIA than it is to actually reach a human being at YouTube. TK: What are the implications of an incident like this for alternative media? JC: First of all, it’s worth pointing out, the only reason my content was restored is that I threw a shit-fit on Twitter, and people like Krystal Ball and Ryan Grim complained. But people like Andrew Kimmel did not have their content restored, proving there’s basically no rhyme or reason to this. It’s arbitrary. We’ve come to a place where you’d almost have to clear your decisions with YouTube ahead of time to feel completely safe. I understand, there must be some limits. If someone like Alex Jones is saying, “Go get your guns, get out there,” that’s really dangerous. But this, this is beyond a slippery slope. It’s a cliff. If they start pulling live streams or issuing strikes like this, it’s basically a death sentence for outlets like ours.
Censorship is not an "Error", it is an intentional act, a system employed against people by oppressors. Jack Dorsey and Twitter have history of being oppressors, apologists, election meddlers, etc. https://www.vice.com/en/article/7k9ngd/twitter-kicked-out-marjorie-taylor-gr... Twitter Admits "Error", Un-Freezes Marjorie Taylor Greene's Account Friday, Mar 19, 2021 A Twitter spokesperson has just confirmed that the suspension of Greene's account was an accident - another mistake made by the company's automated systems. "Our automated systems took enforcement action on the account referenced in error. This action has been reversed," they said. Surprise! Another "error"? Greene, in a tweet, asked Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for explanation of the “error”. * * * As President Biden and Kamala Harris tour her home state (and rival Democrats in Congress cook up legislation to officially expel her from the legislature) controversial Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has been suspended from Twitter yet again. Greene, who has been slammed by Democrats for allegedly helping to instigate the Jan. 6 Capitol Riot (we thought it was Trump's fault?), said in a campaign message that Twitter had suspended her account around 0100ET Friday for 12 hours "without explanation." Twitter has so far declined to comment on the decision. "They're doing everything they can to silence me, because I am a threat to the Swamp!" she claimed in an interview with Vice. Although all of Greene's tweets remain live, Greene can only use her account for sending direct messages to her followers, but can’t tweet, like, or retweet any content until the suspension is lifted. Greene shared a screenshot of the suspension notification to her Telegram account. Greene's office raised suspicions about the timing of the ban, which was apparently implemented just hours before California Rep. Jimmy Gomez introduced a resolution to expel Greene from Congress. There was no immediate evidence to back up the suspicions. "I believe some of my Republican colleagues, and one in particular, wish harm upon this legislative body. And I'm not saying this for shock value," Gomez during a statement made on the House floor Friday morning. "It's the conclusion I drew after a member of Congress advocated violence against our peers, the speaker and our government," Gomez said of Greene. Gomez accused Greene of being responsible for the Jan. 6 intrusion, using extremely dramatic language before claiming that he takes "no joy" in introducing the resolution to expel a colleague. "It is what I believed after this chamber was turned into a crime scene just 10 weeks ago. It's how many of us felt sheltering in this room as the Capitol was breached. Some members called their loved ones to say goodbye, others prayed to their God, and I asked myself if this would be the day our democracy died," Gomez said. "I take no joy in introducing this resolution, but any member who incites political violence and threatens our lives must be expelled, and I'll do everything I can in my power to protect our democracy and keep all my colleagues safe," he said. The House passed a resolution to strip Greene of her committee assignments last month, constraining her influence in the legislature. All Democrats and 11 Republicans supported the move. The new resolution to suspend Greene has been co-sponsored by six dozen House Dems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W56xDTF9z-E Ploys to Shutdown Internet via TheTrutherGirls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8N-4EeUOU7k The Censorship Program via TheTrutherGirls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30tUSv91CpE Facebook CIA Spies via TheTrutherGirls
Even the US Courts admit the Fake News is totally owned by the Democrats Leftists, and totally biased and influencing the US against the Republicans and all other schools of thought... https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-judge-alleges-democrats-are-close-to-c... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20518790-19-7132-1890626 "A Threat To American Democracy" - Federal Judge Alleges Democrats Control Almost All Major News Outlets Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times, A federal judge this week said that the Democrat Party is close to controlling the press as he detailed what he described as shocking bias against Republicans. D.C. Circuit Court Judge Laurence Silberman outlined his opposition to the Supreme Court’s key decision in 1964 in New York Times v. Sullivan, which has since protected many media outlets from lawsuits. Silberman, a Reagan appointee, wrote that the ruling is “a threat to American Democracy” and must be overturned. “The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions. Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a ‘bland and homogenous’ marketplace of ideas. It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat,” he continued. “Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the ’70s. (I do not mean to defend or criticize the behavior of any particular politician). Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe). Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along,” he added. The news outlets mentioned didn’t return requests for comment. The judge also expressed concern about the influence that Big Tech wields over how news is distributed, referencing how Twitter limited the spread of a New York Post article about President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey later told lawmakers that what happened was a mistake. Silberman added that there are few notable exceptions to the outlets he mentioned: Fox News, the New York Post, and the Journal’s editorial page. “It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News. And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content-based censorship,” he wrote. The uniformity of news bias has a political impact, the judge continued, pointing to author Tim Groseclose’s 2011 book: “Left Turn.” The George Mason University professor said in his book that he found the way outlets report more favorably on Democrats aids the party’s candidates by 8 to 10 percent in a typical election. Silberman was writing a partial dissent in the case of Liberian government officials Christiana Tah and Randolph McClain versus Global Witness Publishing, an organization that investigates human rights abuses. “It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism,” Silberman concluded. “The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press’ power.”
https://consentfactory.org/2021/03/22/the-new-normal-reality-police/ So, according to Facebook and the Atlantic Council, I am now a “dangerous individual,” you know, like a “terrorist,” or a “serial murderer,” or “human trafficker,” or some other kind of “criminal.” Or I’ve been praising “dangerous individuals,” or disseminating their symbols, or otherwise attempting to “sow dissension” and cause “offline harm.” Actually, I’m not really clear what I’m guilty of, but I’m definitely some sort of horrible person you want absolutely nothing to do with, whose columns you do not want to read, whose books you do not want to purchase, and the sharing of whose Facebook posts might get your account immediately suspended. Or, at the very least, you’ll be issued this warning: ... I could go on and on with this, and I’m sure I will in future columns. It’s kind of the only story at the moment, the changeover from simulated democracy to pathologized-totalitarianism as the governing structure of global capitalism. For now, I’ll just leave you with one more image in this already overly pictorial column. Don’t worry, it’s been thoroughly “fact-checked,” so there’s no need to read or question the fine print (even though I have a feeling you will) …
Biden communist apparatus appoints anti-freespeech Timothy Wu to National Council... https://taibbi.substack.com/p/a-biden-appointees-troubling-views " wu: the First Amendment must broaden its own reach to encompass new techniques of speech control elected branches should be allowed, within reasonable limits, to try returning the country to the kind of media environment that prevailed in the 1950s these platforms should adopt (or be forced to adopt) norms and policies traditionally associated with twentieth-century journalism right that obliges the government to ensure a pristine speech environment expanding the category of ‘state action’ itself to encompass the conduct of major speech platforms " taibbi: the intelligence services, whose point of view on this issue is clear and absolute: they love the bottleneck power of the tech monopolies and would oppose any effort to dilute it. Wu’s comment about “returning… to the kind of media environment that prevailed in the 1950s” is telling. This was a disastrous period in American media that not only resulted in a historically repressive atmosphere of conformity, but saw all sorts of glaring social problems covered up or de-emphasized with relative ease, from Jim Crow laws to fraudulent propaganda about communist infiltration to overthrows and assassinations in foreign countries. The wink-wink arrangement that big media companies had with the government persisted through the early sixties, and enabled horribly destructive lies about everything from the Bay of Pigs catastrophe to the Missile Gap to go mostly unchallenged, for a simple reason: if you give someone formal or informal power to choke off lies, they themselves may now lie with impunity. It’s Whac-a-Mole: in an effort to solve one problem, you create a much bigger one elsewhere, incentivizing official deceptions. That 1950s period is attractive to modern politicians because it was a top-down system. This was the era in which worship of rule by technocratic experts became common, when the wisdom of the “Best and the Brightest” was unchallenged. A yearning to return to those times runs through these new theories about speech, and is prevalent throughout today’s Washington, a city that seems to think everything should be run by people with graduate degrees. Going back to a system of stewardship of the information landscape by such types isn’t a 21st-century idea. It’s a proven 20th-century failure, and signing up Silicon Valley for a journey backward in time won’t make it work any better.
On Wed, 24 Mar 2021 02:58:49 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> vomited :
Biden communist apparatus
only a piece of insane, US, right wing shit would pretend biden is a commie. Larry Fink Says Biden Will Be ‘Voice of Reason’ Markets Need https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/blackrocks-fink-biden-the-voice-of-r... biden is a puppet of the wall street nazi jews - and what kind of insane fucktard would call US nazi jews 'commies'.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-in-a-five-hour-hearing-demands-0cf https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-journalistic-tattletale-and-censorship https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-start-demanding-substack https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congressional-testimony-the-leading https://greenwald.substack.com/p/how-silicon-valley-in-a-show-of-monopolisti... https://twitter.com/ggreenwald https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zV0GSIT4QiE GovCorp hearing on how they will extend your slavery Congress, In Five-Hour Hearing, Demands Tech CEOs Censor The Internet Even More Aggressively: Greenwald Authored by Glenn Greenwald via greenwald.substack.com, Over the course of five-plus hours on Thursday, a House Committee along with two subcommittees badgered three tech CEOs, repeatedly demanding that they censor more political content from their platforms and vowing legislative retaliation if they fail to comply. The hearing — convened by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Chair Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ), and the two Chairs of its Subcommittees, Mike Doyle (D-PA) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) — was one of the most stunning displays of the growing authoritarian effort in Congress to commandeer the control which these companies wield over political discourse for their own political interests and purposes. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, and Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai testify before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Mar. 25, 2021 As I noted when I reported last month on the scheduling of this hearing, this was “the third time in less than five months that the U.S. Congress has summoned the CEOs of social media companies to appear before them with the explicit intent to pressure and coerce them to censor more content from their platforms.” The bulk of Thursday’s lengthy hearing consisted of one Democratic member after the next complaining that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google/Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey have failed in their duties to censor political voices and ideological content that these elected officials regard as adversarial or harmful, accompanied by threats that legislative punishment (including possible revocation of Section 230 immunity) is imminent in order to force compliance (Section 230 is the provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields internet companies from liability for content posted by their users). Republican members largely confined their grievances to the opposite concern: that these social media giants were excessively silencing conservative voices in order to promote a liberal political agenda (that complaint is only partially true: a good amount of online censorship, like growing law enforcement domestic monitoring generally, focuses on all anti-establishment ideologies, not just the right-wing variant). This editorial censoring, many Republicans insisted, rendered the tech companies’ Section 230 immunity obsolete, since they are now acting as publishers rather than mere neutral transmitters of information. Some Republicans did join with Democrats in demanding greater censorship, though typically in the name of protecting children from mental health disorders and predators rather than ideological conformity. As they have done in prior hearings, both Zuckerberg and Pichai spoke like the super-scripted, programmed automatons that they are, eager to please their Congressional overseers (though they did periodically issue what should have been unnecessary warnings that excessive “content moderation” can cripple free political discourse). Dorsey, by contrast, seemed at the end of his line of patience and tolerance for vapid, moronic censorship demands, and — sitting in a kitchen in front of a pile of plates and glasses — he, refreshingly, barely bothered to hide that indifference. At one point, he flatly stated in response to demands that Twitter do more to remove “disinformation”: “I don't think we should be the arbiters of truth and I don't think the government should be either.” Zuckerberg in particular has minimal capacity to communicate the way human beings naturally do. The Facebook CEO was obviously instructed by a team of public speaking consultants that it is customary to address members of the Committee as “Congressman” or “Congresswoman.” He thus began literally every answer he gave — even in rapid back and forth questions — with that word. He just refused to move his mouth without doing that — for five hours (though, in fairness, the questioning of Zuckerberg was often absurd and unreasonable). His brain permits no discretion to deviate from his script no matter how appropriate. For every question directed to him, he paused for several seconds, had his internal algorithms search for the relevant place in the metaphorical cassette inserted in a hidden box in his back, uttered the word “Congressman” or “Congresswoman,” stopped for several more seconds to search for the next applicable spot in the spine-cassette, and then proceeded unblinkingly to recite the words slowly transmitted into his neurons. One could practically see the gears in his head painfully churning as the cassette rewound or fast-forwarded. This tortuous ritual likely consumed roughly thirty percent of the hearing time. I’ve never seen members of Congress from across the ideological spectrum so united as they were by visceral contempt for Zuckerberg’s non-human comportment: But it is vital not to lose sight of how truly despotic hearings like this are. It is easy to overlook because we have become so accustomed to political leaders successfully demanding that social media companies censor the internet in accordance with their whims. Recall that Parler, at the time it was the most-downloaded app in the country, was removed in January from the Apple and Google Play Stores and then denied internet service by Amazon, only after two very prominent Democratic House members publicly demanded this. At the last pro-censorship hearing convened by Congress, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) explicitly declared that the Democrats’ grievance is not that these companies are censoring too much but rather not enough. One Democrat after the next at Thursday’s hearing described all the content on the internet they want gone: or else. Many of them said this explicitly. At one point toward the end of the hearing, Rep. Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), in the context of the January 6 riot, actually suggested that the government should create a list of groups they unilaterally deem to be “domestic terror organizations” and then provide it to tech companies as guidance for what discussions they should “track and remove”: in other words, treat these groups the same was as ISIS and Al Qaeda. Words cannot convey how chilling and authoritarian this all is: watching government officials, hour after hour, demand censorship of political speech and threaten punishment for failures to obey. As I detailed last month, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the state violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee when they coerce private actors to censor for them — exactly the tyrannical goal to which these hearings are singularly devoted. There are genuine problems posed by Silicon Valley monopoly power. Monopolies are a threat to both political freedom and competition, which is why economists of most ideological persuasions have long urged the need to prevent them. There is some encouraging legislation pending in Congress with bipartisan support (including in the House Antitrust Subcommittee before which I testified several weeks ago) that would make meaningful and productive strides toward diluting the unaccountable and undemocratic power these monopolies wield over our political and cultural lives. If these hearings were about substantively considering those antitrust measures, they would be meritorious. But that is hard and difficult work and that is not what these hearings are about. They want the worst of all worlds: to maintain Silicon Valley monopoly power but transfer the immense, menacing power to police our discourse from those companies into the hands of the Democratic-controlled Congress and Executive Branch. And as I have repeatedly documented, it is not just Democratic politicians agitating for greater political censorship but also their liberal journalistic allies, who cannot tolerate that there may be any places on the internet that they cannot control. That is the petty wannabe-despot mentality that has driven them to police the “unfettered” discussions on the relatively new conversation app Clubhouse, and escalate their attempts to have writers they dislike removed from Substack. Just today, The New York Times warns, on its front page, that there are “unfiltered” discussions taking place on Google-enabled podcasts: New York Times front page, Mar. 26, 2021 We are taught from childhood that a defining hallmark of repressive regimes is that political officials wield power to silence ideas and people they dislike, and that, conversely, what makes the U.S. a “free” society is the guarantee that American leaders are barred from doing so. It is impossible to reconcile that claim with what happened in that House hearing room over the course of five hours on Thursday.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/alternatives-to-censorship-interview https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-status-coup Alternatives To Censorship: Interview With Matt Stoller By Matt Taibbi Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News, Led by Chairman Frank Pallone, the House Energy and Commerce Committee Thursday held a five-hour interrogation of Silicon Valley CEOs entitled, “Disinformation Nation: Social Media's Role in Promoting Extremism and Misinformation.” As Glenn Greenwald wrote yesterday, the hearing was at once agonizingly boring and frightening to speech advocates, filled with scenes of members of Congress demanding that monopolist companies engage in draconian crackdowns. [Click and drag to move] Again, as Greenwald pointed out, one of the craziest exchanges involved Texas Democrat Lizzie Fletcher: Fletcher brought up the State Department’s maintenance of a list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations. She praised the CEOs of Twitter, Facebook, and Google, saying that “by all accounts, your platforms do a better job with terrorist organizations, where that post is automatically removed with keywords or phrases and those are designated by the state department.” Then she went further, chiding the firms for not doing the same domestically. asking, “Would a federal standard for defining a domestic terror organization similar to [Foreign Terrorist Organizations] help your platforms better track and remove harmful content?” At another point, Fletcher noted that material from the January 6th protests had been taken down (for TK interviews of several of the videographers affected, click here) and said, “I think we can all understand some of the reasons for this.” Then she complained about a lack of transparency, asking the members, “Will you commit to sharing the removed content with Congress?” so that they can continue their “investigation” of the incident. Questions like Fletcher’s suggest Congress wants to create a multi-tiered informational system, one in which “data transparency” means sharing content with Congress but not the public. Worse, they’re seeking systems of “responsible” curation that might mean private companies like Google enforcing government-created lists of bannable domestic organizations, which is pretty much the opposite of what the First Amendment intended. Under the system favored by Fletcher and others, these monopolistic firms would target speakers as well as speech, a major departure from our current legal framework, which focuses on speech connected to provable harm. As detailed in an earlier article about NEC appointee Timothy Wu, these solutions presuppose that the media landscape will remain highly concentrated, the power of these firms just deployed in a direction more to the liking of House members like Fletcher, Pallone, Minnesota’s Angie Craig, and New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as well as Senators like Ed Markey of Massachusetts. Remember this quote from Markey: “The issue isn’t that the companies before us today are taking too many posts down. The issue is that they’re leaving too many dangerous posts up.” Remember: the last time Congress summed social media CEOs to be interrogated, Sen. @EdMarkey left no doubt about what the demand of Democrats is when doing this: we want you to censor more (and obviously, the content they want censored is from their political adversaries): pic.twitter.com/j64rCdZ82L — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) February 20, 2021 These ideas are infected by the same fundamental reasoning error that drove the Hill’s previous drive for tech censorship in the Russian misinformation panic. Do countries like Russia (and Saudi Arabia, Israel, the United Arab Emirates, China, Venezuela, and others) promote division, misinformation, and the dreaded “societal discord” in the United State? Sure. Of course. But the sum total of the divisive efforts of those other countries makes up at most a tiny fraction of the divisive content we ourselves produce in the United States, as an intentional component of our commercial media system, which uses advanced analytics and engagement strategies to get us upset with each other. As Matt Stoller, Director of Research at the American Economic Liberties Project puts it, describing how companies like Facebook make money: It's like if you were in a bar and there was a guy in the corner that was constantly egging people onto getting into fights, and he got paid whenever somebody got into a fight? That's the business model here. As Stoller points out in a recent interview with Useful Idiots, the calls for Silicon Valley to crack down on “misinformation” and “extremism” is rooted in a basic misunderstanding of how these firms make money. Even as a cynical or draconian method for clamping down on speech, getting Facebook or Google to eliminate lists of taboo speakers wouldn’t work, because it wouldn’t change the core function of these companies: selling ads through surveillance-based herding of users into silos of sensational content. These utility-like firms take in data from everything you do on the Web, whether you’re on their sites or not, and use that information to create a methodology that allows a vendor to buy the most effective possible ad, in the cheapest possible location. If Joe Schmo Motors wants to sell you a car, it can either pay premium prices to advertise in a place like Car and Driver, or it can go to Facebook and Google, who will match that car dealership to a list of men aged 55 and up who looked at an ad for a car in the last week, and target them at some other, cheaper site. In this system, bogus news “content” has the same role as porn or cat videos — it’s a cheap method of sucking in a predictable group of users and keeping them engaged long enough to see an ad. The salient issue with conspiracy theories or content that inspires “societal discord” isn’t that they achieve a political end, it’s that they’re effective as attention-grabbing devices. The companies’ use of these ad methods undermines factuality and journalism in multiple ways. One, as Stoller points out, is that the firms are literally “stealing” from legitimate news organizations. “What Google and Facebook are doing is they're getting the proprietary subscriber and reader information from the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and then they're advertising to them on other properties.” As he points out, if a company did this through physical means — breaking into offices, taking subscriber lists, and targeting the names for ads — “We would all be like, ‘Wow! That's outrageous. That's crazy. That's stealing.’” But it’s what they do. Secondly, the companies’ model depends upon keeping attention siloed. If users are regularly exposed to different points of view, if they develop healthy habits for weighing fact versus fiction, they will be tougher targets for engagement. So the system of push notifications and surveillance-inspired news feeds stresses feeding users content that’s in the middle of the middle of their historical areas of interest: the more efficient the firms are in delivering content that aligns with your opinions, the better their chance at keeping you engaged. Rope people in, show them ads in spaces that in a vacuum are cheap but which Facebook or Google can sell at a premium because of the intel they have, and you can turn anything from QAnon to Pizzagate into cash machines. After the January 6th riots, Stoller’s organization wrote a piece called, “How To Prevent the Next Social Media-Driven Attack On Democracy—and Avoid a Big Tech Censorship Regime” that said: While the world is a better place without Donald Trump’s Twitter feed or Facebook page inciting his followers to violently overturn an election, keeping him or other arbitrarily chosen malignant actors off these platforms doesn’t change the incentive for Facebook or other social networks to continue pumping misinformation into users’ feeds to continue profiting off of ads. In other words, until you deal with the underlying profit model, no amount of censoring will change a thing. Pallone hinted that he understood this a little on Thursday, when he asked Zuckerberg if it were true, as the Wall Street Journal reported last year, that in an analysis done in Germany, researchers found that “Facebook’s own engagement tools were tied to a significant rise in membership in extremist organizations.” But most of the questions went in the other direction. “The question isn't whether Alex Jones should have a platform,” Stoller explains. “The question is, should YouTube have recommended Alex Jones 15 billion times through its algorithms so that YouTube could make money selling ads?” Below is an excerpted transcript from the Stoller interview at Useful Idiots, part of which is already up here. When the full video is released, I’ll update and include it. Stoller is one of the leading experts on tech monopolies. He wrote the Simon and Schuster book, Goliath: The Hundred Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy, and is a former policy advisor to the Senate Budget Committee. His writing has appeared in the Washington Post, the New York Times, Fast Company, Foreign Policy, the Guardian, Vice, The American Conservative, and the Baffler, among others. Excerpts from his responses to questions from myself and Katie Halper are below, edited for clarity: Matt Taibbi: There's a debate going on within the Democratic Party-aligned activist world about approaches to dealing with problems in the speech world. Could you summarize? Matt Stoller: There are two sides. One bunch of people has been saying, “Hey, these firms are really powerful…” This is the anti-monopoly wing. Google and Facebook, let’s break them up, regulate them. They're really powerful and big, and that's scary. So, without getting in too deep, there's the Antitrust subcommittee, that's been saying, “Hey, these firms are really powerful, and they're picking and choosing winners.” Usually, they talk about small businesses, but the issue with speech is the same thing. Then there’s another side, which is, I think, noisier and has more of the MSNBC/CNN vibe. This is the disinformation/misinformation world. This is the Russiagate people, the “We don't like that Trump can speak” type of people. What their argument is, effectively, is that firms haven't sufficiently curated their platforms to present what they think is a legitimate form of public debate. They're thinking, “Well, we need to figure out how to get them to filter differently, and organize discourse differently.” Ideologically, they just accept the dominance of these firms, and they're just saying, “What's the best way for these firms to organize discourse?” Taibbi: By conceding the inevitability of these firms, they’re making that concession, but saying they want to direct that power in a direction that they'd like better. Stoller: That's right. I mean, there's a lot of different reasons for that. Some of them are neoliberal. A lot of the law professors are like, “Oh, this is just the way of technology, and this is more efficient.” Therefore, the question is, “How do you manage these large platforms?” They're just inevitable. Then there are people who are actually socialists who think, “Well, the internet killed newspapers. The internet does all of these things. Also, there's a bunch of them that never liked commercial press in the first place. A lot of well-meaning people were like, “We never liked advertising models to begin with. We think everything should be like the BBC.” So, those are the two groups that accept the inevitability thesis. It's really deep-rooted in political philosophy. It's not just a simple disagreement. Then there are people like us who are like, “No, no. Actually, technology is deployed according to law and regulation, and this specific regulatory model that we have, the business structures of these firms, the way they make money from advertising, those are specific policy choices, and we can make different ones if we want.” Katie Halper: When you say socialist, some may identify as socialists, but that there's a general group of people who just believe, “We oppose hate speech and White supremacy,” and so we have to make these companies that are evil, and give them moral authority and a content moderation authority, which is an inherent contradiction/wishful thinking/inconsistent paradox. In other words, you're saying leftists, right? Leftist, not liberals, not neo-liberals, not even liberals, but people who are really would identify as left. Stoller: Yes. There's a part of the socialist world that's like, “What we really want is egalitarianism in the form of a giant HR compliance department that tells everyone to be tolerant.” Right? Then there are most people who are like, “No. I just don't like wall street and I want people to be equal and everyone should have a little bit over something,” and they both call themselves socialists. Taibbi: You and the American Economic Liberties Project have said, there's a reason why taking Trump off Twitter isn't going to fix the problem, because you're not fixing those incentives. Can you talk about what those incentives are, and why they cause the problems? Stoller: Google and Facebook, they sell ads, right? They collect lots of information on you and they sell ads and ads are valuable for two reasons. One, you're looking at them. Two, if they know who you are and they know information about you, then they can make the ad more valuable. A random ad space isn't worth very much, if you're showing it to some undefined person. An ad space you're showing to a 55-year-old man who's thinking of buying a luxury car, somebody will pay a lot for that ad space, if you know who that person is and you know that that person has actually been browsing luxury car websites and reading the Wall Street Journal about how best to liquidate their portfolio or something to buy a luxury item. Google and Facebook want to sell that advertising particularly on their properties, where they get to keep 100% of the profits. If Google sells an ad on YouTube, they get to keep the money. Facebook sells an ad on Instagram or Facebook, they get to keep the money. So, their goal is to keep you using their sites and to collect information on you. Taibbi: What methods do they use to keep you on the sites? Stoller: They have all sorts of psychological tricks. Engagement is the way that they talk about it, but it's like if you go and you look for something on YouTube, they're going to send you something that's a little bit more extreme. It's not necessarily just political. It's like if you're a vegetarian, they'll say, or if you look at stuff that's like, “Here's how to become a vegetarian,” they'll say, “Well, about becoming a vegan?” If you look at stuff that suggests you’re a little bit scared of whether this vaccine will work, if you search for, “I would want to find safety data on this vaccine,” eventually, they'll move you to like serious anti-vax world. So, the question that we have to ask is whether you should block crazy people from saying things, or do something else… Like Alex Jones, for example, is crazy person or an entertainer, he says things that I don't particularly like or agree with. The question, though, isn't whether Alex Jones should have a platform. We've always allowed people to go to the corner of the street and say whatever they want or to write pamphlets or whatever. The question is, should YouTube have recommended Alex Jones 15 billion times through its algorithms so that YouTube could make money selling ads? That's a different question than censorship. Taibbi: Conversely they’re not recommending other material that might discourage you from believing Alex Jones. Stoller: Right. The other thing is, it's not just that they want to create more inventory so they can sell ads. It's also the kinds of ads that they're selling. So, you can sell an ad based on trust. The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal — I hate using them as examples — they have an audience and people. They built that audience by investing in content, and then they sell ads to that audience, and the advertiser knows where that advertising is going and it's based on trust. The alternative model which we have now is simply based on clickbait. It's just, “Generate as many impressions as possible, and then sell those impressions wherever the person is on the web.” That creates a kind of journalism, which is designed to get clicks or not even journalism. It's just you're creating content just to get engagement and not actually to build trust. So, what this business model does, we call it surveillance advertising, but it's an infrastructure player, a communications player manipulating you so that they could put content, engage content in front of you. What that does is it incentivizes a low trust form of content production. It both kills trusted content producers, a.k.a. local newspapers, because you no longer need to be able to put advertising in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, or whatever. You can just geotarget those people through Google and Facebook. You can get some Eastern European to falsify stories and people will click on that. So, it kills legitimate newspapers and it creates an incentive for low trust content, fraudulent content, defamatory content, whatever it is that will keep people engaged and is often fraudulent. It hits really local newspapers and niche newspapers the most, so Black-owned newspapers and also newspapers having to do with hobbies. The actual issue is more about niche audiences themselves, and the kind of low-trust content that we're encouraging with our policy framework, versus what we used to do, which we would encourage higher trust forms of content. Taibbi: How would you fix this problem, from a regulatory perspective? Stoller: The House Antitrust Subcommittee had a report where they recommended what we call regulated competition. That would say, “Okay. You break up these platforms in ways that wouldn't interfere with the efficiency of that particular network system.” So, Google and YouTube don't need to be in the same company, you could separate them out. There are ways that you'd have to handle the search engine. You couldn't split Facebook into five Facebooks, because then you wouldn't necessarily be able to talk to your friends and family, but you could separate Instagram and Facebook easily. You could force interoperability and then split up Facebook if you want to do that. So, you could separate those things out and then ban surveillance advertising for a starter. Taibbi: What would that do to content if you ban surveillance advertising? ANd how would that work? Stoller: It would force advertisers to go back to advertising to audiences. So, they would no longer be able to track you as an individual and say, “We know this is what you're interested in.” They would go to what's called contextual advertising, and they would say, “Okay. If you're on a site that has to do with tennis, then we'll advertise tennis rackets on that site because we assume that that people are interested in tennis rackets.” That's called contextual advertising, versus the current system: you read an article about tennis in a tennis magazine and the platforms say, “Oh, that's expensive to buy an ad there, so we'll track you around the web and when you're on Candy Crush, we'll show you a tennis racket ad.” That's the surveillance advertising model we have. That pulls all the power to Google and Facebook who are doing all the tracking, versus the contextual ad where the power is actually with the tennis racket site that has the relationship with the people interested in tennis. Taibbi: So, the idea would be you would create a sort of a firewall between the utilitarian functions of a site like Facebook or Google, that provide a service where either you're searching for something or you're communicating with somebody, and they wouldn't be allowed to take that data from that utility-like function to sell you an ad? Stoller: That's right. Germany is hearing a court case saying that you can't combine advertising from Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, and then third parties to create a super profile of someone and show them ads. They were saying that's an antitrust violation. There's a court hearing on that, but, more broadly, that's what you have to do. Ultimately, what we would want is we would want to have subscription-based communication networks paying for services. This is something that's worked for thousands of years. I give you something in value, you give me money. It's an honest way of doing business. If I don't value it enough to give you money, then I won't get it. If people are like, “Oh, I don't want to pay for Facebook, or I don't want to pay for YouTube,” or whatever it is, that makes no sense. You're already paying. You're either paying with a Friday night you spend surfing YouTube, where they sell a bunch of ads and you give up your Friday night — or you pay with money, and it's an honest transaction, and it's in the long run, a lot cheaper and more honest method of payment.
Greenwald continues destroying Left Biased Fake News... https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-attack-the-powerless Greenwald: Journalists Attack the Powerless, Then Play Victim When Called Out Authored by Glenn Greenwald via TK News, The daily newspaper USA Today is the second-most circulated print newspaper in the United States — more than The New York Times and more than double The Washington Post. Only The Wall Street Journal has higher circulation numbers. On Sunday, the paper published and heavily promoted a repellent article complaining that “defendants accused in the Capitol riot Jan. 6 crowdfund their legal fees online, using popular payment processors and an expanding network of fundraising platforms, despite a crackdown by tech companies.” It provided a road map for snitching on how these private citizens — who are charged with serious felonies by the U.S. Justice Department but as of yet convicted of nothing — are engaged in “a game of cat-and-mouse as they spring from one fundraising tool to another” in order to avoid bans on their ability to raise desperately needed funds to pay their criminal lawyers to mount a vigorous defense. In other words, the only purpose of the article — headlined: “Insurrection fundraiser: Capitol riot extremists, Trump supporters raise money for lawyer bills online” — was to pressure and shame tech companies to do more to block these criminal defendants from being able to raise funds for their legal fees, and to tattle to tech companies by showing them what techniques these indigent defendants are using to raise money online. An unidentified man walks through the lobby of the Gannett-USA Today headquarters building August 20, 2013 on a 30-acre site in McLean, Virginia. (AFP/PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP via Getty Images) The USA Today reporters went far beyond merely reporting how this fundraising was being conducted. They went so far as to tattle to PayPal and other funding sites on two of those defendants, Joe Biggs and Dominic Pezzola, and then boasted of their success in having their accounts terminated: As of Wednesday afternoon, the Biggs fundraiser was listed as having received $52,201. Pezzola had received $730. Biggs' campaign disappeared from the site shortly after USA TODAY inquired about it…. Friday, a USA TODAY reporter donated to Pezzola's fundraiser using Stripe. Stripe told USA TODAY it does not comment on individual users. A USA TODAY reporter was able to make a $1 donation to Pezzola's fundraiser using Venmo, a payment app owned by PayPal. After being alerted by USA TODAY, Venmo removed the account. Soon a PayPal account took its place. PayPal caught that and removed it, too. Wow, what brave and intrepid journalistic work: speaking truth to power and standing up to major power centers by . . . working as little police officers for tech giants to prevent private citizens from being able to afford criminal lawyers. Clear the shelves for the imminent Pulitzer. Whatever you think about the Capitol riot, everyone has the right to a legal defense and to do what they can to ensure they have the best legal defense possible — especially when the full weight of the Justice Department is crashing down on your head even for non-violent offenses, which is what many of these defendants are charged with due to the politically charged nature of the investigation. The right to a vigorous defense has always been a central cause of mine as a lawyer and a journalist (it also used to be a central cause of left-wing groups like the ACLU, years ago; it was that same principle that caused then-candidate Kamala Harris to solicit donations last summer that went to protesters charged with violent rioting). A federal prosecutor was recently referred for disciplinary procedures for publicly threatening to charge some of these Capitol protesters with sedition, one of the gravest crimes in the U.S. Code. That is how grave the legal jeopardy is faced by these people trying to raise money for lawyers. What makes all of this extra grotesque is that, as The Washington Post reported, most of those charged with various crimes in connection with the January 6 Capitol riot, including many whose charges stem just from their presence inside the Capitol, not the use of any violence, are people with serious financial difficulties: not surprising for a country in the middle of a major economic and joblessness crisis, where neoliberalism and global trade deals have destroyed entire industries and communities for decades: Nearly 60 percent of the people facing charges related to the Capitol riot showed signs of prior money troubles, including bankruptcies, notices of eviction or foreclosure, bad debts, or unpaid taxes over the past two decades, according to a Washington Post analysis of public records for 125 defendants with sufficient information to detail their financial histories. . . . The group’s bankruptcy rate — 18 percent — was nearly twice as high as that of the American public, The Post found. A quarter of them had been sued for money owed to a creditor. And 1 in 5 of them faced losing their home at one point, according to court filings. This USA Today article is thus yet another example of journalists at major media outlets abusing their platforms to attack and expose anything other than the real power centers which compose the ruling class and govern the U.S.: the CIA, the FBI, security state agencies, Wall Street, Silicon Valley oligarchs. To the extent these journalists pay attention to those entities at all — and they barely ever do — it is to venerate them and mindlessly disseminate their messaging like stenographers, not investigate them. Investigating people who actually wield real power is hard. The Washington Post, Feb. 10, 2021 Instead, the primary target of the Trump-era media has become private citizens and people who wield no power, yet who these media outlets believe must have their lives ruined because they have adopted the wrong political ideology. So many corporate journalists now use their huge megaphones to humiliate and wreck the lives of ordinary private citizens who they judge to have bad political opinions (meaning: opinions that deviate from establishment liberalism orthodoxies which these media outlets exist to enforce). We have seen this over and over. CNN confronted an old woman on the front lawn of her Florida home for the crime of having used her little Facebook page to promote a pro-Trump event they claimed was engineered by Russians. The same network threatened to expose the identity of another private citizen who created an anti-CNN meme unless he begged and promised not to do it again. HuffPost doxed the real-life name of an anonymous critic of Islam (whose spouted views I find repellent) and ruined her business. A Florida woman who ran a Trump supporters page that unwittingly promoted a Russian-coordinated event on Facebook says she doesn’t believe that she was influenced by Kremlin-linked trolls https://t.co/DmgDRFRwyn pic.twitter.com/OAz5julCyA — CNN (@CNN) February 21, 2018 Just last week, The Daily Beast decided to expose the identity of a private citizen at Spring Break in Miami and detail his marital and legal problems because a video of him went viral due to his being dressed as the Joker and uttering “COVID truther” phrases. The same outlet congratulated itself for unearthing and exposing the real name of an African-American Facebook user whose crime was posting videos mocking Nancy Pelosi. My principal critique of the contemporary media posture — and my governing view of the real purpose of journalism — is summarized by this: If you think the real power centers in the US are the Proud Boys, 4Chan & Boogaloos rather than the CIA, FBI, NSA, Wall Street and Silicon Valley, and spend most of your time battling the former while serving the latter as stenographers, your journalism is definitionally shit. — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 16, 2021 ut increasingly, the largest corporate media platforms are used to punish ideological dissent and thought crimes by powerless, private citizens. They do not criticize or investigate real power centers, but serve them. And what makes it worse — so, so much worse — is that, as they assault, dox and harass private citizens, these journalistic bullies depict themselves as the real marginalized people, as those who are so fragile, voiceless, powerless, and vulnerable that criticizing them is tantamount to bullying, harassment, and violence. This new journalistic tactic of weaponizing and misappropriating the language of marginalization, abuse, harassment and oppression and applying it to themselves — all to render any criticism of their work a form of assault and abuse — is one I have written about several times before. The last time was when a major front-page reporter at the most influential paper in the country, The New York Times’ Taylor Lorenz, got caught lying twice in six weeks, and those (such as myself) who criticized her for it — who criticized her journalism for the Paper of Record — were branded toxic, misogynistic bullies who were inciting dangerous hate mobs against her. And thus was criticism of this powerful journalist somehow manipulatively converted into an act of morally reprehensible harassment. What these journalists are doing is as transparent as it is tawdry. They insist that you not treat them as what they are: people who wield extreme power and influence to shape political discourse, widely disseminate disinformation, wreck people’s reputations, expose the identity of private citizens, and propagandize the public. No, increasingly they are demanding that you treat them as exactly the opposite: the most marginalized, vulnerable, endangered and fragile members of society whose standing is so tenuous that publicly criticizing them should be barred as an act of violence, and those expressing critiques of their work must be consequently shunned as harassers and abusers. This is the demented framework that allowed CNN’s coddled, blow-dried, manicured and pedicured millionaire TV personality Jim Acosta, with a straight face, to write an entire book casting himself on the cover as someone in danger. What enabled Jim Acosta of all people to cast himself as a victim, to the point where so many liberals bought this book that it ended up on The New York Times bestseller list? He was criticized by the President and his supporters for his journalism. That’s it. And just like that, the real victims in America are not the jobless or the homeless or residents of addiction-ravaged communities or victims of violent crime but, instead, the rich, famous TV personalities for CNN. This is the fictitious melodrama — with themselves cast as the stars — that they are demanding you ingest to treat them with deference and respect. As I’ve noted before, I’ve been harshly criticized for my journalism for years. I was publicly attacked in deeply personal ways by the President of Brazil many times, and endlessly slandered by his movement. That’s not fun, but it is also not persecution. What is real persecution is being prosecuted or imprisoned or threatened with prison for your reporting. Real persecution is what is being done to Julian Assange. Criticism, even harsh criticism, comes with the territory: the cost of the immense privilege of having a public platform to shape debate. If you do not want to be criticized or called names, don’t become a journalist or seek out public platforms. Sunday’s USA Today article which tried to destroy the ability of these criminal defendants to raise donations for their legal fees contained the names of three journalists in its byline. The lead reporter — the one who the paper’s editors put first, Brenna Smith — took to Twitter to boast of this monumental journalistic exposé. After I saw several commenters criticizing the story, I added my own critiques of this story: Congratulations on using your new journalistic platform to try to pressure tech companies to terminate the ability of impoverished criminal defendants to raise money for their legal defense from online donations. You're well on your way upward in this industry for sure: https://t.co/pvpmX3DaaW — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) March 28, 2021 Note that the critique I voiced is about the reporting she had just published in one of the largest and most influential newspapers in the country. I also engaged the journalist whose name was listed last — a person named Will Carless — in a lengthy discussion expressing similar criticisms. My criticism of Carless, a white straight male listed last on the byline, attracted no criticism for some reason. But my criticism of Smith, the lead reporter, caused such an explosion of indignation and rage from the corporate media class that it caused my name to trend on Twitter (yet again) as a dastardly online villain: that’s how grave my moral transgression was. What was my moral offense here? According to these media mavens and the self-serving, manipulative framework they are trying to implant, I did not voice criticisms of a piece of journalism in one of the most influential newspapers in the country. Instead — in their hands — they converted it, just as they did with criticisms of Lorenz, into a narrative in which I bullied a poor, fragile, young lady who is too weak and too vulnerable to handle public critique. They emphasized that she is just an intern: in their eyes the equivalent of a high school junior — even though she has a long history of writing deranged articles for the U.S.-Government-funded Bellingcat and was, at least in the view of her editors, competent and professional enough to be the lead reporter on what they treated as a major news story designed to harm the lives of numerous private citizens. If she is “merely an intern,” then why is she listed as the lead reporter on a major news story? And if her editors determine that she is capable of fulfilling that role, then you can’t simultaneously demand she be treated like a young debutante off-limits from critique. Do you see what they are doing here? They are working to create a moral framework where it is always impermissible to criticize their journalism, no matter how shoddy, deceitful and amoral it is. They constantly concoct reasons why the journalist in question is too marginalized and too vulnerable to legitimately criticize. They are all apparently competent and sophisticated enough to be trusted to byline news reporting in major corporate outlets — and we must treat them as tough, talented professionals when it comes time to deference due — but we are then simultaneously instructed that they are not mature or strong enough to endure criticisms of that work. If she had not been an intern, they still would have decreed criticisms of her off limits on the ground that any criticism will stoke misogynistic abuse: after all, Lorenz is a borderline-middle-aged reporter, not an intern, but that is how criticisms of her are delegitimized. What is even more remarkable is how these liberal media figures invoke the most long-standing sexist, racist and homophobic tropes to erect this shield of immunity around themselves that they demand you honor. Look at how they transformed this journalist from what I see her as and what she is — an adult professional reporter who has sufficiently risen in the profession to byline a major story in a national newspaper — into an offensive sexist caricature straight out of the 1950s. In their manipulative hands, she — like Taylor Lorenz of The New York Times — becomes not a professional adult journalist but just a fragile little china doll who cannot withstand any critiques. A senior USA Today editor actually emailed me to chide me for my inappropriate behavior — i.e., critiquing the journalism of the reporter they placed first on the byline. And here is how USA Today’s former “diversity and inclusion editor” Hemal Jhaveri — who just got fired for posting a series of racist decrees about how white people are the root of all evil — decided to interpret this event: Two USA TODAY reporters getting targeted in the span of days isn't by chance. What is happening to Brenna Smith is not a coincidence. Top editors showed they would cave at the slightest provocation. Now, female journalists through the org will be more susceptible to harassment. pic.twitter.com/TrDjfmWH8x — Hemal Jhaveri (@hemjhaveri) March 29, 2021 Journalists with these outlets wield immense power and influence. These are not the voiceless, marginalized, powerless people in society. They’re the ones who attack, expose and ruin marginalized people if they dare express political views of which these journalists disapprove. It is not just morally repugnant but quite dangerous for them to try to place themselves off limits from criticism this way. The whole point of journalism — the reason why a free press is vital — is because it is the only way to hold accountable powerful institutions and powerful actors. Corporate media outlets and those they employ as reporters are among the most powerful and influential actors in society and, as such, are completely fair game for criticisms, protests, and denunciations. What they are trying to do by exploiting the language of oppression and marginalization to cast themselves as vulnerable victims who cannot be criticized is despicable. It deserves nothing but contempt. That is precisely why I intend to heap scorn on it every time they try it, precisely because these in-group, swarming corporate journalists are the real bullies, trying to stigmatize and destroy the reputations of ordinary citizens who commit the crime of criticizing their journalism or expressing political opinions they want banished. They know that the public — for very good reasons — has lost faith and trust in their work at unprecedented levels. They know that their industry is failing. When journalism turns its guns not on the powerful but on the powerless — descending as low as trying to prevent them from raising needed money for a legal defense — the contempt is well deserved. The demographic characteristics of the journalists doing this disgraceful, cowardly journalism is irrelevant. The only reason they even mention it is because they think they can weaponize it against their critics. This lowly tactic will succeed only if people are cowed and intimidated by it. It will fail, as it should, if people ignore it and treat them like any other power centers by freely expressing the criticisms you think their journalism merits regardless of what names they call you as a result.
Meanwhile the number of distributed encrypted messaging/social platforms are growing... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/31/he-who-must-not-be-heard-facebook-remo... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/facebook-removes-trump-interview-video-daug... Facebook Scrubs Trump Interview With Daughter-In-Law, Threatens New Restrictions Shares of Twitter are paring earlier gains on Wednesday following a Fox News report that President Trump is moving ahead with his plans to launch a rival social media network. TWITTER SELLING OFF TRUMP MOVING AHEAD ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLAN * * * The list of respectable liberals and progressives who have urged social media giants like Facebook and Twitter to abandon their prohibition of President Trump includes Bill Gates and Bernie Sanders. Yet, instead of letting up, social media companies - goaded by Democratic lawmakers during the latest in a series of tedious hearings about "hate speech" (aka speech that liberals find politically unpalatable) - are doubling down. Fox & Friends on Wednesday slammed Facebook after the company removed an interview with Lara Trump and the former president from Facebook and Instagram. Lara Trump, who just joined Fox News as a paid contributor, posted the conversation with her father-in-law to her social media accounts, only to see it abruptly scrubbed due to the ban on content from the president. F&F host Brian Kilmeade seethed over the removal: "That’s unbelievable," Brian Kilmeade said. "Do you realize he is the former president of the United States? You do an interview with him, and it’s not worthy? It’s not allowed to be on your page? That is incredible." His co-host, Ainsley Earhardt, took the complaints a step further: "if they can pack the courts, make D.C. and Puerto Rico a state, if they can get all of these illegal immigrants to come in, then they are hoping they will vote for them eventually." "They can cancel Donald Trump on social media, so that he can’t have a platform and he can’t speak," she continued. "If they can bash our network, then they are on their way to controlling our country. And it’s a scary time. It’s a very scary time, and what is this gonna look like for our kids?" According to media reports, none of this should have come as a surprise: Trump officials were recently sent an email from a Facebook employee, warning that any content posted on Facebook and Instagram "in the voice of President Trump is not currently allowed on our platforms (including new posts with President Trump speaking)." Here's more on that from Fox News: A group of Trump officials were sent an email from a Facebook employee, warning that any content posted on Facebook and Instagram "in the voice of President Trump is not currently allowed on our platforms (including new posts with President Trump speaking)" and warned that it "will be removed if posted, resulting in additional limitations on accounts that posted it." "This guidance applies to all campaign accounts and Pages, including Team Trump, other campaign messaging vehicles on our platforms, and former surrogates," the email, posted on Instagram by Trump's son, Eric Trump, stated. Constitutional law expert Jonathan Turley warned in a blog post that FB's censorship of Trump is "an obvious attack on free speech, including political speech". He then offered up this comical scenario to illustrate just how outrageous the ban on Trump can be: "Notably, he could be talking about the Yankees but the posting would be censored because the team was discussed in the voice of Donald Trump. It is not his view but Trump himself that is being canceled by the company. However, presumably, Lara Trump could sit next to Trump and have him whisper his views into her ear. She could then give his views in the voice of Lara rather than Donald Trump." Turley then pointed to an exchange between two Democratic senators and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to further illustrate his point. At one point, Dem Sen. Richard Blumenthal asked the CEOS "will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?" The phrase "robust content modification" might have a certain appeal at a surface level, but beyond that, it's clear what's really going on: "It is censorship. If our representatives are going to crackdown on free speech, they should admit to being advocates for censorship." All of this should have implications for tech companies and protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act - protections that President Trump sought (unsuccessfully) to remove. "Big Tech once fashioned itself as the equivalent of the telephone company, and thus sought protections as neutral suppliers of communication forums allowing people to voluntarily associate and interact. It then started to engage in expanding, conflicting acts of censorship. Yet, it still wants to remain protected as if it were neutral despite actively modifying content. We would never tolerate a telephone company operator cutting into a call to say the company did not approve of a statement that was just made, or cutting the line for those who did not voice approved positions." Just some food for thought... Trump was banned from Facebook, Twitter and other social media platforms after the Jan. 6 Capitol Hill riots.
Courts keep dodging Speech re Big Social, and mooting out on hearing Elections... https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
Spotify censors freespeech, drops Rogan vids, Rogan demurs... Archive them controversial internet tubes, the internet is being rapidly disappeared... https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl https://www.reddit.com/r/datahoarder https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2021/04/06/joe-rogan-spotify-removing-shows... https://www.theblaze.com/news/spotify-censors-joe-rogan-podcast https://ew.com/podcasts/joe-rogan-spotify-missing-episodes/ https://www.theblaze.com/news/spotify-employees-strike-joe-rogan-podcast Spotify Continues Removing Some Joe Rogan Experience Episodes Spotify is continuing to remove episodes of The Joe Rogan Experience from its service after shelling out $100 million to bring the popular podcast exclusively to their platform. Digital Media News documented that 42 of Rogan's podcasts had been recently deleted from his catalogue of almost 1,500 episodes, The Blaze wrote on Thursday. Spotify hasn't commented on the deletions, which included episodes with Chris D'elia, Owen Benjamin, Joey Diaz, Gavin McInnes, Eddie Bravo, Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos. Rogan himself has faced criticism for statements he has made about the transgender lobby. In September, numerous Spotify employees threatened to strike over what they thought were problematics statements made on Rogan's podcast. "A contingent of activist Spotify staffers are now considering a walkout or full-blown strike if their demands for direct editorial oversight of 'The Joe Rogan Experience' podcast aren't met," a September report on the strike said. Either way, Rogan didn't seem to be upset about Spotify's decision not to move over some episodes. Dozens of Rogan's past episodes with "controversial guests" like Alex Jones, David Seaman, Owen Benjamin, Stefan Molyneux, Milo Yiannopoulos, Gavin McInnes, Charles C. Johnson, and Sargon of Akkad did not make the migration over to Spotify, according to Entertainment Weekly. Rogan noted that this was actually part of his $100 million deal, stating: "There were a few episodes they didn't want on their platform, and I was like 'Okay, I don't care'." It remains to be seen whether he knows about the additional deletions. "They don't give a f*** man. They haven't given me a hard time at all," he said months ago. With regard to potential continued threats to strike, we'll repeat what we said back in September 2020: one wonders why exactly Spotify should give a shit - especially with millions of people still out of work who we are sure would appreciate the opportunity to work in a large and growing tech company and could manage to leave their political/social-justice-virtue-signaling egos at home.
Canada and more politician boots crushing your voicebox... https://bombthrower.com/articles/canada-to-censor-political-taunts-constitue... https://axisofeasy.com/podcast/salon-6-the-hanseatic-league-of-decentralized... https://www.blacklocks.ca/will-censor-political-taunts/ https://thepostmillennial.com/trudeau-liberals-pushing-for-internet-law-that... https://westernstandardonline.com/2020/10/how-trudeau-bought-the-media/ https://easydns.com/blog/2020/02/08/canadas-btlr-is-a-framework-for-content-... https://petitions.ourcommons.ca/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-2418 https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2020/02/cbc-leads-call-for-new-government-regula... https://bombthrower.com/articles/political-party-staffers-mock-constituents-... Canada To Censor "Hurtful" Comments About Politicians, Implement Internet Kill-Switch Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com, ...but, constituents to remain fair game for abuse from party apparatchiks. A colleague forwarded me the text of an article from Blackrocks Reporter, which covers Canadian politics from Ottawa, our capitol. It’s a report on Federal Heritage Minister Steven Guibeault’s ongoing vendetta against non-conforming political speech on the internet, in which he’s calling for censorship of “hurtful” comments against politicians and implementation of an internet killswitch to facilitate it. Federal Heritage Minister Steven Guibeault Blackrocks is behind a paywall, permit me to quote it here: ‘Federal internet censors should target hurtful words against politicians, says Heritage Minister Steven Guilbeault. The Minister added pending regulations may include an internet kill switch to block websites deemed hurtful, but called it a “nuclear” option. “We have seen too many examples of public officials retreating from public service due to the hateful online content targeted towards themselves or even their families,” said Guilbeault. “I have seen firsthand alongside other Canadians the damaging effects harmful content has on our families, our values and our institutions. As a dad and a stepdad to six kids, I know more can and should be done to create a safer online environment.” Guilbeault made his remarks in a podcast sponsored by Canada 2020, an Ottawa think tank affiliated with the Liberal Party. Legislation to censor internet content will be introduced shortly, he said. “I am confident we can get this adopted,” said Guilbeault. “Once the legislation is adopted, clearly creating a new body, a new regulator like that in Canada, would take some time.”’ The same story is covered here by the Post Millienial (the rest of Canada’s “approved media”, as in the ones who received hundreds of millions in tax breaks and subsidies from the Federal Government in the run up to the last election, are not giving it a lot of airtime for some reason). The goal is obviously to silence non-conforming analysis Coincidentally or not Guilbeault has been relentlessly pursuing the recommendations of the Canada’s Broadband Telecom Legislative Review (BTLR), which I wrote about last year and tabled a petition to the House of Commons to kill it. Then the whole pandemic thing broke out, and we entered this “New Normal”. After BTLR published, Canada’s “approved media” joined the chorus calling for more regulation against unlicensed news outlets. For a political cabinet minister to seriously push forward new rules silencing free speech directed against politicians is quite rich, having just last week been publicly attacked and mocked by a senior advisor to Premier Doug Ford (my transgression? Raising the issue of small business bankruptcies under lockdowns with my MPP). Under this plan, it will still be perfectly fine for political apparatchiks to hurl insults and ad hominem attacks at constituents raising legitimate issues with their MPPs. But under these impending new regulations against “political taunts” and even “unlicensed internet undertakings” my write up on the entire incident, or even my commentary on the proposal here, might land me afoul of The New Rules. (Cue up Jacobs, who will probably come barrelling in here and call me a moron because Guilbeault is Federal and he’s provincial, so I’ll save him the trouble to say: it’s all one political class) These are the last gasps of our political overlords This global, near ubiquitous ham-fisted reaction to the global pandemic has ushered us into an era of hypernormalization. That’s simply defined as when the mental fatigue and psychic stress of pretending to believe demonstrably false and often contradictory narratives begins to manifest in a kind of mass neurosis. Being brainwashed or coerced into accepting ideologies that have been decided by oligarchs and billionaire Sith Lords are an additional antagonizing factor. Sooner or later a tipping point will be reached and the public will simply abandon what they see as an increasingly non-functional system, one where the entire might of the state is arrayed against their own interests. When this happens it can channel into populism, deteriorate into (arguably deserved) demagoguery, or perhaps more hopefully a type of mass opt-out of the current system into the next iteration of human organization and governance. We’re in the early innings of an inexorable transition from the age of nation states into network , or crypto states (“crypto populism”?). How that looks is often the topic of discussion on our AxisOfEasy podcasts, it can be chilling, as in if the Network State is Facebook, or Google. Or it can be liberating, like a decentralized mosaic of Hanseatic Crypto States. That’s a choice we, as people and citizens actually can participate in, right now, today. But these cocooned, self-serving elites running these dilapidated nation states? They’re just rigging a game that’s increasingly irrelevant. It doesn’t really matter because their era is over. No matter which trajectory things pursue, one thing is certain: the next step is a cascading loss of institutional and political legitimacy, such as what happened in 1989 with the implosion of communism and the Warsaw Pact states. A year earlier, not one geo-political strategist, let alone party apparatchik would have forecasted the coming collapse. Eighteen months later, it was all over. I think we’re headed for a similar period over the next few years, and it’s the current leadership and the incumbent elites who brought us here.
https://www.inquisitr.com/6082162/amash-section-230-freedom-speech/ https://reason.com/2019/07/29/section-230-is-the-internets-first-amendment-n... https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/05/media/60-minutes-gov-ron-desantis-publix/inde... https://www.wsj.com/articles/youtubes-assault-on-covid-accountability-116179... https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-cancels-shelby-steele-11602715834 https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-uncancels-shelby-steele-11603495076 https://deadline.com/2021/02/amazon-under-fire-for-removing-transgender-stud... https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/what-should-be-done-to-curb-big-tech https://www.vox.com/2021/1/26/22241053/antitrust-google-facebook-break-up-bi... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/13/magazine/free-speech.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/facebook-trump-free-speech.html https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-common-carrier-solution-to-social-media-cen... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/06/04/amazon-coronavirus-book... https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/546148-hunter-biden-doesnt-know-... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/opinion/hunter-biden-story-media.html https://nypost.com/2021/04/02/npr-issues-correction-after-claiming-hunter-bi...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2021/04/08/denied_equal_opp... All canceled by Amazon, Hollywood, Leftist Media Print and Distribution, etc... https://www.uncletom.com/ https://www.justicethomasmovie.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Killed_Michael_Brown https://nosafespaces.com/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2247692/ 2016: Obama’s America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plot_Against_the_President https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07M7D8RMH https://www.persuasion.community/p/decolonize-the-documentary https://www.wsj.com/articles/will-amazon-suppress-the-true-michael-brown-sto... https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/09/amazon-drops-parler-from-its-web-hosting-ser... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancel_culture
hypocrisy
Here one of the most egregious censors of all Social Media, Leftist tilters and stealers of the 2020 elections, awards itself a Free Speech Award, brags censorship... https://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/youtube-gives-itself-free-expression-... https://www.rt.com/usa/521456-youtube-ceo-free-expression-award/ https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1384063431230189579 Google YouTube CEO Wins 'Freedom Of Expression' Award Sponsored By... YouTube YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki has hilariously received the 2021 Free Expression Award - which, as one can tell by looking in the upper-right corner of the 'awards ceremony' - was sponsored by YouTube. An avalanche of dislikes for Wojcicki (via Barstool Sports) The award, given last week, 'supports the educational work of the Freedom Forum Institute by recognizing individuals for their courageous acts of free and fearless expression.' Of course, one is free to express themselves on YouTube - unless you're Steven Crowder, Alex Jones, Donald Trump, The Epoch Times, OANN, or anyone else hoping for visibility or monetization of any content slightly right of Mao. Thankful for the freedom of expression afforded to me by YouTube. pic.twitter.com/Z2DtLcwz5i — Gar🐝 J👀man (@Gee2TheAitch) April 18, 2021 More via SHTFplan.com: In the digital awards ceremony, YouTube video creator Molly Burke praised Wojcicki as a “free speech leader” before the YouTube CEO detailed in her acceptance speech how much the platform censors its users, according to a report by RT. “The freedoms we have, we really can’t take for granted,” Wojcicki declared, adding that “we also need to make sure there are limits.” Literally, right after giving herself an award for being a free speech activist, she admits that she’s not a free speech activist and censors people, putting a limit on free speech. If there are limits, it isn’t free speech. But Wojcicki doesn’t care because she gave herself this award, so it can be as hypocritical as she wants. She added that YouTube removed nine million videos in the last quarter, 90% of which were taken down by machines. She also said there is “a lot of content that technically meets the spirit of what we’re trying to do, but it is borderline, and so for that content, we will just reduce – meaning we’re not going to recommend it to our users.” Thankfully, the irony was not lost on the public. YouTube and Wojcicki were thrashed for this: since no one else has, it looks like i'm going to have to be the one who posts this pic. pic.twitter.com/1P50ipw9Qg — Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) April 19, 2021 https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/politico-forbids-crisis-when-describ... Politico Becomes Pravda: Use Of Word "Crisis" Banned When Describing Border Crisis Politico has turned narrative-shaping up to 11 with it's latest decision to ban its journalists from using the word 'crisis' to describe the flood of illegal immigrants currently overwhelming US border detention facilities after President Biden essentially invited them with campaign promises followed by a flurry of Executive Orders on immigration which all but rolled out the red carpet. According to an internal Politico memo written by deputy production director Maya Parthasarathy and obtained by the Washington Examiner, journalists are to: "Avoid referring to the present situation as a crisis, although we may quote others using that language while providing context. And while Biden himself used the word "crisis" when describing the border situation last week, the White House has repeatedly denied that the word applies - which means Politico is toeing the official party line regarding the border crisis. "Avoid emotive words like onslaught, tidal wave, flood, inundation, surge, invasion, army, march, sneak, and stealth," the memo reads.
Twitter Admits To Censoring Criticism Of The Indian Government After Wholly Censoring Criticism of the US Government and the US Right and myriad other things... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/04/25/twitter-admits-to-censoring-criticism-... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/18/twitter-ceo-admits-censoring-hunter-bi... https://apnews.com/article/health-india-religion-coronavirus-c644fc9eb09beb0... https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/523750-the-case-for-internet-originali... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/01/little-brother-or-big-brother-the-publ... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/17/all-speech-is-not-equal-biden-taps-ant... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/04/china-was-right-academics-and-democrat... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/09/free-speech-is-being-weaponized-columb... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/06/05/mea-culpa-new-york-times-caves-to-prot... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/11/30/and-why-stop-there-cnn-analyst-calls-f... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/04/china-was-right-academics-and-democrat... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/09/14/stanford-journalism-professor-rejects-... Twitter Admits To Censoring Criticism Of The Indian Government Authored by Jonathan Turley, On Saturday, Twitter admitted that it is actively working with the Indian government to censor criticism of its handling of the pandemic as the number of cases and deaths continues to skyrocket. There are widespread reports that the Indian government has misrepresented the number of deaths and the true rate of cases could be as much as 30 times higher than reported. The country has a shortage of beds, oxygen, and other essentials due to a failure to adequately prepare for a new surge. Not surprisingly, the Indian government has moved to crackdown on criticism. This included a call to Twitter to censor such information and Twitter has, of course, complied. With the support of many Democratic leaders in the United States, Twitter now regularly censors viewpoints in the United States and India had no trouble in enlisting it to crackdown on those raising the alarm over false government reporting. Buried in an Associated Press story on the raging pandemic and failures of the Indian government are these two lines: “On Saturday, Twitter complied with the government’s request and prevented people in India from viewing more than 50 tweets that appeared to criticize the administration’s handling of the pandemic. The targeted posts include tweets from opposition ministers critical of Modi, journalists and ordinary Indians.” The article quotes Twitter as saying that it had powers to “withhold access to the content in India only” if the company determined the content to be “illegal in a particular jurisdiction.” Thus, criticism of the government in this context is illegal so Twitter has agreed to become an arm of the government in censoring information. Keep in mind that this information could protect lives. It is not “fake news” but efforts by journalists and others to disclose failures by the government that could cost hundreds of thousands of lives. This is the face of the new censors. The future in speech control is not in the classic state media model but the alliance of states with corporate giants like Twitter. Twitter now actively engages in what Democratic leaders approvingly call “robust content modification” to control viewpoints and political dissent. When Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey came before the Senate to apologize for blocking the Hunter Biden story before the election as a mistake, senators pressed him and other Big Tech executive for more censorship. In that hearing, members like Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., HI) pressed witnesses like Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey for assurance that Trump would remain barred from speaking on their platforms: “What are both of you prepared to do regarding Donald Trump’s use of your platforms after he stops being president, will be still be deemed newsworthy and will he still be able to use your platforms to spread misinformation?” Rather than addressing the dangers of such censoring of news accounts, Senator Chris Coons pressed Dorsey to expand the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism.” Likewise, Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter, admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question: “Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?” “Robust content modification” has a certain appeal, like a type of software upgrade. It is not content modification. It is censorship. If our representatives are going to crackdown on free speech, they should admit to being advocates for censorship. What is fascinating is how social media companies have privatized censorship. These companies now carry out directives to censor material deemed unlawful or fake or misleading by those in power. The company also shows no compulsion to protect free speech. When India calls for censorship, it just shrugs and say that the dissenting views are now illegal. In the meantime, liberals now support crackdowns on free speech and corporate power over viewpoint expression. We have have been discussing how writers, editors, commentators, and academics have embraced rising calls for censorship and speech controls, including President-elect Joe Biden and his key advisers. Even journalists are leading attacks on free speech and the free press. This includes academics rejecting the very concept of objectivity in journalism in favor of open advocacy. Columbia Journalism Dean and New Yorker writer Steve Coll has denounced how the First Amendment right to freedom of speech was being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. Liberals now embrace censorship and even declared that “China was right” on Internet controls. Many Democrats have fallen back on the false narrative that the First Amendment does not regulate private companies so this is not an attack on free speech. Free speech is a human right that is not solely based or exclusively defined by the First Amendment. Censorship by Internet companies is a “Little Brother” threat long discussed by free speech advocates. Some may willingly embrace corporate speech controls but it is still a denial of free speech. This is why I recently described myself as an Internet Originalist. Twitter is now unabashedly and unapologetically a corporate censor. The question is whether the public will remain silent or, as some, actually embrace the new Orwellian order of “robust content modification.”
Floyd's jury was quoted as being too scared by BLM to acquit. ACLU's long corrupt history of ignoring 2ndA firearms rights precedes it, now ACLU exposes its biased hypocrite self again re: censorship... BLM is one of the most cherished left-liberal causes, and the ACLU now relies almost entirely on donations and grants from those who have standard left-liberal politics and want and expect the ACLU to advance that ideological and partisan agenda above its nonpartisan civil liberties principles. Criticizing BLM is a third rail in left-liberal political circles, which is where the ACLU now resides almost entirely, and thus it again cowers in silence as another online act of censorship which advances political liberalism emerges. ... And now we have arrived at the truly depressing and tawdry place where the ACLU is afraid to apply its long-stated principles to denounce Facebook's censorship because the censorship in question happened to be an article that reflected poorly on the sacred-among-liberals BLM group. In the place of brave lawyers and activists defending the constitutional rights and civil liberties even of those people and groups most despised, we have instead a corporate spokesman emailing The New York Times with excuses about why it cannot and will not speak up about a major censorship controversy that has been brewing for two weeks. In that decline one finds the ACLU's sorry trajectory from stalwart civil liberties group into a lavishly funded arm of the Democratic Party's liberal political wing. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/aclu-again-cowardly-abstains-from ACLU Again Cowardly Abstains From Online Censorship Controversy: This Time Over BLM Enormous sums of money have poured into racial justice groups since the May, 2020 murder of George Floyd by the Minneapolis Police Department. “The foundation widely seen as a steward of the Black Lives Matter movement says it took in just over $90 million last year,” according to a February Associated Press review, while at least $5 billion was raised by groups associated with that cause in the first two months alone following Floyd's death. A person holds a placard with he words No Pride without Black Trans Lives at the Black Trans Lives Matters' march in London. (Photo by Dave Rushen/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images) Two weeks after the Floyd killing, The New York Times said that the “money has come in so fast and so unexpectedly that some groups even began to turn away and redirect donors elsewhere,” while “others said they still could not yet account for how much had arrived.” Propelled by the emotions and nationwide protest movements that emerged last summer, corporations, oligarchs, celebrities and the general public opened their wallets and began pouring money into BLM coffers and have not stopped doing so. Where that money has gone has been the topic of numerous media investigations as well as concerns expressed by racial justice advocates. AP noted that BLM's sharing of financial data in February “marks the first time in the movement’s nearly eight-year history that BLM leaders have revealed a detailed look at their finances.” That newfound transparency was prompted by what AP called “longstanding tensions boil[ing] over between some of the movement’s grassroots organizers and national leaders — the former went public last fall with grievances about financial transparency, decision-making and accountability." In December, ten local BLM chapters severed ties with the national group amidst questions and suspicions over the handling of activities and finances by one of its co-founders, Patrisse Cullors, who had assumed the title of Executive Director. On April 10, The New York Post published an exposé on what it called Cullors’ “million-dollar real estate buying binge.” The paper noted that as protests were unfolding around the country, the BLM official was “snagging four high-end homes for $3.2 million in the US alone, according to property records,” including a California property valued at $1.4 million. The article also revealed that the self-described Marxist and her partner “were spotted in the Bahamas looking for a unit at the Albany,” an “elite enclave laid out on 600 oceanside acres,” which “features a private marina and designer golf course.” The Post included photos of several of the properties obtained from public real estate listings. In an interview about that Post story with Marc Lamont Hill, Cullors — except saying she has not visited the Bahamas since the age of 15 — did not deny the accuracy of the reporting, but instead justified her real estate acquisitions. She denied she had taken a salary from the BLM group, pointing to other income she earns as a professor, author, and a YouTube content creator as the source of this sudden outburst of real estate purchases. She denounced the Post reporting as "frankly racist, and sexist.” So that seems like a perfectly healthy cycle for covering a controversy, obviously in the public interest. In the wake of concerns from activists about where this massive amount of BLM money has gone, The New York Post did its job of unearthing the splurge of real estate acquisitions by the person who controls and directs BLM's budget and who has been a target of accusations and suspicions from activists. Cullors then had the opportunity to publicly provide her side of the story concerning her aggressive and ample financial investments. But then something quite unhealthy and unusual occurred. Five days after publication of that Post article, the Substack journalists Shant Mesrobian and Zaid Jilani reported that Facebook was banning the sharing of that article worldwide on its platform — similar to what Twitter and Facebook did in the weeks leading up to the 2020 election to The New York Post's reporting on the Biden family's business dealings in China and Ukraine. The Substack reporters noted that Facebook ultimately confirmed the worldwide ban of the Post's reporting to The New York Times’ media reporter Ben Smith, justifying it on the ground that the article “revealed personal details about [Cullors] and her residence in violation of Facebook’s community standards.” Message received by Facebook users attempting to post The New York Post article about Cullors’ real estate acquisitions In his weekly New York Times Sunday night media column, Smith returned to this subject. When a Facebook lawyer justified the censorship by citing an alleged policy that the tech monopoly will ban any “article [which] shows your home or apartment, says what city you’re in and you don’t like it,” Smith expressed extreme skepticism: The policy sounds crazy because it could apply to dozens, if not hundreds, of news articles every day — indeed, to a staple of reporting for generations that has included Michael Bloomberg’s expansion of his townhouse in 2009 and the comings and goings of the Hamptons elites. Alex Rodriguez doesn’t like a story that includes a photo of him and his former fiancée, Jennifer Lopez, smiling in front of his house? Delete it. Donald Trump is annoyed about a story that includes a photo of him outside his suite at Mar-a-Lago? Gone. Facebook’s hands, the lawyer told me, are tied by its own policies. Presumably, the only reason this doesn’t happen constantly is because nobody knows about the policy. But now you do! Smith was additionally disturbed that Facebook was, in essence, overriding the editorial judgment of news outlets, which grapple every day with how to strike the balance between ensuring the public knows of information in the public interest and protecting a person's right to privacy. For obvious reasons, public figures and organizations — which both BLM and Cullors undoubtedly are — are deemed to have a lower expectation of privacy when it comes to what is newsworthy. That is why, for example, the extramarital affairs of Donald Trump or Bill Clinton are deemed newsworthy whereas, outside of the dead-but-returning Gawker sewer, the sex lives of private citizens are not. Yet Facebook accords no deference to the editorial judgments even of the most established media outlets. Instead, they told Smith, “Facebook alone decides.” Whatever one’s views are on this particular censorship controversy, there is no doubt that it is part of the highly consequential debate over online free speech and the ability of monopolies like Facebook to control the dissemination of news and the boundaries of political discourse and debate. That is why Smith devoted his weekly column to it. And yet, when Smith approached the standard free speech advocacy groups for comment on this story, virtually none was willing to speak up. “Facebook’s usual critics have been strikingly silent as the company has extended its purview over speech into day-to-day editorial calls,” he wrote. Among those groups which insisted that it would not comment on Facebook's censorship of the Post's BLM story was the vaunted, brave and deeply principled free speech organization, the American Civil Liberties Union. “We don’t have anyone who is closely plugged into that situation right now so we don’t have anything to say at this point in time,” emailed Aaron Madrid Aksoz, an ACLU spokesman. Smith said “the only criticism he could obtain came from the News Media Alliance, the old newspaper lobby, whose chief executive, David Chavern, called blocking The Post’s link ‘completely arbitrary’ and noted that ‘Facebook and Google stand between publishers and their audiences and determine how and whether news content is seen.’” How is it possible that the ACLU is all but invisible on one of the central free speech debates of our time: namely, how much censorship should Silicon Valley tech monopolists be imposing on our political speech? As someone who intensively reports on these controversies, I can barely remember any time when the ACLU spoke up loudly on any of these censorship debates, let alone assumed the central role that any civil liberties group with any integrity would, by definition, assume on this growing controversy. In lieu of the traditional, iconic and organization-defining willingness — eagerness — of the ACLU to defend free speech precisely when it has been most controversial and upsetting to liberals, what we now get instead are cowardly, P.R.-consultant-scripted excuses for staying as far away as possible: “We don’t have anyone who is closely plugged into that situation right now so we don’t have anything to say at this point in time.” That sounds like something Marco Rubio's office says when asked about a Trump tweet or that a corporate headquarters would say to avoid an inflammatory controversy, not the reaction of a stalwart civil liberties group to a publicly debated act of political censorship. In this particular case, it is not difficult to understand the cause of the ACLU's silence. They obviously cannot defend Facebook's censorship — affirmatively defending the stifling of political speech is, at least for now, still a bridge too far for the group — but they are petrified of saying anything that might seem even remotely critical of, let alone adversarial to, BLM activists and organizations. That is because BLM is one of the most cherished left-liberal causes, and the ACLU now relies almost entirely on donations and grants from those who have standard left-liberal politics and want and expect the ACLU to advance that ideological and partisan agenda above its nonpartisan civil liberties principles. Criticizing BLM is a third rail in left-liberal political circles, which is where the ACLU now resides almost entirely, and thus it again cowers in silence as another online act of censorship which advances political liberalism emerges. Indeed, BLM is an organization which the ACLU frequently champions: No matter how you say it, BLACK LIVES MATTER. pic.twitter.com/KBlyoUA8fR — ACLU (@ACLU) January 4, 2021 Like so many liberal-left media outlets and advocacy groups, the ACLU was suffering financially before they were saved and then enriched beyond their wildest dreams by Donald Trump and the #Resistance movement he spawned. “The American Civil Liberties Union this week laid off 23 employees, about 7 percent of the organization’s national staff,” announced The Washington Post in April, 2015. But in the Trump era, the money flowed in almost as quickly and furiously as post-Floyd money to BLM. In February, 2017, said AP, the group “is suddenly awash in donations and new members as it does battle with President Donald Trump over the extent of his constitutional authority, with nearly $80 million in online contributions alone pouring in since the election.” So that is the donor base it now serves. The ACLU's we-know-nothing routine for abstaining from commenting on Facebook's censorship of the BLM article is, for so many reasons, preposterous. The group funds what it calls its Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, and some of its best lawyers oversee it. Clearly they focus on these issues. And the ACLU in general has taken a firm and borderline-absolutist position against online censorship by Silicon Valley monopolies: principles whose application to this particular case would be easy and obvious. The ACLU has a section of its website devoted to “Internet Speech,” and its position on such matters is stated explicitly: The ACLU believes in an uncensored Internet, a vast free-speech zone deserving at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to traditional media such as books, newspapers, and magazines….The ACLU has been at the forefront of protecting online freedom of expression in its myriad forms. We brought the first case in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared speech on the Internet equally worthy of the First Amendment’s historical protections. In a July, 2018 article published on the group's site entitled “Facebook Shouldn't Censor Offensive Speech,” the group praised Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg's controversial pledge “to keep Facebook from diving deeper into the business of censorship” as “the right call.” Unlike in response to the BLM controversy, the ACLU had no trouble back then recognizing that “what's at stake here is the ability of one platform that serves as a forum for the speech of billions of people to use its enormous power to censor speech on the basis of its own determinations of what is true, what is hateful, and what is offensive.” The ACLU's stated policy on these controversies could not have been clearer: “given Facebook’s nearly unparalleled status as a forum for political speech and debate, it should not take down anything but unlawful speech, like incitement to violence.” In light of that principle, how is it remotely hard to denounce Facebook's censorship of the Post's article given that it does not even arguably fall within the scope of those narrow exceptions? Because the ACLU still employs a few old-school civil libertarians among its hundreds of lawyers and staff, those employees manage to do work and express views that are consistent with the ACLU's old-school civil liberties agenda even when contrary to the interests of liberal politics. But the tactics used by the ACLU in those cases to downplay or hide those aberrations are as transparent as they are craven. When three Silicon Valley monopolies united to remove the social media app Parler from the internet in January, 2021 after influential Democratic lawmakers demanded it — one of the most brute acts of monopolistic censorship yet — an ACLU lawyer, Ben Wizner, was cited in The New York Times as labelling Parler's destruction “troubling,” telling the paper: “I think we should recognize the importance of neutrality when we’re talking about the infrastructure of the internet.” But on the ACLU's highly active and influential Twitter account — the group's primary platform for promoting its work, expressing its views, and soliciting donations, where it has two million followers and often tweets up to fifty times a day — the group said absolutely nothing about the removal of an entire social media app from the internet: Indeed, the ACLU — outside of a few token, hidden statements — has chosen to play at most a minor role in the key free speech controversies of the day, ones focusing on such weighty matters as internet freedom and online censorship over our political debates by Silicon Valley monopolies. Over the last four years, as Facebook's censorship has expanded rapidly, the ACLU has said little to nothing about it — including remaining in utter silence about the extraordinary decision to censor pre-election reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop and what it revealed about Joe Biden's business dealings. Last month, Substack reporter Michael Tracey reviewed the ACLU's prior 100 tweets and found that 63 of them were about trans issues while a grand total of one was about free speech and none about due process. A comparison of the number of ACLU statements on online censorship controversies to its manifestations on trans issues similarly reveals a fixation on the latter with very little interest in the former: It goes without saying that the ACLU has every right to devote a huge bulk of its institutional resources and public advocacy to the cause of trans equality if it chooses to do so. But what that reveals is that the group is becoming exactly what its leaders always vowed it would never be: just another garden-variety liberal political advocacy group. After all, there is no shortage of extremely well-financed LGBT groups doing the same advocacy on trans issues. Those LGBT groups shifted their focus almost entirely to trans issues when they won the entire agenda of gay and lesbian equality with the Supreme Court's 2015 legalization of same-sex marriage in all fifty states, and supporting trans rights is the mainstream, standard view of Democratic Party leaders and liberal activists. The ACLU's refusal to engage with growing online censorship is baffling even from the perspective of its liberal politics given that radical leftists are increasingly (and predictably) the targets of tech censorship alongside anti-establishment right-wing voices. Just yesterday, the highly popular trans YouTube host Natalie Wynn of Contrapoints complained that one of her past episodes had just been demonetized and urged: “Free speech should be reclaimed as an essential leftist issue. We should not surrender the most fundamental civil right to Google LLC in the name of deplatforming rightists and curtailing harassment.” Wynn's last video, rebutting the views of J.K. Rowling on trans issues, featured Wynn's list of the telltale signs of “indirect bigotry” toward trans people, and she included "free speech advocacy,” but — as happens to so many people — Wynn has apparently reconsidered that view and has discovered the centrality of free speech values now that her own speech is targeted. But agitating for more online political censorship still remains a cause deeply popular among establishment liberals, further explaining the ACLU's reluctance to involve itself in these controversies on the side of free expression. ACLU page touting its advocacy of trans and nonbinary rights What always distinguished the ACLU in the past — and what gave it credibility with judges in courtrooms — was its devotion to and focus on non-partisan free speech, free press and due process causes that were too unpopular or controversial for other groups to touch, particularly liberal groups who could not afford to offend the political sensibilities of Democrats. There are still some isolated occasions when the ACLU does such things — such as when it spoke up in defense of the NRA against New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's efforts to target the group with destruction or when the ACLU recently denounced parts of the Democrats’ H.R.1 “reforms”— but the ACLU largely hides those exceptions on its most popular public platforms, and they are becoming increasingly rare. And now we have arrived at the truly depressing and tawdry place where the ACLU is afraid to apply its long-stated principles to denounce Facebook's censorship because the censorship in question happened to be an article that reflected poorly on the sacred-among-liberals BLM group. In the place of brave lawyers and activists defending the constitutional rights and civil liberties even of those people and groups most despised, we have instead a corporate spokesman emailing The New York Times with excuses about why it cannot and will not speak up about a major censorship controversy that has been brewing for two weeks. In that decline one finds the ACLU's sorry trajectory from stalwart civil liberties group into a lavishly funded arm of the Democratic Party's liberal political wing.
Propaganda and Fake News... Greenwald: CNN's New "Reporter" Natasha Bertrand Is Deranged Conspiracy Theorist And Scandal-Plagued CIA Propagandist https://greenwald.substack.com/p/cnns-new-reporter-natasha-bertrand https://theintercept.com/2014/09/04/former-l-times-reporter-cleared-stories-... https://www.huffpost.com/entry/la-times-disowns-reporter_b_5770388 https://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-xpm-2012-jun-25-la-na-drone-over... https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/human-rights-groups-accuse-us-war-crimes-msna192... https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2014-01-31/leaked-pakistani-do... https://theintercept.com/2017/12/09/the-u-s-media-yesterday-suffered-its-mos... https://theintercept.com/2017/04/12/msnbcs-rachel-maddow-sees-a-russia-conne... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/24/what-steele-dossier-said-... https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/11/inspector-general-report-russia-red... https://theintercept.com/2020/10/15/facebook-and-twitter-cross-a-line-far-mo... https://greenwald.substack.com/p/with-news-of-hunter-bidens-criminal https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-learning-they-spread https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-intel-walks-back-claim-russians-put-bountie... https://www.thewrap.com/the-atlantic-is-accused-of-stealing-a-freelancers-wo... The most important axiom for understanding how the U.S. corporate media functions is that there is never accountability for those who serve as propagandists for the U.S. security state. The opposite is true: the more aggressively and recklessly you spread CIA narratives or pro-war manipulation, the more rewarded you will be in that world. CNN's new national security reporter Natasha Bertrand, then of Politico and NBC News, with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, Sept. 19, 2019 The classic case is Jeffrey Goldberg, who wrote one of the most deceitful and destructive articles of his generation: a lengthy New Yorker article in May, 2002 — right as the propagandistic groundwork for the invasion of Iraq was being laid — that claimed Saddam Hussein had formed an alliance with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. In February, 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, NPR host Robert Siegel devoted a long segment to this claim. When he asked Goldberg “a man named Abu Musab al-Zarqawi,” Goldberg replied: “He is one of several men who might personify a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.” Needless to say, nothing could generate hatred for someone among the American population — just nine months away from the 9/11 attack — more than associating them with bin Laden. Five months after Goldberg's New Yorker article, the U.S. Congress authorized the use of military force to impose regime change on Iraq; ten months later, the U.S. invaded Iraq; and by September, 2003, close to 70% of Americans believed the lie that Saddam had personally participated in the 9/11 attack. Goldberg's fabrication-driven article generated ample celebratory media attention and even prestigious journalism awards. It also led to great financial reward and career advancement. In 2007, The Atlantic's publisher David Bradley lured Goldberg away from The New Yorker by lavishing him with a huge signing bonus and even sent exotic horses to entertain Goldberg's children. Goldberg is now the editor-in-chief of that magazine and thus one of the most influential figures in media. In other words, the person who wrote what is arguably the most disastrous article of that decade was one most rewarded by the industry — all because he served the aims of the U.S. security state and its war aims. That is how U.S. corporate journalism functions. Another illustrative mascot for this lucrative career path is NBC's national security correspondent Ken Dilanian. In 2014, his own former paper, The Los Angeles Times, acknowledged his "collaborative” relationship with the CIA. During his stint there, he mimicked false claims from John Brennan's CIA that no innocent people were killed from a 2012 Obama drone strike, only for human rights groups and leaked documents to prove many were. A FOIA request produced documents published by The Intercept in 2015 that showed Dilanian submitting his "reporting” to the CIA for approval in violation of The LA Times’ own ethical guidelines and then repeating what he was told to say. But again, serving the CIA even with false "reporting” and unethical behavior is a career benefit in corporate media, not an impediment, and Dilanian rapidly fell upward after these embarrassing revelations. He first went to Associated Press and then to NBC News, where he broadcast numerous false Russiagate scams including purporting to “independently confirm” CNN's ultimately retracted bombshell that Donald Trump, Jr. obtained advance access to the 2016 WikiLeaks archive. The Huffington Post, Sept. 5, 2014 On Monday, CNN made clear that this dynamic still drives the corporate media world. The network proudly announced that it had hired Natasha Bertrand away from Politico. In doing so, they added to their stable of former CIA operatives, NSA spies, Pentagon Generals and FBI agents a reporter who has done as much as anyone, if not more so, to advance the scripts of those agencies. Bertrand's career began taking off when, while at Business Insider, she abandoned her obsession with Russia's role in Syria in 2016 in order to monomaniacally fixate on every last conspiracy theory and gossip item that drove the Russiagate fraud during the 2016 campaign and then into the Trump presidency. Each month, Bertrand produced dozens of Russiagate articles for the site that were so unhinged that they made Rachel Maddow look sober, cautious and reliable. In 2018, it was Jeffrey Goldberg himself — knowing a star CIA propagandist when he sees one — who gave Bertrand her first big break by hiring her away from Business Insider to cover Russiagate for The Atlantic. Shortly after, she joined the Queen of Russiagate conspiracies herself by becoming a national security analyst for MSNBC and NBC News. From there, it was onto Politico and now CNN: the ideal, rapid career climb that is the dream of every liberal security state servant calling themselves a journalist. Her final conspiratorial article for The Atlantic before moving to Politico is the perfect illustration of who and what she is: CNN's new national security star was no ordinary Russiagate fanatic. There was no conspiracy theory too unhinged or evidence-free for her to promote. As The Washington Post's media reporter Erik Wemple documented once the Steele Dossier was debunked, there was arguably nobody in media other than Rachel Maddow who promoted and ratified that hoax as aggressively, uncritically and persistently as Bertrand. She defended it even after the Mueller Report corroborated virtually none of its key claims. In a February, 2020 article headlined “How Politico’s Natasha Bertrand bootstrapped dossier credulity into MSNBC gig,” Wemple described how she was rewarded over and over for "journalism” that would be regarded in any healthy profession with nothing but scorn: Where there’s a report on Russian meddling, there’s an MSNBC segment waiting to be taped. Last Thursday night, MSNBC host Joy Reid — subbing for “All In” host Chris Hayes — turned to Politico national security reporter Natasha Bertrand with a question about whether Trump “wants” Russian meddling or whether he can’t accept that "foreign help is there.“ Bertrand responded: “We don’t have the reporting that suggests that the president has told aides, for example, that he really wants Russia to interfere because he thinks that it’s going to help him, right?” No, we don’t have that reporting — though there’s no prohibition against fantasizing about it on national television. Such is the theme of Bertrand’s commentary during previous coverage of Russian interference, specifically the dossier of memos drawn up by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. With winks and nods from MSNBC hosts, Bertrand heaped credibility on the dossier — which was published in full by BuzzFeed News in January 2017 — in repeated television appearances. Wemple systematically reviewed the mountain of speculation, unproven conspiracies and outright falsehoods Bertrand shoveled to the public as she was repeatedly promoted. But it was the document that gave us deranged delusions about pee-pee tape blackmail and Michael Cohen's trip to Prague that was her crown jewel: “The Bertrand highlight reel features a great deal of thumb-on-scale speculation regarding the dossier,” Wemple wrote. And when information started being declassified that proved much of Bertrand's claims about collusion to be a fraud, she complained that there was too much transparency, implying that the Trump administration was harming national security by allowing the public to know too much — namely, allowing the public to see that her reporting was a fraud. A journalist who complains about too much transparency is like a cardiologist who complains that a patient has stopped smoking cigarettes, or like a journalist who voluntarily rats out her own source to the FBI or who agitates for censorship of political speech: a walking negation of the professional values they are supposed to uphold. But that is Natasha Bertrand, and, to the extent that there are some people who still believe that working at CNN is desirable, she was just rewarded for it again yesterday — just as journalists who rat out their own sources to the FBI and advocate for internet censorship are now celebrated in today's rotted media climate. The Washington Post, Feb. 28, 2020 Bertrand's trail of journalistic scandals and recklessness extend well beyond her Russiagate conspiracies. Last October, she published an article in Politico strongly implying that Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe was speaking without authorization or any evidence when he said Iran was attempting to undermine President Trump's 2020 presidential campaign. But last month, the Biden administration declassified an intelligence report which said they had "high confidence” that Iran had done exactly what Ratcliffe alleged: namely, run an influence campaign to hurt Trump's candidacy. A former national security official, Cliff Sims, said upon hearing of CNN's hiring that he explicitly warned Bertrand's editors that the story was false but they chose to publish it anyway. It was also Bertrand who most effectively laundered the extremely significant CIA lie in October, 2020 that the documents obtained by The New York Post about the Biden family's business dealings in China and Ukraine were "Russian disinformation.” Even though the John-Brennan-led former intelligence officials admitted from the start that they had no evidence for this claim, Bertrand not only amplified it but vouched for its credibility by writing that the Post's reporting “has drawn comparisons to 2016, when Russian hackers dumped troves of emails from Democrats onto the internet — producing few damaging revelations but fueling accusations of corruption by Trump” (that those 2016 DNC and Podesta documents produced “few damaging revelations” would come as a big surprise to the five DNC operatives, led by Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who were forced to resign when their pro-Hillary cheating was revealed). It was this Politico article by Bertrand that was then used by Facebook and Twitter to justify their joint censorship of the Post's reporting in the weeks before the 2020 election, and numerous media outlets — including The Intercept — gullibly told their readers to ignore the revelations on the ground that these authentic documents were "Russian disinformation.” Yet once it did its job of helping defeat Trump, that claim was debunked when even the intelligence community acknowledged it had no evidence of Russian involvement in the appearance of these materials, and Hunter Biden himself admitted he was the subject of a federal investigation for the transactions revealed by those documents. Politico, Oct. 19, 2020 But even when her fantasies and conspiracies are debunked, Bertrand — like a good intelligence soldier — never cedes any ground in her propaganda campaigns. She was, needless to say, one of the journalists who most vocally promoted the CIA's story — published as Trump was announcing his plans to withdraw from Afghanistan — that Russia had paid bounties to the Taliban for the death of U.S. soldiers. Yet even when the U.S. intelligence community under Joe Biden admitted last week that it has only "low to moderate” confidence that this even happened — with the NSA and other surveillance agencies saying it could find no evidence to corroborate the CIA's story — she continued to insist that nothing had changed with the story, denying last week on a Mediaite podcast that anything had happened to cast doubt on the original story: “I think it’s much more nuanced than it being a walk-back. I don’t think that’s right actually." Even a cursory review of Bertrand's prolific output reveals an endless array of gossip, conspiracy and speculative assertions masquerading as journalism. The commentator Luke Thomas detailed many of these transgressions on Monday and correctly observed that “arguably no single reporter has contributed more to the deranged and paranoid national security fantasies of the center-left than Natasha Bertrand. She's an embarrassment to her profession and will, therefore, fit right in at CNN.” As Thomas noted, beyond all of Bertrand's well-documented and consequential propaganda, “she sees conspiracies and perfidiousness around every corner,” pointing to this demented yet highly viral tweet that deciphered comments from former Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) as inadvertently revealing some secret scheme to expand Trump's pardon powers. That scheme, like most of her speculative predictions, never materialized. Then there is her garden-variety ethical scandal. In January, freelancer Dean Sterling Jones accused Bertrand of stealing his work without credit or payment. In a post he published, Jones documented how he emailed Bertrand a draft with reporting he had been working on, and in response she agreed to report it jointly with him on a co-byline. Yet two weeks later, the article appeared in The Atlantic with Bertrand as the only named reporter. Only after Jones complained did they insert a sentence into the story begrudgingly citing him as a source. “By my count,” Jones wrote, “Bertrand’s article contains at least six unequivocal examples of direct copying and revisions of my work.” When he published his post detailing his accusations, Bertrand arrogantly refused even to provide comment to the freelancer whose work she pilfered. Natasha Bertrand has spent the last five years working as a spokesperson for the alliance composed of the CIA and the Democratic Party, spreading every unvetted and unproven conspiracy theory about Russiagate that they fed her. The more loyally she performed that propagandistic function, the more rapidly she was promoted and rewarded. Now she arrives at her latest destination: CNN, not only Russiagate Central along with MSNBC but also the home to countless ex-operatives of the security state agencies on whose behalf Bertrand speaks. Once again we see the two key truths of modern corporate journalism in the U.S. First, we have the Jeffrey Goldberg Principle: you can never go wrong, but only right, by disseminating lies and propaganda from the CIA. Second, the organs that spread the most disinformation and crave disinformation agents as their employees are the very same ones who demand censorship of the internet in the name of stopping disinformation. I've long said that if you want to understand how to thrive in this part of the media world, you should study the career advancement of Jeffrey Goldberg, propelled by one reckless act after the next. But now the sequel to the Goldberg Rise is the thriving career of this new CNN reporter whose value as a CIA propagandist Goldberg, notably, was the first to spot and reward.
https://vancouversun.com/news/full-blown-assault-on-free-expression-inside-t... https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/ndp-open-to-supporting-controversial-... History presents... another SocCom Censorship Program: After more than 25 years of Canadian governments pursuing a hands-off approach to the online world, the government of Justin Trudeau is now pushing Bill C-10, a law that would see Canadians subjected to the most regulated internet in the free world," argues the Vancouver Sun: Although pitched as a way to expand Canadian content provisions to the online sphere, the powers of Bill C-10 have expanded considerably in committee, including a provision introduced last week that could conceivably allow the federal government to order the deletion of any Facebook, YouTube, Instagram or Twitter upload made by a Canadian. In comments this week, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh indicated his party was open to providing the votes needed to pass C-10, seeing the bill as a means to combat online hate... The users themselves may not necessarily be subject to direct CRTC regulation, but social media providers would have to answer to every post on their platforms as if it were a TV show or radio program. This might be a good time to mention that members of the current Liberal cabinet have openly flirted with empowering the federal government to control social media. In a September Tweet, Infrastructure Minister Catherine McKenna said that if social media companies "can't regulate yourselves, governments will." Guilbeault, the prime champion of Bill C-10, has spoken openly of a federal regulator that could order takedowns of any social media post that it deems to be hateful or propagandistic... Basically, if your Canadian website isn't a text-only GeoCities blog from 1996, Bill C-10 thinks it's a program deserving of CRTC regulation. This covers news sites, podcasts, blogs, the websites of political parties or activist groups and even foreign websites that might be seen in Canada... The penalties prescribed by Bill C-10 are substantial. For corporations, a first offence can yield penalties of up to $10 million, while subsequent offences could be up to $15 million apiece. If TikTok, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube are suddenly put in a situation where their millions of users must follow the same rules as a Canadian cable channel or radio station, it's not unreasonable to assume they may just follow Facebook's example [in Australia] and take the nuclear option.
From Harm,” participants discussed how the U.S. and Europe could come together to formulate a united approach to controlling digital communications. The discussion was particularly notable because
https://www.mintpressnews.com/alliance-of-democracies-summit-regime-change-a... Controlling the internet Day two of the conference focused more on the coronavirus and the threat to democracies posed by fake news and disinformation online. In one panel titled “Regulating Social Media and Protecting the Public panelists included Michael Chertoff, co-author of the PATRIOT Act, which stripped Americans citizens of a wide range of rights under the guise of national security and fighting terrorism. Also on the panel were two British conservative members of parliament, an advisor to the executive vice president of digital affairs for the European Commission, and a member of Facebook’s oversight board, the body that regulates what the platform’s 2.6 billion people see in their news feeds. These individuals are so influential that their opinions and decisions could well affect virtually the entire world. Together, they agreed that more cooperation between big tech and big government was necessary in order to reduce the amount of false information and harmful content online. This in itself is little new: in 2018 Facebook announced that it had partnered with the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensics Lab to help regulate and curate its newsfeeds, effectively giving up partial control to the NATO-aligned organization. It also hired a former NATO press officer as its intelligence chief earlier this year. The AoD conference pushed an agenda encouraging even more cooperation between tech and media Other big social media companies like Reddit have similar ties to the military alliance. When organizations like the Atlantic Council, whose board features no fewer than seven former CIA directors, control what the world sees and reads online, it becomes difficult to see where the fourth estate ends and the deep state begins. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given that the entire conference was sponsored by Facebook and Google, there was little talk of breaking up or nationalizing these online behemoths. While very few people actually watched any of these events (the livestream rarely had more than 30 viewers at any time), that does not mean it was not important. The lineup of presidents, generals and CEOs makes it clear that what was stated is effectively the collective view of the world’s elite and a window into their thinking and the debates they are having. What they decide will affect all of us, whether we realize it or not.
Jack Dorsey Twitter imprisons his hypocritical self under his own definition of what a Human Rights Violation is... Twitter Guilty of Human Rights Violations... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYdh391fQiA Twitter Guilty of Human Rights Violations "Jack Dorsey the Censor and CEO of Twitter", and "Alex Gladstein the Apologist for Censorship and CSO of Human Rights Foundation", Both Dodge and Censor a Truthful Critic Off the Public Debate Stage... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/laura-loomer-crashes-twitter-ceo-spe... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix3VczDOp7I Jack Dorsey Twitter Critiqued Live on Public Stage
https://southfront.org/how-rigidly-controlled-european-news-media-are/ Twitter Censored Users at the Request of the State https://u8z8g8c2.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/11889-Supplemental-...
On Sat, 19 Jun 2021 06:54:27 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: Twitter Censored Users at the Request of the orange turd trump, kinf of the trumpofascists like grarpamp.
Jack Dorsey Twitter imprisons his hypocritical self under his own definition of what a Human Rights Violation is...
Twitter Guilty of Human Rights Violations... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYdh391fQiA Twitter Guilty of Human Rights Violations
"Jack Dorsey the Censor and CEO of Twitter", and "Alex Gladstein the Apologist for Censorship and CSO of Human Rights Foundation", Both Dodge and Censor a Truthful Critic Off the Public Debate Stage... https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/laura-loomer-crashes-twitter-ceo-spe... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ix3VczDOp7I Jack Dorsey Twitter Critiqued Live on Public Stage https://FreeWorldNews.TV/
Followup interview re Subject: ... Cryptocurrency: Miami Bitcoin Conference 2021 Highlights Laura Loomer is right re speech, undue influence interference, and more... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14-Q8v8pAV8 Deplatforming_vs_Free_Speech_with_Laura_Loomer https://lauraloomerforcongress.com/ https://t.me/s/loomeredofficial https://gab.com/lauraloomer https://loomered.com/ https://floridapolitics.com/archives/454620-loomer-challenge-webster/ https://www.villages-news.com/2022/04/05/upstart-hoping-to-unseat-congressma... Loomered: How I Became The Most Banned Woman In The World https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1642935670/ "How can you say that this is a currency for everyone in the world, when you are the King of Censorship?!?! Bitcoin is about decentralization, and you have no right to be here speaking about this ... you are a Human Rights Violator ... you are Interfering in Elections ... Jack Dorsey is a TechnoFacist ... He's on stage with a Human Rights activist while Censoring millions of people ... He's deciding who Wins and who Loses Elections, that's unacceptable ... You can't say that you're for Freedom and Decentralization then Censor Millions of People ... -- Laura Loomer, Censored off every platform for Speaking Freely, the most banned woman in the world" "Dorsey... that motherfucker ... piece of shit ... bought and paid for -- Conference Attendees" ... https://loomered.com/2020/12/17/exclusive-hunter-biden-emails-reveal-founder...
https://www.zdnet.com/article/tim-cook-claims-sideloading-apps-would-destroy... Tim Cook says you're censored, keep paying for closed systems. https://ij.org/press-release/north-carolina-board-tells-retired-engineer-he-... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27559804
Western Politicians trying Twitter Twist to Adopting Chinese Model Hong Kong Police Raid Newsroom Of Pro-Democracy Paper, Arrests Executives https://www.theepochtimes.com/hong-kongs-press-freedom-in-question-after-pol... International rights groups on Thursday slammed Hong Kong authorities after local police mobilized over 500 officers in a raid on the headquarters of local newspaper Apple Daily. Police officers leave the Apple Daily newspaper offices in Hong Kong after a raid by over 500 officers on June 17, 2021. (Anthony Wallace/AFP via Getty Images) The raid resulted in the arrest of five directors of the newspaper under the Beijing’s draconian national security law. They were accused of violating Article 29 of the law, which bans “collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security.“ The collusion charge carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Among those arrested were the paper’s editor-in-chief Ryan Law and associate publisher Chan Pui-man. Cheung Kim-hung and Royston Chow, chief executive officer and chief operating officer of the paper’s publishing firm Next Digital, were also arrested. It marks the second raid at the paper’s headquarters in less than a year, after 200 Hong Kong police officers stormed the newsroom in August last year a month after the national security law went into effect. “The arrests of five executives at the pro-democracy Apple Daily today under Hong Kong’s Orwellian National Security Law destroy any remaining fiction that Hong Kong supports freedom of the press,” Steven Butler, Asia program coordinator of the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), said in a statement. He added: “China, which controls Hong Kong, may be able to eliminate the paper, which it sees as an annoying critic, but only at a steep price to be paid by the people of Hong Kong, who had enjoyed decades of free access to information.” CPJ condemns the arrests today of five executives at the pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper under Hong Kong’s Orwellian National Security Law.@appledaily_hk https://t.co/yRBqYlmFYO — Committee to Protect Journalists (@pressfreedom) June 17, 2021 The paper’s founder Jimmy Lai, who is currently in prison for his role in anti-Beijing, pro-democracy protests in 2019, is also facing allegations that he violated the national security law. Washington-based nonprofit Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC) issued a statement critical of both the Chinese regime and the pro-Beijing Hong Kong government. “Hong Kong has been left with little free speech under the NSL (national security law), which aims to silence all dissent. Today’s arrests mark yet another step toward remaking Hong Kong in Beijing’s liking,” stated Victoria Hui, a HKDC board member. Samuel Chiu, HKDC’s managing director, pointed out how journalists in Hong Kong, including Jimmy Lai, Bao Choy, and Nabela Qoser, were being targeted for “defending freedom of the press.” “No regime can totally suppress the truth and truth-tellers,” Chu stated. Choy is a freelance producer with local public broadcaster Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK), who was found guilty and fined by the Hong Kong government in April for making false statements to obtain vehicle records, which were used in her documentary examining a mob attack on commuters at a Hong Kong metro station on July 21, 2019. Many of the metro passengers were on their way home after taking part in a mass protest against an extradition bill that would have paved the way for people in Hong Kong to be sent to mainland China if accused of a crime and tried under the communist party’s judicial system. RTHK recently declined to renew the contract of its staff member Qoser, who is known for asking Hong Kong government officials and lawmakers tough questions. A Hong Kong police officer stands outside of the Apple Daily headquarters in Hong Kong on June 17, 2021. (Adrian Yu/The Epoch Times) Chris Yeung, chairperson of the Hong Kong Journalists Association, said that the raid showed that press freedom in Hong Kong has been “severely undermined” by the national security law, according to Apple Daily. “There is zero protection of news materials,” Yeung added. Journalism Endangers China’s National Security: HK Official Hong Kong police arrived at the Apple Daily headquarters at around 7:30 a.m. local time and sealed off all access to the building. According to Apple Daily, police officers prevented the paper’s journalists from working at their desks and accessed reporters’ computers. At around 8 a.m. local time, the Hong Kong government issued a press release, saying that police officers from the city’s national security department had conducted a “search operation” at the paper’s headquarters, which included seizing “journalistic materials.” In a separate press release, the Hong Kong government said that the five directors’ residences were searched. Meanwhile, trading in shares of Next Digital at the Hong Kong Stock Exchange was suspended. At around 11 a.m. local time, Steve Li, superintendent of Hong Kong’s national security unit, told local media that Hong Kong authorities had frozen about $2.32 million ($18 million HKD) in assets from three companies linked to Apple Daily. Steve Li, superintendent of Hong Kong’s national security unit, speaks to local media in Hong Kong on June 17, 2021. (Sung Pi-lung/The Epoch Times) He also said that the collusion charge was in relation to over 30 articles published by Apple Daily since 2019 that sought to have foreign countries impose sanctions on China or Hong Kong, according to Li. Before the national security law was implemented in July last year, the Hong Kong government announced that the law would not have retrospective effects. It is unclear why now the Hong Kong authorities are citing articles published before the national security law went into effect as evidence of criminal behavior. At noon, John Lee, Hong Kong’s security secretary, held a press conference during which he accused Apple Daily executives of using journalism as a “tool to endanger” national security. Additionally, he asked that “normal journalists” keep their distance from the “criminals” at Apple Daily. Hong Kong police ended their raid at around 1:15 p.m. local time, taking away with them computers and hard drives. The raid on Apple Daily immediately drew concern from overseas observers. Joseph Wu, Taiwan’s foreign minister, took to Twitter to express his frustration at what the Hong Kong authorities were doing. “Authoritarianism is waging a brutal war on @appledaily_hk, a desperately endangered symbol of freedom in #HongKong,” Wu wrote. He added: “I’m out of words to describe my anger & sadness at witnessing this tragedy.”
https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-youtube-takes-down-xinjiang-vid... https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5uns79sHr1AZiUw1ikV7PQ https://odysee.com/@ATAJURT:8 "A human rights group that attracted millions of views on YouTube to testimonies from people who say their families have disappeared in China's Xinjiang region is moving its videos to little-known service Odysee after some were taken down by the Google-owned streaming giant, two sources told Reuters." Long-time Slashdot reader sinij shares their report: Atajurt Kazakh Human Rights' channel has published nearly 11,000 videos on YouTube totaling over 120 million views since 2017, thousands of which feature people speaking to camera about relatives they say have disappeared without a trace in China's Xinjiang region, where UN experts and rights groups estimate over a million people have been detained in recent years. On June 15, the channel was blocked for violating YouTube's guidelines, according to a screenshot seen by Reuters, after twelve of its videos had been reported for breaching its 'cyberbullying and harassment' policy. The channel's administrators had appealed the blocking of all twelve videos between April and June, with some reinstated — but YouTube did not provide an explanation as to why others were kept out of public view, the administrators told Reuters. Following inquiries from Reuters as to why the channel was removed, YouTube restored it on June 18, explaining that it had received multiple so-called 'strikes' for videos which contained people holding up ID cards to prove they were related to the missing, violating a YouTube policy which prohibits personally identifiable information from appearing in its content... YouTube asked Atajurt to blur the IDs. But Atajurt is hesitant to comply, the channel's administrator said, concerned that doing so would jeopardize the trustworthiness of the videos. Fearing further blocking by YouTube, they decided to back up content to Odysee, a website built on a blockchain protocol called LBRY, designed to give creators more control. About 975 videos have been moved so far. Even as administrators were moving content, they received another series of automated messages from YouTube stating that the videos in question had been removed from public view, this time because of concerns that they may promote violent criminal organizations... Atajurt representatives fear pro-China groups who deny that human rights abuses exist in Xinjiang are using YouTube's reporting features to remove their content by reporting it en masse, triggering an automatic block. Representatives shared videos on WhatsApp and Telegram with Reuters which they said described how to report Atajurt's YouTube videos. An activist working with the group told Reuters he's also faced offline challenges — including having his hard disks and cellphones confiscated multiple times in Kazakhstan. This meant that the only place where they'd stored their entire video collection was YouTube.
Twitter censors "Matt Hancock" image and video search amid affair and breach of "social distancing" guidelines scandal in the UK. Massive anti-lockdown protest underway in #londonprotest. Former Home Secretary, former Managing Director of Deutsche Bank, and ex-JP Morgan adviser Sajid Javid appointed as Health Secretary after the resignation of Matt Hancock.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG6BuSjwP4o @LexFridman Youtube, Twitter, Facebook etc now censoring and proxying orders to @timcast tim pool @bretweinstein dark horse podcast @covid19critical @joerogan @pierrekory etc The level of censorship and manipulation by NewsMediaTech and GovCorp is simply off the charts, exposed bare since years for anyone who cares to look. Fight back.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World https://www.amazon.com/Erik-Blair-Diaries-Battlefield-Dead/dp/1954968027/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four https://www.aier.org/article/censorship-kills/ https://www.amazon.com/Search-Better-World-Lectures-Essays/dp/0415135486 Popper https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinstein https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TG6BuSjwP4o Fridman Weinstein Darkhorse podcast deleted by youtube https://odysee.com/@BretWeinstein:f/how-to-save-the-world,-in-three-easy:0 Disconnected for torrenting. Soon you will be disconnected for speaking, and the list of words, phrases, ideas, and freedoms keeps getting longer... https://summit.news/2021/06/28/massachusetts-university-bans-the-phrase-trig... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9721153/Brandeis-University-anti-vi... Many on social media immediately compared the university’s move to ‘Newspeak’ in Orwell’s 1984: In 1644 John Milton wrote, “He who destroys a good book, kills reason itself.” Today, acknowledge the destructive consequences of censorship. Speak out now or we risk allowing Big Tech’s algorithms and community guidelines to continue to destroy reason, hinder science, and undermine hope for humanity.
Seems everyone is rushing to emulate China's destruction and lack of freedom... Human Rights Groups Are Quitting YouTube Over Its Pro-China Censorship https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-youtube-takes-down-xinjiang-vid... In yet another glaring example of Google willingly doing China's bidding, YouTube this month agreed to take down multiple videos posted by a well-known China-related human rights organization. As Reuters recently reported, YouTube initially tried to pressure the group called Atajurt Kazakh Human Rights to censor its content in several videos documenting disappeared Uyghur citizens in China's Xinjiang province, which YouTube interpreted as a violation of its anti-harassment policy given personally identifiable information was present. Despite the group's videos essentially including detailed news reporting, the Google-owned platform said it had too many strikes against it related to people featured showing their IDs. The organization was asked to blur the IDs. The IDs were shown on the videos to verify that interviewees were indeed relatives of those believed to be missing inside Xinjiang's vast 'reeducation camp' prisons. Instead of continuing to allow the videos to garner millions of views, spotlighting the ongoing crackdown against the Chinese Muslim minorities, YouTube instead "disappeared" the videos. The controversy began within the past years as follows: Atajurt Kazakh Human Rights' channel has published nearly 11,000 videos on YouTube totaling over 120 million views since 2017, thousands of which feature people speaking to camera about relatives they say have disappeared without a trace in China's Xinjiang region, where UN experts and rights groups estimate over a million people have been detained in recent years. On June 15, the channel was blocked for violating YouTube's guidelines, according to a screenshot seen by Reuters, after twelve of its videos had been reported for breaching its 'cyberbullying and harassment' policy. While a number of videos have been reportedly restored on appeal, Atajurt Kazakh was alarmed enough over the crackdown to announce it would move its content to a less restrictive blockchain-based platform. YouTube later defended the move, describing that its harassment policy "clearly prohibits content revealing someone’s personally identifiable information, including their government identification or phone numbers." It claimed to further be enforcing policies "equally for everyone". Meanwhile in related news... TIME magazine fails to disclose CCP funding for content in its latest print edition. The mag struck a $700k ad partnership with China Daily, the state-controlled propaganda outlet. @TIME has not responded to repeated inquiries about the non-disclosure https://t.co/hFLb9zyWC1 — Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) July 1, 2021 Following the media attention, YouTube began restoring the videos while saying it would further evaluate its current policies. Reuters documented that the social media platform still urged the human rights group to comply, noting that "YouTube asked Atajurt to blur the IDs." However, it remains that "Atajurt is hesitant to comply, the channel's administrator said, concerned that doing so would jeopardize the trustworthiness of the videos." So far close to 1,000 videos have been moved to the blockchain-driven alternative side Odysee, in a move which other rights and journalism organization may soon follow.
From YouTube’s perspective, the argument for “medical misinformation” in the DarkHorse videos probably comes down to a few themes in Weinstein’s shows. Take, for example, an exchange between Weinstein and Malone in a video about the mRNA vaccines produced by companies
Alex Jones and others were the Canary In The Coalmine of Censorship, but you ignored it and did nothing to stop and fight it, and thus as predicted, now they are indeed coming for all voices, including yours... A Case of "Intellectual Capture?" On YouTube's Demonetization Of Bret Weinstein: Taibbi https://taibbi.substack.com/p/a-case-of-intellectual-capture-on https://www.vox.com/2018/8/6/17655658/alex-jones-facebook-youtube-conspiracy... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/oct/14/facebook-twitter-new-york... https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/05/06/twitter-facebook-trump-... https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/17/22440005/parler-apple-app-store-return-am... https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-status-coup https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinstein https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCi5N_uAqApEUIlg32QzkPlg https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAWCKUrmvK5F_ynBY_CMlIA https://twitter.com/PierreKory/status/1410622361477472261 https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D https://www.bitchute.com/video/Du2wm5nhTXY/ Just under three years ago, Infowars anchor Alex Jones was tossed off Facebook, Apple, YouTube, and Spotify, marking the unofficial launch of the “content moderation” era. The censorship envelope has since widened dramatically via a series of high-profile incidents: Facebook and Twitter suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story, Donald Trump’s social media suspension, Apple and Amazon’s kneecapping of Parler, the removal of real raw footage from the January 6th riots, and others. This week’s decision by YouTube to demonetize podcaster Bret Weinstein belongs on that list, and has a case to be to be put at or near the top, representing a different and perhaps more unnerving speech conundrum than those other episodes. Profiled in this space two weeks ago, Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying — both biologists — host the podcast DarkHorse, which by any measure is among the more successful independent media operations in the country. They have two YouTube channels, a main channel featuring whole episodes and livestreams, and a “clips” channel featuring excerpts from those shows. Between the two channels, they’ve been flagged 11 times in the last month or so. Specifically, YouTube has honed in on two areas of discussion it believes promote “medical misinformation.” The first is the potential efficacy of the repurposed drug ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment. The second is the third rail of third rails, i.e. the possible shortcomings of the mRNA vaccines produced by companies like Moderna and Pfizer. Weinstein, who was also criticized for arguing the lab-leak theory before conventional wisdom shifted on that topic, says YouTube’s decision will result in the loss of “half” of his and Heying’s income. However, he says, YouTube told him he can reapply after a month. YouTube’s notice put it as follows: “Edit your channel and reapply for monetization… Make changes to your channel based on our feedback. Changes can include editing or deleting videos and updating video details.” “They want me to self-censor,” he says. “Unless I stop broadcasting information that runs afoul of their CDC-approved talking points, I’ll remain demonetized.” Weinstein’s travails with YouTube sound like something out of a Star Trek episode, in which the Enterprise crew tries and fails to communicate with a malevolent AI attacking the ship. In the last two weeks, he emailed back and forth with the firm, at one point receiving an email from someone who identified himself only as “Christopher,” indicating a desire to set up a discussion between Weinstein and various parties at YouTube. Over the course of these communications, Weinstein asked if he could nail down the name and contact number of the person with whom he was interacting. “I said, ‘Look, I need to know who you are first, whether you’re real, what your real first and last names are, what your phone number is, and so on,” Weinstein recounts. “But on asking what ‘Christopher’s’ real name and email was, they wouldn’t even go that far.” After this demand of his, instead of giving him an actual contact, YouTube sent him a pair of less personalized demonetization notices. As has been noted in this space multiple times, this is a common theme in nearly all of these stories, but Weinstein’s tale is at once weirder and more involved, as most people in these dilemmas never get past the form-letter response stage. YouTube has responded throughout to media queries about Weinstein’s case, suggesting they take it seriously. YouTube’s decision with regard to Weinstein and Heying seems part of an overall butterfly effect, as numerous other figures either connected to the topic or to DarkHorse have been censured by various platforms. Weinstein guest Dr. Robert Malone, a former Salk Institute researcher often credited with helping develop mRNA vaccine technology, has been suspended from LinkedIn, and Weinstein guest Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has had his appearances removed by YouTube. Even Satoshi Ōmura, who won the Nobel Prize in 2015 for his work on ivermectin, reportedly had a video removed by YouTube this week. There are several factors that make the DarkHorse incident different from other major Silicon Valley moderation decisions, including the fact that the content in question doesn’t involve electoral politics, foreign intervention, or incitement. The main issue is the possible blurring of lines between public and private censorship. When I contacted YouTube about Weinstein two weeks ago, I was told, “In general, we rely on guidance from local and global health authorities (FDA, CDC, WHO, NHS, etc) in developing our COVID-19 misinformation policies.” The question is, how active is that “guidance”? Is YouTube acting in consultation with those bodies in developing those moderation policies? As Weinstein notes, an answer in the affirmative would likely make theirs a true First Amendment problem, with an agency like the CDC not only setting public health policy but also effectively setting guidelines for private discussion about those policies. “If it is in consultation with the government,” he says, “it’s an entirely different issue.” Asked specifically after Weinstein’s demonetization if the “guidance” included consultation with authorities, YouTube essentially said yes, pointing to previous announcements that they consult other authorities, and adding, “When we develop our policies we consult outside experts and YouTube creators. In the case of our COVID-19 misinformation policies, it would be guidance from local and global health authorities.” Weinstein and Heying might be the most prominent non-conservative media operation to fall this far afoul of a platform like YouTube. Unlike the case of, say, Alex Jones, the moves against the show’s content have not been roundly cheered. In fact, they’ve inspired blowback from across the media spectrum, with everyone from Bill Maher to Joe Rogan to Tucker Carlson taking notice. “They threw Bret Weinstein off YouTube, or almost,” Maher said on Real Time last week. “YouTube should not be telling me what I can see about ivermectin. Ivermectin isn’t a registered Republican. It’s a drug!” like Moderna and Pfizer: Weinstein: The other problem is that what these vaccines do is they encode spike protein… but the spike protein itself we now know is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic, is that a fair description? Malone: More than fair, and I alerted the FDA about this risk months and months and months ago. In another moment, entrepreneur and funder of fluvoxamine studies Steve Kirsch mentioned that his carpet cleaner had a heart attack minutes after taking the Pfizer vaccine, and cited Canadian viral immunologist Byram Bridle in saying that that the COVID-19 vaccine doesn’t stay localized at point of injection, but “goes throughout your entire body, it goes to your brain to your heart.” Politifact rated the claim that spike protein is cytotoxic “false,” citing the CDC to describe the spike protein as “harmless.” As to the idea that the protein does damage to other parts of the body, including the heart, they quoted an FDA spokesperson who said there’s no evidence the spike protein “lingers at any toxic level in the body.” Would many doctors argue that the 226 identified cases of myocarditis so far is tiny in the context of 130 million vaccine doses administered, and overall the danger of myocarditis associated with vaccine is far lower than the dangers of myocarditis in Covid-19 patients? Absolutely. It’s also true that the CDC itself had a meeting on June 18th to discuss cases of heart inflammation reported among people who’d received the vaccine. The CDC, in other words, is simultaneously telling news outlets like Politifact that spike protein is “harmless,” and also having ad-hoc meetings to discuss the possibility, however remote from their point of view, that it is not harmless. Are only CDC officials allowed to discuss these matters? The larger problem with YouTube’s action is that it relies upon those government guidelines, which in turn are significantly dependent upon information provided to them by pharmaceutical companies, which have long track records of being less than forthright with the public. In the last decade, for instance, the U.S. government spent over $1.5 billion to stockpile Tamiflu, a drug produced by the Swiss pharma firm Roche. It later came out — thanks to the efforts of a Japanese pediatrician who left a comment on an online forum — that Roche had withheld crucial testing information from British and American buyers, leading to a massive fraud suit. Similar controversies involving the arthritis drug Vioxx and the diabetes drug Avandia were prompted by investigations by independent doctors and academics. As with financial services, military contracting, environmental protection, and other fields, the phenomenon of regulatory capture is demonstrably real in the pharmaceutical world. This makes basing any moderation policy on official guidelines problematic. If the proper vaccine policy is X, but the actual policy ends up being X plus unknown commercial consideration Y, a policy like YouTube’s more or less automatically preempts discussion of Y. Some of Weinstein’s broadcasts involve exactly such questions about whether or not it’s necessary to give Covid-19 vaccines to children, to pregnant women, and to people who’ve already had Covid-19, and whether or not the official stance on those matters is colored by profit considerations. Other issues, like whether or not boosters are going to be necessary, need a hard look in light of the commercial incentives. These are legitimate discussions, as the WHOs own behavior shows. On April 8th, the WHO website said flatly: “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.” A month and a half later, the WHO issued a new guidance, saying the Pfizer vaccine was “suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above.” The WHO was clear that its early recommendation was based on a lack of data, and on uncertainty about whether or not children with a low likelihood of infection should be a “priority,” and not on any definite conviction that the vaccine was unsafe. And, again, a Politifact check on the notion that the WHO “reversed its stance” on children rated the claim false, saying that the WHO merely “updated” its guidance on children. Still, the whole drama over the WHO recommendation suggested it should at least be an allowable topic of discussion. Certainly there are critics of Weinstein’s who blanch at the use of sci-fi terms like “red pill” (derived from worldview-altering truth pill in The Matrix), employing language like “very dangerous” to describe the mRNA vaccines, and descriptions of ivermectin as a drug that would “almost certainly make you better.” Even to those critics, however, the larger issue Weinstein’s case highlights should be clear. If platforms like YouTube are basing speech regulation policies on government guidelines, and government agencies demonstrably can be captured by industry, the potential exists for a new brand of capture — intellectual capture, where corporate money can theoretically buy not just regulatory relief but the broader preemption of public criticism. It’s vaccines today, and that issue is important enough, but what if in the future the questions involve the performance of an expensive weapons program, or a finance company contracted to administer bailout funds, or health risks posed by a private polluter? Weinstein believes capture plays a role in his case at some level. “It’s the only thing that makes sense,” he says. He hopes the pressure from the public and from the media will push platforms like YouTube to reveal exactly how, and with whom, they settle upon their speech guidelines. “There’s something industrial strength about the censorship,” he says, adding. “There needs to be a public campaign to reject it.”
The Horrifying Rise Of Total Mass Media Blackouts On Inconvenient News Stories https://stundin.is/grein/13627/key-witness-in-assange-case-admits-to-lies-in... https://www.medialens.org/2021/a-remarkable-silence-media-blackout-after-key... https://fair.org/home/key-assange-witness-recants-with-zero-corporate-media-... Two different media watchdog outlets, Media Lens and Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), have published articles on the complete blackout in mainstream news institutions on the revelation by Icelandic newspaper Stundin that a US superseding indictment in the case against Julian Assange was based on false testimony from diagnosed sociopath and convicted child molester Sigurdur Thordarson. FAIR's Alan MacLeod writes that "as of Friday, July 2, there has been literally zero coverage of it in corporate media; not one word in the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, NBC News, Fox News or NPR." "A search online for either 'Assange' or 'Thordarson' will elicit zero relevant articles from establishment sources, either US or elsewhere in the Anglosphere, even in tech-focused platforms like the Verge, Wired or Gizmodo," MacLeod adds. Twitter avatar for @FAIRmediawatchFAIR @FAIRmediawatch Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage Key Assange Witness Recants—With Zero Corporate Media Coverage - FAIRA key witness against Julian Assange has recanted his testimony, but this blow to the US case has received zero media coverage.fair.org July 2nd 2021 239 Retweets339 Likes "We have not found a single report by any ‘serious’ UK broadcaster or newspaper," says the report by Media Lens. "But in a sane world, Stundin’s revelations about a key Assange witness – that Thordarson lied in exchange for immunity from prosecution – would have been headline news everywhere, with extensive media coverage on BBC News at Six and Ten, ITV News, Channel 4 News, front-page stories in the Times, Telegraph, the Guardian and more." "For those who still believe the media provides news, please read this," tweeted Australian journalist John Pilger regarding the Media Lens report. "Having led the persecution of Julian Assange, the 'free press' is uniformly silent on sensational news that the case against Assange has collapsed. Shame on my fellow journalists." As we discussed the other day, this weird, creepy media blackout has parallels with another total blackout on a different major news story which also involved WikiLeaks. In late 2019 the leak outlet Assange founded was publishing multiple documents from whistleblowers in the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) revealing that the organisation's leadership actively tampered in the investigation into an alleged chlorine gas attack in Douma, Syria in 2018 to support the US government narrative on the allegation, yet the mass media wouldn't touch it. A Newsweek reporter resigned from his position during this scandalous blackout and published the emails of his editors forbidding him from covering the story on the grounds that no other major outlet had reported on it. Make no mistake, this is most certainly a new phenomenon. If you don't believe me, contrast the blackout on these stories with the mass media coverage on WikiLeaks revelations a few short years earlier. The press eagerly lapped up the 2016 publications of Democratic Party emails and actively collaborated with WikiLeaks in the publication of the Chelsea Manning leaks in 2010. Even the more recent Vault 7 leaks published in 2017 received plenty of media coverage. Yet now every WikiLeaks-related story that is inconvenient for the US-centralized empire is carefully kept out of mainstream attention, with a jarring uniformity and consistency we've never experienced before. If the media environment of today had existed ten or fifteen years earlier, it's possible that most people wouldn't even know who Assange is, much less the important information about the powerful that WikiLeaks has brought to light. Twitter avatar for @johnpilgerJohn Pilger @johnpilger For those who still believe the media provides news, please read this. Having led the persecution of Julian #Assange, the "free press" is uniformly silent on sensational news that the case against #Assange has collapsed. Shame on my fellow journalists. A Remarkable Silence: Media Blackout After Key Witness Against Assange Admits LyingAs we have pointed out since Media Lens began in 2001, a fundamental feature of corporate media is propagandamedialens.org July 2nd 2021 1,759 Retweets2,678 Likes We also caught a strong whiff of this new trend in the near-total blackout on the Hunter Biden October surprise last year, which only went mainstream because it stood to benefit one of America's two mainstream political factions. After the New York Post first broke the story we saw mainstream media figures publicly explaining to each other why it was fine not to cover it with reasoning that was all over the map, from it's a waste of time to it's just too darn complicated to it's not our job to research these things to the Washington Post's notorious "We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation — even if they probably aren't." Anyone who dared publicize the leaks anywhere near the mainstream liberal echo chamber was bashed into submission by the herd, and without any legitimate reason it was treated like a complete non-story at best and a sinister Russian op at worst. And then, lo and behold, in April of this year Hunter Biden acknowledged that the leaks could very well have come from his laptop after all, and not from some GRU psyop. And I think that whole ordeal gives us some answers into this disturbing new dynamic of complete blackouts on major news stories. Last year The Spectator‘s Stephen L Miller described how the consensus formed among the mainstream press since Clinton’s 2016 loss that it is their moral duty to be uncritical of Trump’s opponent and suppress any news stories which might benefit them. “For almost four years now, journalists have shamed their colleagues and themselves over what I will call the ‘but her emails’ dilemma,” Miller writes. “Those who reported dutifully on the ill-timed federal investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private server and spillage of classified information have been cast out and shunted away from the journalist cool kids’ table. Focusing so much on what was, at the time, a considerable scandal, has been written off by many in the media as a blunder. They believe their friends and colleagues helped put Trump in the White House by focusing on a nothing-burger of a Clinton scandal when they should have been highlighting Trump’s foibles. It’s an error no journalist wants to repeat.” Twitter avatar for @MattGertzMatthew Gertz @MattGertz 1. NY Times reporter Amy Chozick says she became an “an unwitting agent of Russian intelligence” in covering hacked Democratic emails during the 2016 election. mediamatters.org/blog/2018/04/2… Image April 25th 2018 217 Retweets300 Likes Once you've accepted that journalists have not just a right but a duty to suppress news that is both factual and newsworthy in order to protect a political agenda, you're out in open water in terms of blatant propaganda manipulation. And we saw the mainstream press shoved into alignment with this doctrine in the wake of the 2016 election. This shove was never the biggest story of the day, but it was constant, forceful, and extremely dominant in the conversations that mainstream journalists were having with each other both publicly and privately in the wake of the 2016 election. Even before the votes were cast, we saw people like Vox's Matt Yglesias and Axios editor Scott Rosenberg shaming mass media reporters for focusing on the Hillary Clinton email scandal, and after Trump hysteria kicked in it got a whole lot more aggressive. In 2017 we saw things like Clinton insider Jennifer Palmieri melodramatically lamenting the media's fixation on WikiLeaks publications despite the Clinton campaign's desperate attempts to warn them that it was a Russian operation (a claim that to this day remains entirely without evidence). Liberal pundits like Joy Reid, Eric Boehlert and Peter Daou (prior to his leftward conversion) were constantly browbeating the press on Twitter for covering the leaks at all. It ramped up even further when mainstream reporters like The New York Times' Amy Chozick and CNN's Jeffrey Toobin stepped forward with degrading mea culpas on how badly they regret allowing the Russian government to use them as unwitting pawns to elect Donald Trump with their reporting on newsworthy facts about completely authentic documents. It was like a cross between the confession/execution scene from Animal Farm and the walk of atonement scene from Game of Thrones. Bit by bit the belief that the press has a moral obligation to suppress newsworthy stories if there's a possibility that they could benefit undesirable parties foreign or domestic became the prevailing orthodoxy in mainstream news circles. By mid-2018 we were seeing things like BBC reporter Annita McVeigh admonishing a guest for voicing skepticism about Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's culpability in the Douma incident on the grounds that "we're in an information war with Russia." It's now simply taken as a given that managing narratives is part of the job. Again, this is a new phenomenon. Mainstream media have always been propaganda firms, but they've relied on spin, distortion, half-truths, uneven coverage, and uncritically parroted government assertions; there weren't these complete information barricades across all outlets. You'd see them giving important stories an inadequate amount of coverage, and some individual outlets would neglect inconvenient stories. But you'd always see someone jump at the chance to be the first to report it, if for no other reason than ratings and profit. That's simply not how things work now. A major story can come to light and only be covered by media outlets which mainstream partisans will scoff at and dismiss, like RT or Zero Hedge. The way the mass media have begun simply ignoring major news stories that are inconvenient for the powerful, across not just some but all major news outlets, is extremely disturbing. It means any time there's an inconvenient revelation, mainstream news institutions will just pretend it doesn't exist. Seriously think about what this means for a moment. This is telling whistleblowers and investigative journalists that no matter how hard they work or how much danger they put themselves in to get critical information out to the public, the public will never find out about it, because all mainstream news outlets will unify around blacking it out. You want to talk about a threat to the press? Forget jailing journalists and whistleblowers, how about all news outlets of any real influence unifying to simply deny coverage to any major information which comes to light? This is a threat to the thing the press fundamentally is. More than a threat. It's the end. The end of the possibility of any kind of journalism having any meaningful impact. The journalist who worked on the Stundin report says he spent months working on this story, and he would surely have expected his revelations to get some coverage in the rest of the western press. The OPCW whistleblowers would surely have expected their revelations to get enough attention to make a difference, otherwise they wouldn't have leaked those documents at great risk to themselves. What's being communicated to whistleblowers and journalists in these blackouts is, don't bother. It won't make any difference, because no one will ever see what you reveal. And if that's true, well. God help us all, I guess.
The Horrifying Rise Of Total Mass Media Blackouts On Inconvenient News Stories https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/the-horrifying-rise-of-total-mass
https://www.nationofchange.org/2021/07/03/us-censorship-is-increasingly-offi... US censorship is increasingly official While corporate media like to highlight the many press freedom shortcomings of hostile foreign nations, the censorship worries start much closer to home. By Alan MacLeod July 3, 2021 The Biden administration made headlines last week as it moved to shut down the websites of 33 foreign media outlets, including ones based in Iran, Bahrain, Yemen and Palestine. Officials justified the decision by claiming the organizations were agents of “disinformation.” The most notable of these is probably English-language Iranian state broadcaster Press TV. Visitors to PressTV.com are now met with the seal of the Department of Justice and the FBI, and a message notifying them that the domain “has been seized by the United States government.” (The site has since migrated to an Iranian-based domain, PressTV.ir.) This is far from the first time Press TV has been targeted. Eighteen months ago, Google deleted the Iranian channel’s YouTube account; earlier this year, Facebook did the same, banning its page, which had over 4 million followers. In 2019, the US also arrested American Press TV presenter Marzieh Hashemi, holding her without charge for over a week. Hashemi, a Muslim, said her headscarf was forcibly removed, and she was offered only pork to eat. Western outlets covering the new seizures did not frame them as an attack on the First Amendment (Washington Post, 6/23/21; CNN, 6/23/21; Fox News, 6/23/21), many preferring instead to discuss the shortcomings of the Iranian media landscape. Slate (6/24/21), for example, reminded readers that Iran “blocks foreign social media sites, censors critical foreign outlets and jails reporters.” While this may be perfectly true, Slate suggested it was possible for the Biden administration to make a “clear distinction” between when Iran does it and when the US carries out similar actions; “disinformation and election interference are serious problems,” it helpfully noted. Nosediving press freedom Decrying the state of press freedoms in official enemy states is a favorite pastime of corporate media (FAIR.org, 11/1/06, 5/20/19, 10/20/19). It is a point of pride in the US that freedom of speech is written into the Constitution. Increasingly, however, if we want to find direct government censorship of speech, we don’t have to travel far. NYT: Trump Targets Anti-Semitism and Israeli Boycotts on College CampusesDonald Trump’s claim that his anti-BDS order “targets antisemitism” was presented as fact in the New York Times headline (12/10/19); the perspective of “critics” that it was “an attack on free speech” was treated as an allegation in the subhead. Under President Donald Trump’s leadership, freedom of the press nosedived. Reporters working for foreign outlets like RT America were forced to register as “foreign agents,” under a 1938 law passed to counter Nazi propaganda. The channel was subsequently taken off the air in Washington, DC. Meanwhile, critics or opponents of US foreign policy have been constantly penalized and often pulled off major social media platforms (FAIR.org, 4/16/19). The Trump administration also attempted to force the sale of Chinese-owned social media app TikTok to an American company, and to halt Huawei’s spread as 5G network provider of choice to the globe. Internally, Trump demanded the NFL fire star quarterback Colin Kaepernick for peacefully protesting during the national anthem. He also directly interfered in the university curriculum; his Department of Education ordered the universities of Duke and North Carolina at Chapel Hill to rewrite their Middle Eastern Studies programs, as they were overly “positive” towards Islam and did not promote US national security goals. Trump also issued an order all but outlawing the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Since the Civil Rights era, boycotts have been understood to be protected speech under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, since 2015, 35 US states have approved laws penalizing BDS. Effectively, anyone wanting to take public money in any form must sign a pledge to never boycott the state of Israel. Last year, journalist Abby Martin (herself a target of social media censorship) was blocked from giving a lecture at Georgia Southern University because she refused to sign those First Amendment rights away. Public school staff have been fired for the same thing. Perhaps most worryingly, Trump’s base is on board with tearing up the First Amendment. A 2018 poll found that 43% of Republicans agreed that “the president should have the authority to close news outlets engaged in bad behavior.” State censorship by states News 5 Cleveland: Proposed law making cell phone video of cops a crime moves forward by Ohio legislatorsA proposed Ohio law could outlaw videos like the one that led to Derek Chauvin’s conviction for murdering George Floyd (News 5 Cleveland, 6/24/21). Even after Trump’s defeat, the GOP is still pushing through regulations limiting speech across America. A new Ohio law making filming police illegal is currently rapidly advancing (News 5 Cleveland, 6/24/21). Critics note that the bill would outlaw recording crimes like the murder of George Floyd. Meanwhile, laws banning the teaching of Critical Race Theory—a paradigm that examines structural racism in US institutions—have been passed or are being considered in at least 21 states (US News, 6/23/21). This has been egged on by the conservative press, who have turned the school of thought into an ideological fixation, mentioning it nearly 1,300 times in the past three and a half months (Media Matters, 6/15/21). These bans on Critical Race Theory are mirrored by new “Don’t Say Gay” laws, which forbid the teaching of LGBT history in K-12 schools, or give parents the opportunity to pull children from classes mentioning key historical events like the Stonewall Riots. A swath of red states have either passed or are currently considering such legislation (New Republic, 6/28/21). In another worrying move for free speech advocates, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has just signed a bill requiring both university students and their professors to register their ideological views with the state (Salon, 6/23/21), supposedly in a bid to promote “intellectual diversity” on campus. Staff fear the results will be used to purge or deny employment to those deemed insufficiently conservative. DeSantis is also currently overseeing a huge rewrite of the state’s school curriculum, in an effort to ensure that children are definitively instructed that “communism is evil,” in his own words (WBNS, 6/22/21). Children will be provided with “first-person accounts of victims of other nations’ governing philosophies who can compare those philosophies with those of the United States.” DeSantis presents the move as providing children with facts rather than “trying to indoctrinate them with ideology.” Long before Trump NATO's bombing of RTSThe offices of Radio TV Serbia after being deliberately targeted by US bombers. The attempts to muzzle the press did not start with Trump, however. President Obama oversaw a war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, and ensured that Julian Assange has spent the best part of a decade in hiding or in prison. Assange’s most notable journalistic action was to release the Iraq War Logs and the Collateral Murder video, which showed US pilots massacring civilians—including two Reuters journalists—in cold blood. Outright attacking media outlets is a common tactic for the US military. During the Kosovo War, the US deliberately targeted the buildings of Serbian state broadcaster RTS, killing 16 people (FAIR.org, 8/2/00). Four years later, it conducted airstrikes on the offices of Abu Dhabi TV and Al Jazeera in Baghdad at the same time as American tanks shelled the Hotel Palestine. On the incident, Reporters Without Borders, stated: “We can only conclude that the US Army deliberately and without warning targeted journalists” (FAIR.org, 4/10/03). This was far from the only military attack on Al Jazeera during the invasion. The Bush administration even had the network’s journalist Sami al-Hajj kidnapped, holding him inside the notorious Guantánamo Bay prison camp for six years without charge. Although many still like to hold up the United States as a bastion of free speech uninhibited by government censorship, in this new era, the idea is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. While corporate media like to highlight the many press freedom shortcomings of hostile foreign nations, the censorship worries start much closer to home.
For those not aware of the Odysee story... https://twitter.com/OdyseeTeam/status/1413230829564661760 Another Free Speech platform rapidly growing... https://gettr.com/ Trump Files Class Action Free Speech 1st Amdt Lawsuit Against Twitter, Facebook, Google Censors BigTech is made up of, is proxy for, and has done the will of, Govt Parties and Politicians in Power, BigTech is thus the Govt, and thus subject to 1st Amendment, also Section 230 CDA, among other claims... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3QUR-ibt7U Lawsuit Press Conference 230 [partial video] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.595801/gov.uscourt... https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.595800/gov.uscourt... https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.595813/gov.uscourt... CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION JURY TRIAL REQUESTED DONALD J. TRUMP, the Forty-Fifth President of the United States, AND Various Individuals and Organizations et al... INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CLASS, Plaintiffs v. TWITTER, INC., and JACK DORSEY, FACEBOOK, INC., and MARK ZUCKERBERG, YOUTUBE, LLC., and SUNDAR PICHAI Defendants.
hypocrisy
Sundar Pichai the Censor and Google YouTube CEO, warns of threats to internet freedom... https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57763382 "...says the guy who happily agrees to direct and indirect mass censorship based around in-vogue leftist Silicon Valley politics." "Tim Pool literally has to self-censor in real-time to avoid the robot bans. It's creepy as hell and has no place in a free society (regardless if you agree with him or not)."
Trump Sues for Free Speech... Supreme Court case Norwood v. Harrison: The government "may not induce, encourage, or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish." Jack Dorsey, the Censor King, and State's Leftist Henchman and Apologist proves that... Once you go Censor, you NEVER go back... https://www.reuters.com/technology/exclusive-twitter-sees-jump-govt-demands-... Twitter saw a surge in government demands worldwide in 2020 to take down content posted by journalists and news outlets, according to data released by the social media platform. In its transparency report published on Wednesday, Twitter said verified accounts of 199 journalists and news outlets on its platform faced 361 legal demands from governments to remove content in the second half of 2020, up 26% from the first half of the year. Twitter ultimately removed five tweets from journalists and news publishers, the report said. India submitted most of the removal requests, followed by Turkey, Pakistan and Russia. India topped the list for information requests by governments in the second half of 2020, overtaking the United States for the first time, the report said. The company said globally it received over 14,500 requests for information from July 1 to Dec. 31, and it produced some or all of the information in response to 30% of the requests. Such requests can include governments or other entities asking for the identities of people tweeting under pseudonyms. Twitter also received more than 38,500 legal demands to take down various content, down 9% from the first half of 2020, It complied with 29% of the demands. In the updated transparency report, Twitter said the number of impressions, or views of a tweet, that violated Twitter's rules accounted for less than 0.1% of the total global views in the second half of 2020, the first time the platform has released such data.
Facebook's own top secret internal CrowdTangle app proved that the US people wanted say Trump as President, so Facebook led by Mark Zuckerberg the Censor, simply canceled the app and engaged in a Massive Censorship campaign purging what the people wanted... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/14/technology/facebook-data.html Executives at the social network have clashed over CrowdTangle, a Facebook-owned data tool that revealed users' high engagement levels with right-wing media sources. One day in April, the people behind CrowdTangle, a data analytics tool owned by Facebook, learned that transparency had limits. Brandon Silverman, CrowdTangle's co-founder and chief executive, assembled dozens of employees on a video call to tell them that they were being broken up. CrowdTangle, which had been running quasi-independently inside Facebook since being acquired in 2016, was being moved under the social network's integrity team, the group trying to rid the platform of misinformation and hate speech. Some CrowdTangle employees were being reassigned to other divisions, and Mr. Silverman would no longer be managing the team day to day. The announcement, which left CrowdTangle's employees in stunned silence, was the result of a yearlong battle among Facebook executives over data transparency, and how much the social network should reveal about its inner workings. On one side were executives, including Mr. Silverman and Brian Boland, a Facebook vice president in charge of partnerships strategy, who argued that Facebook should publicly share as much information as possible about what happens on its platform -- good, bad or ugly. On the other side were executives, including the company's chief marketing officer and vice president of analytics, Alex Schultz, who worried that Facebook was already giving away too much. They argued that journalists and researchers were using CrowdTangle, a kind of turbocharged search engine that allows users to analyze Facebook trends and measure post performance, to dig up information they considered unhelpful -- showing, for example, that right-wing commentators like Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino were getting much more engagement on their Facebook pages than mainstream news outlets. These executives argued that Facebook should selectively disclose its own data in the form of carefully curated reports, rather than handing outsiders the tools to discover it themselves. Team Selective Disclosure won, and CrowdTangle and its supporters lost. An internal battle over data transparency might seem low on the list of worthy Facebook investigations. But the CrowdTangle story is important, because it illustrates the way that Facebook's obsession with managing its reputation often gets in the way of its attempts to clean up its platform. And it gets to the heart of one of the central tensions confronting Facebook in the post-Trump era. The company, blamed for everything from election interference to vaccine hesitancy, badly wants to rebuild trust with a skeptical public. But the more it shares about what happens on its platform, the more it risks exposing uncomfortable truths that could further damage its image.
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1415790001661546501 Former PM of Denmark and member of Facebook's "Oversight Board" claims "free speech is not an absolute human right," adds the board's purpose is to "balance it with other human rights" [in their rulings].
Democrats push excuses to roll out rabid censor regime... https://techcrunch.com/2021/07/22/section-230-health-misinformation-act/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCJiDlER-6I Mark Zuckerberg Facebook Censors Everyone, Mass Influence Mind Control Propaganda Steering through Censorship
https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1416123687955095558 Now the WH calls for total deplatforming of critics. Demands that all platforms censor you if one does.
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/07/22/new-jersey-woman-triggers-free-speech-... https://www.nj.com/union/2021/07/nj-woman-must-remove-anti-biden-f-bomb-sign... https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/nyregion/biden-signs-profanity-first-amen... New Jersey Woman Triggers Free Speech Case With Profane Anti-Biden Signage I have previously lamented that we appear to be a nation addicted to rage. There is no greater example than Andrea Dick, a Trump supporter who has adorned her yard in Roselle, Park New Jersey with profane attacks on President Joe Biden. The signage led to a complaint and ultimately a ruling by Judge Gary A. Bundy of Roselle Park Municipal Court that she must remove the offending signs. One of the burdens of being a free speech advocate is that you often must defend the speech of people with whom you disagree, even despise. This is one such case. Dick’s signage is juvenile and highly offensive. However, it is also free speech. Judge Bundy is entirely right in his expression of disgust but, in my view, entirely wrong in his analysis of the First Amendment. Dick’s offensive signs (which can be seen here) include some comparably mild statements like “Don’t Blame Me/I Voted for Trump.” However, three include displays of the middle finger or simply “F**k Biden.” The signs were purchased by Dick, 54, from commercial dealers. Her lawyer, Michael Campagna, insists that the f-word no longer has a sexual connotation and is simply a common colloquialism. Indeed, anyone driving in New York or New Jersey can hear it used as a noun, verb, adjective, adverb, and even a preposition. The town’s mayor, Joseph Signorello III, called in a code enforcement officer who cited Patricia Dilascio (Dick’s mother who actually owns the house) for violating a Roselle Park ordinance prohibiting the display or exhibition of obscene material within the borough. Bundy then gave the owner of property, Ms. Dilascio, a week to remove three of the 10 signs displayed on the property or face fines of $250 a day. It does not help that Signorello is a Democrat and Roselle Park voted overwhelmingly for Biden in 2020. Yet, Signorello insists “This is not about politics in any way. It’s about decency.” No, it is about free speech. Free speech is not protected because it is popular or correct. We do not need the First Amendment to protect popular speech. Profanity has long been a part of political discourse in the United States and other countries. Indeed, it has been found in some of the oldest graffiti in places like ancient Rome. Judge Bundy noted that “There are alternative methods for the defendant to express her pleasure or displeasure with certain political figures in the United States.” Stressing that there is a nearby school, Bundy found that the language “exposes elementary-age children to that word, every day, as they pass by the residence.” He added that “Freedom of speech is not simply an absolute right” and “the case is not a case about politics. It is a case, pure and simple, about language. This ordinance does not restrict political speech.” It is hard to square that ruling basic principles of free speech. After all, all speech cases are “about language” to some extent. Speech can be not just profane, but political and therefore protected. What Bundy is suggesting is that the state can regulate how you express opposition to politicians or the government. That makes this very much “about politics.” In 1971, the Supreme Court handed down Cohen v. California in which it overturned the conviction of Paul Robert Cohen for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket declaring “F**k the Draft” in a California courthouse. Justice John Harlan wrote that “…while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric“. The Court has repeatedly ruled that the use of this word and similar profanity is protected speech, not conduct subject to government action. Indeed, the Supreme Court just handed down a ruling in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. in favor of the free speech rights of a cheerleaders who swore a blue streak, including dropping the f-bomb, after being rejected for the varsity team. It seems a tad odd that Dick cannot use this word near a school, but one of the students can do a virtual profane cheer with the same word and gestures. The ruling is reminiscent of the ruling of another judge in Pennsylvania in a case where a Muslim man attacked an atheist who wore a “Zombie Mohammed” costume on Halloween. The judge dismissed the charge of criminal harassment against the Muslim and chastised the atheist instead, declaring such a costume falls “way outside your bounds of 1st Amendment rights.” Magisterial District Judge Mark Martin added “It’s unfortunate that some people use the 1st Amendment to deliberately provoke others. I don’t think that’s what our forefathers intended.” He clearly is not familiar with some of our forefathers. Thomas Paine could not go into a pub without starting a ruckus, if not a full-fledge riot. And that was often among people who agreed with him. The ordinance in this case was clearly based on past cases on pornography like Miller v. California rather than political speech cases. It prohibits “appeals to the prurient interest” that “depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined.” It must also and “lack[] serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.” The most obvious objection in this case is that this does have “political value” even if most of us find it offensive. Indeed, what is most chilling is the application of what was a pornography test to political speech. The Miller standard has long been criticized by legal scholars, including myself, as hopelessly and dangerously vague. The Court has been mocked for its ham-handed efforts to define pornography. In earlier cases like Jacobellis v. Ohio, the Court could not even agree on a clear reason why a porn film was not so obscene as to allow prosecution. Instead, in one of the most ridiculous statements ever penned by a member of the Court, Justice Potter Stewart wrote in his concurrence that “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it. The First Amendment could not long survive if the same absurd approach was taken to political speech. Yet, that is what Judge Bundy effectively did. He did not try to define protected political speech but simply declared that this is not it. Dick is the price we pay for free speech. Fortunately, free speech allows us to respond to bad speech with better speech. Of course, that does not make this easier for parents who must deal with their children who walk past Dick’s yard. However, they may want to start by teaching them not about the meaning of her speech but the meaning of free speech under our Constitution.
Demands that all platforms censor you if one does.
Now that YouTube and Twitter and FaceBook have been formally tasked and enabled by the anti-1st Amdnt Dems and Biden admin, both of which and their jurisdictions are also continuning to provide tax incentives and pork to those companies thus making the entire Democrat all-Media censorship regime indeed an outright illegal infringement upon 1st Amdmt that Trump is now rightly suing under... Now that they have engaged the latest phase of Social Media banning censorship deletion deranking demonetization etc dropping all but the most boring sanitized content... creators and viewers have been moving en masse to alternative platforms, both centralized and decentralized. And among those platforms that count hits, the unique content is as popular as ever, with just the links and names of services being seeded out into the censored normie surface web. Bitchute isn't distributed or censor free or all that popular but it does record viewcounts, some going up into the millions. Random examples... https://www.bitchute.com/video/IB3ijQuLkkUr/ Plandemic https://www.bitchute.com/video/4u7rt61YeGox/ Plandemic2 https://www.bitchute.com/video/H4W7FwBy0Ukh/ London Real - David Icke https://www.bitchute.com/video/TY-vLrz9XCc/ Bill Gates https://www.bitchute.com/video/DS7CN67XL1lb/ Shadowgate https://www.bitchute.com/video/vPHlo2P3TG22/ How pandemic done https://www.bitchute.com/video/Ut_KEsRlMmM/ Patrick Byrne https://www.bitchute.com/video/FU7hBOJOEW0/ Rubin and Jordan https://www.bitchute.com/video/KMBcAvYH1f3L/ Fall Cabal https://www.bitchute.com/video/s1nPYDj7KBEQ/ Europa https://www.bitchute.com/video/0yrMaPV53KZ3/ PJW https://www.bitchute.com/video/d_T2QQCHvYE/ SkyNews banned Have fun down the hole...
Leftist BigTech Social and News Media has increasingly been CensorBanning indie journos, pundits, and even their parent news outlets. SkyNews got CensorBanned apparently because of this fact filled editorial coverage... https://www.bitchute.com/video/QqpzgO2CzmNk/ SkyNews CensorBanned If you want to know what's really going on in the world, you absolutely must get off of mainstream media and plug into the alternative news sites and platforms. They're the only ones reporting on actual news, headlines that get buried, protests, critical topics and conversations, politicians insane statements, pulling together the coordinated narratives, etc that the mainstream refuses to show you. You have to wade through using your own huge filters and factchecking goggles, but there is more than a fair lot of truth out there. Have fun.
Leftist BigTech Social and News Media has increasingly been CensorBanning...
... politicians. US Elected Politician Senator Rand Paul (Republican/Libertarian) CensorBanned by YouTube for Exposing Govt Liars https://www.bitchute.com/video/1gtYkNBT2P2O/ rand paul banned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLPmLnDtfjE rand paul banned https://rumble.com/c/RandPaul https://www.bitchute.com/video/ygnOxg5IxV1c/ rand paul banned It Is time for UNFILTERED NEWS, this is sickening & YT know what they are doing - Senator Rand Paul A civilized society would not make it impossible for people to discuss opposing views. We are heading for tyranny. The folks at YouTube are playing with fire... Just like Hitler’s soldiers, “I was just doing my job” won’t be enough once they are exposed as the criminals that they are. We aren’t headed to tyranny, we’re living in it. Make a stand! There is no place for censorship in the 21st century. We should aggressively challenge it and call out anyone who even attempts to shut down conversation. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom of Association. It's all being threatened by these parasites. https://www.bitchute.com/video/jPMZX1DFnYcg/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/d42XrOSPtwZb/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/1Ma81dpzbrZ3/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/UK3CwcGJev1S/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/GMZWMzqILm3a/
Leftist BigTech Social and News Media has increasingly been CensorBanning...
Now they're banning people even just talking about and documenting the plain fact that they're are in fact banning people for simply speaking freely... it's like the old filesharing banning links to links to links. Rand Paul's site... https://libertytree.com/ YouTube's "Leftwing Cretins" Censor Rand Paul Video In Which He Slammed YouTube Censorship https://www.theepochtimes.com/youtube-removes-2nd-video-of-rand-paul-suspend... https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1425210718568202243 YouTube has removed a second video on its platform posted by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and has suspended him from uploading more content for a week, saying he violated community guidelines on COVID-19. “They are now banning all my speech, including speech that is given on the Senate floor,” the Republican senator told reporters on Tuesday. “YouTube now thinks they are smart enough and godly enough that they can oversee speech, even constitutionally protected speech.” In a Twitter post, Paul called the suspension a “badge of honor,” and included a link to watch the video on an alternate platform. The video removed this week included discussions on the origins of COVID-19, the disease caused by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, and the use of masks to prevent its transmission. “Leftwing cretins at Youtube banning me for 7 days for a video that quotes 2 peer reviewed articles saying cloth masks don’t work,” Paul wrote. A badge of honor . . . leftwing cretins at Youtube banning me for 7 days for a video that quotes 2 peer reviewed articles saying cloth masks don’t work. If you want to see the banned video go to Liberty Tree https://t.co/gsTUwuLZGL — Senator Rand Paul (@RandPaul) August 10, 2021 The video sharing platform last week first removed a video of an interview the senator did with Newsmax. “This resulted in a first strike on the channel, which means it can’t upload content for a week, per our longstanding three strikes policy,” a YouTube spokesperson told news outlets of the decision. “We apply our policies consistently across the platform, regardless of speaker or political views, and we make exceptions for videos that have additional context such as countervailing views from local health authorities.” According to CNN, claims flagged by YouTube included that “most of the masks you get over the counter don’t work. They don’t prevent infection.” Another line that YouTube said violated community guidelines on COVID-19 was, “Trying to shape human behavior isn’t the same as following the actual science which tells us that cloth masks don’t work.” “I think this kind of censorship is very dangerous, incredibly anti-free speech, and truly anti-progress of science, which involves skepticism and argumentation to arrive at the truth,” Paul added in a news release Tuesday. YouTube didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment by The Epoch Times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkEEvn7g-EI all BigSocial now a total laughingstock re censorship, cut your feed https://disenthrall.me/ https://odysee.com/@Anarchast:2/WeareataCrossroadswithMaxIgan:4 https://thecrowhouse.com/ https://odysee.com/@thecrowhouse:2
"Screw Your Freedoms -- Arnold Schwarzenegger" https://www.bitchute.com/video/TshEHbOc3Jrb/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/W5M_zOEOcdk/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/25/technology/facebook-election-commission.h... Facebook has approached academics and policy experts about forming a commission to advise it on global election-related matters, said five people with knowledge of the discussions, a move that would allow the social network to shift some of its political decision-making to an advisory body. Recall, Facebook-Zuckerberg the Censors, both created and solely populated its own 'Oversight Board', which has to date refused to unlock the accounts it censorbanned. While at the same time leaving accounts of avowed terrorists ISIS murderers and the non-Right... online. "Facebook, which has positioned the Oversight Board as independent, appointed the people on the panel and pays them through a trust." Massive conflicts to proclaimed "independence" there. Now Facebook will seek to formally excuse its election meddling and compliance to political parties via new corrupt controlled biased and moot Commission. The proposed commission could decide on matters such as the viability of political ads and what to do about election-related misinformation, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential. Facebook is expected to announce the commission this fall in preparation for the 2022 midterm elections, they said, though the effort is preliminary and could still fall apart. Outsourcing election matters to a panel of experts could help Facebook sidestep criticism of bias by political groups, two of the people said. The company has been blasted in recent years by conservatives, who have accused Facebook of suppressing their voices, as well as by civil rights groups and Democrats for allowing political misinformation to fester and spread online. Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's chief executive, does not want to be seen as the sole decision maker on political content, two of the people said. If an election commission is formed, it would emulate the step Facebook took in 2018 when it created what it calls the Oversight Board, a collection of journalism, legal and policy experts who adjudicate whether the company was correct to remove certain posts from its platforms. Facebook has pushed some content decisions to the Oversight Board for review, allowing it to show that it does not make determinations on its own. Facebook, which has positioned the Oversight Board as independent, appointed the people on the panel and pays them through a trust. Internal conversations around an election commission date back to at least a few months ago, said three people with knowledge of the matter. An election commission would differ from the Oversight Board in one key way, the people said. While the Oversight Board waits for Facebook to remove a post or an account and then reviews that action, the election commission would proactively provide guidance without the company having made an earlier call, they said.
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/08/26/who-watches-the-watchmen-infowars-case... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/02/24/turley-testifies-on-free-speech-and-th... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/06/16/the-leak-investigation-if-we-want-to-p... https://jonathanturley.org/2019/05/26/the-assange-case-could-prove-the-most-... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/07/20/hannah-jones-all-journalism-is-activis... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/08/01/why-have-advocacy-journalism-when-you-... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/15/washington-posts-rubin-misrepresents-e... "Who Watches The Watchmen?" Infowars Case Raises Difficult Question For Both The Biden Admin & The Media Authored by Jonathan Turley, “Who watches the watchmen”? That question from a federal judge this week came in a confrontation with the Justice Department over its targeting or charging journalists. At issue is the prosecution of a controversial host of a far-right website called Infowars. Owen Shroyer was charged with trespass and disorderly conduct during the Jan. 6th riot. However, Shroyer claims to have been present as a journalist while the Justice Department insists that he is an activist. When U.S. Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui asked for the basis of that distinction, the Biden Administration refused. The conflict exposes the problem with new regulations protecting journalists without clearly defining who is a journalist. Recently, news reports of the Biden Administration targeting journalists in criminal investigations led to congressional hearings and a new policy that Attorney General Merrick Garland promised would protect the journalists in the future. I testified before the House Judiciary Committee on how this was just the latest in such controversies extending from the Clinton to the Biden Administrations. As I wrote on these pages at the time, the most glaring flaw is the continued failure to define who is a journalist. Without such a definition, the new reform is as worthless as the long litany of prior reforms. Shroyer was arrested on charges of trespassing and disorderly conduct on the Capitol grounds. Prosecutors also alleged that he violated an agreement not to engage in such conduct after he was removed from a 2019 impeachment hearing for heckling a Democratic lawmaker. Shroyer was openly advocating for the protest and the underlying view that the election was stolen. He marched with a crowd toward the Capitol shouting, “We aren’t going to accept it!” However, he insists that he entered the Capitol to report on the events for Infowars. Under the Justice Department guidelines, the attorney general must approve the investigation or charging of a member of the news media with a crime. That led Judge Faruqui to ask the obvious question of whether the guidelines were followed or whether the Biden Administration simply refused to recognize Shroyer’s claim of journalistic status. The judge noted that “The events of January 6th were an attack on the foundation of our democracy. But this does not relieve the Department of Justice from following its own guidelines, written to preserve the very same democracy.” The Justice Department however simply defied the court and said the regulations were “scrupulously followed,” but refused to explain how the guidelines were satisfied. John Crabb, head of the Criminal Division of the U.S. attorney’s office in D.C., wrote “[s]uch inquiries could risk impeding frank and thoughtful internal deliberations within the Department about how best to ensure compliance with these enhanced protections for Members of the News Media.” Faruqi was not satisfied by such refusals and noted “the Department of Justice appears to believe that it is the sole enforcer of its regulations. That leaves the court to wonder who watches the watchmen.” The court’s inquiry highlighted the fact that the earlier pledge is worthless without some ability to review such decisions and, most importantly, some definition of those protected by it. It is not just the Justice Department that is discomforted by the question. The media itself is equally uneasy. As with the status of Julian Assange, the media would prefer not to address the distinction between Shroyer and other advocates in the media. Newspapers like the New York Times have rallied around journalists like Nikole Hanna-Jones who have declared “all journalism is advocacy.” She is now going to teach journalism at Howard University and other academics are encouraging the abandonment of traditional views of objectively and neutrality in the media. Stanford journalism professor, Ted Glasser, insisted that journalism needed to “free itself from this notion of objectivity to develop a sense of social justice.” He rejected the notion that the journalism is based on objectivity and said that he views “journalists as activists because journalism at its best — and indeed history at its best — is all about morality.” Thus, “journalists need to be overt and candid advocates for social justice, and it’s hard to do that under the constraints of objectivity.” Once you discard objectivity, the rest is easy. Schroyer was an “overt and candid advocate” but he was not deemed an “advocate for social justice.” Thus, advocacy on sites like Infowars or Fox News is not real journalism, because it is false or “disinformation” while advocacy on sites like the Daily Kos or CNN is based on truth. Reporters not only now define what is true but can actively protest against those with opposing views. Recently, National Public Radio made it official and said that, for the first time, its journalists will be allowed to actively participate in protests. However, NPR will pick the causes that journalists can openly join. The rule allows reporters to become protesters for causes that support “the freedom and dignity of human beings, the rights of a free and independent press, the right to thrive in society without facing discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity, disability, or religion.” Two examples of worthy causes offered by NPR are Black Lives Matter protests and Gay pride protests. It is doubtful that NPR would view pro-life or pro-police protests to fit that vague definition. Like the Justice Department, it reserves to itself to state which causes are worthy and which are unworthy. Advocacy in the media is now rampant. Indeed, the White House regularly promotes the views of media figures like MSNBC’s Joy Reid and the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin who have been long criticized for their blind advocacy of pro-Democratic and anti-Republican causes. They would likely be protected under the Justice Department rules. Even when they are proven false in their assertions, they are treated as media advocates for the truth. Advocacy reporting is the new touchstone of the journalistically woke . . . unless, that advocacy is for conservative causes or groups. I do not agree with Shroyer any more than I agree with Reid. However, they are both engaged in what is now celebrated as advocacy journalism. It is bad enough to witness the demise of traditional journalism but the Shroyer case may foreshadow an even worse future where only certain forms of advocacy will be allowed. As with NPR, what is being advocated will determine who is still a journalist. That will bring the movement of advocacy journalism to its inevitable end, leaving only advocacy in the wake of journalism.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/61yaRrMZzFI/ They Terminated Everybody This compendium of the censored masses noted by... https://www.atheismisunstoppable.com/
Yet more twisted non-rationalizations foisted upon the sheeple who keep gobbling it up... thousands of pro-censor plans and articles all over the net... https://www.foxnews.com/us/liberal-dominated-san-diego-county-board-floats-c... https://jonathanturley.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/D4-Board-Letter-Declar... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/08/29/san-diego-proposal-on-combatting-covid... San Diego Proposal On Combatting COVID "Misinformation" Triggers Free Speech Concerns There is growing controversy in San Diego after the county board of supervisors introduced a proposal to declare “health misinformation a public health crisis” and enact measures to try to “combat” views deemed untrue or misleading. As a free speech advocate, I do not share some of the objections made to the proposals. However, one item is deeply concerning. On its face, the proposal calls for government agencies to combat bad information with better information on Covid. I have no problem with such informational programs. Even if people disagree with the government’s view of vaccines or mandates, they are free to voice their opposing views in the exercise of free speech. For example, while I opposed the Big Gulp laws and laws barring certain foods or advertising, I have always recognized the legitimate (and often positive) role of the government in highlighting what it views as good science or good practices. What concerns me is this item: “e). Partner with federal, state, territorial, tribal, private, nonprofit, research, and other local entities to identify best practices to stop the spread of health misinformation and develop and implement coordinated recommendations.” There is a difference between countering and stopping misinformation. The latter has been a focus of Democratic members in Congress in seeking to censor opposing views on subjects from election fraud to climate change to Covid. Direct censorship from “federal, state, territorial” offices would be subject to First Amendment challenges. However, the proposal also makes specific reference to private and other entities which would be enlisted to combat misinformation. As previously discussed, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey appeared at a key hearing in which he followed up his apology for censoring the Hunter Biden story by pledging more censorship. One of the most chilling moments came from Delaware Senator Chris Coons who demonstrated the very essence of the “slippery slope” danger. Dorsey: Well, misleading information, as you are aware, is a large problem. It’s hard to define it completely and cohesively. We wanted to scope our approach to start to focus on the highest severity of harm. We focused on three areas, manipulated media, which you mentioned, civic integrity around the election, specifically in public health, specifically around COVID. We wanted to make sure that our resources that we have the greatest impact on where we believe the greatest severity of harm is going to be. Our policies are living documents. They will evolve. We will add to them, but we thought it important that we focus our energies and prioritize the work as much as we could. Coons: Well, Mr. Dorsey, I’ll close with this. I cannot think of a greater harm than climate change, which is transforming literally our planet and causing harm to our entire world. I think we’re experiencing significant harm as we speak. I recognize the pandemic and misinformation about COVID-19, manipulated media also cause harm, but I’d urge you to reconsider that because helping to disseminate climate denialism, in my view, further facilitates and accelerates one of the greatest existential threats to our world. So thank you to both of our witnesses. Notably, Dorsey starts with the same argument made by free speech advocates: “Well, misleading information, as you are aware, is a large problem. It’s hard to define it completely and cohesively.” However, instead of then raising concerns over censoring views and comments on the basis for such an amorphous category, Coons pressed for an expansion of the categories of censored material to prevent people from sharing any views that he considers “climate denialism” There is, of course, a wide array of views that different people or different groups would declare “harmful.” Indeed, Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal seemed to take the opposite meaning from Twitter admitting that it was wrong to censor the Biden story. Blumenthal said that he was “concerned that both of your companies are, in fact, backsliding or retrenching, that you are failing to take action against dangerous disinformation.” Accordingly, he demanded an answer to this question: “Will you commit to the same kind of robust content modification playbook in this coming election, including fact checking, labeling, reducing the spread of misinformation, and other steps, even for politicians in the runoff elections ahead?” “Robust content modification” is the new Orwellian term for censorship. The focus of the government needs to be combating what it views as bad speech with better speech, not trying to prevent or silence those deemed to be misleading others.
Your credit cards will be canceled, you will be cut off from credit, financing, banking, investing, loans. This is the precedent you voted for, enjoy your new muzzle... Chase Bank Cancels General Mike Flynn's Credit Cards Chase Bank has canceled General Mike Flynn's personal credit card, citing "possible reputational risk to our company." 🚨🚨BREAKING: Chase Bank cancels its credit card accounts with General Flynn citing possible “reputational risk” to their company. In case there was any doubt what is happening in this country. @TracyBeanzOfficial pic.twitter.com/GIyQHXgW9l — Regina Hicks (@reginahicksreal) August 29, 2021 Chase Bank cancelled General Flynn’s personal credit card over “reputation risk”… #BoycottChase JPMorgan Chase & Co. Agrees To Pay $920 Million in Connection with Schemes to Defraud Precious Metals and U.S. Treasuries Markets | OPA | Department of Justice https://t.co/LfRlE3ltTV — Joseph J Flynn (@JosephJFlynn1) August 29, 2021 Lt. Gen Michael Flynn, former President Trujmp's first National Security Adviser, was notably set up by the FBI in an unauthorized 'perjury trap' over his conversations with the former Russian ambassador over sanctions related to alleged interference in the 2016 US election. Flynn pleaded in December 2017 to lying to the FBI about contacts with the former Russian ambassador during the 2016 presidential transition - only to have the Justice Department drop the case after Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, fought for the release of information suggesting that the FBI laid the 'perjury trap' to try and get him to lie. In January 2020, however, Flynn withdrew his guilty plea in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. - stating that he was “innocent of this crime” and was coerced by the FBI and prosecutors under threats that would charge his son with a crime. According to documents uncovered by Flynn attorney Sidney Powell, the FBI had already come to the conclusion that Flynn was guilty prior to their unauthorized interview with him in January, 2017 - and that agents were working together to see how best to corner the 33-year military veteran and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. The bureau deliberately chose not to show him the evidence of his phone conversation to help him in his recollection of events, which is standard procedure. Even stranger, the agents that interviewed Flynn later admitted that they didn’t believe he lied during the interview with them. What's more, the entire FBI investigation of Flynn appeared to have been instigated by Russiagate operative Stephan Halper, who lied about Flynn's relationship with a Russian academic. After the FBI's malfeasance was uncovered, the Trump Justice Department dropped all charges against Flynn - conceding that the FBI had no basis to interview him on January 24, 2017. The judge, Emmet Sullivan, refused to drop the case, and has instead asked a federal appeals court - twice - whether he can ignore the DOJ, after asking a government-paid private lawyer to argue against Flynn - only to eventually relent after Trump pardoned his former NatSec adviser.
On 8/31/21, professor rat <pro2rat@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Thousands of posts around January 6 riots go missing from Facebook transparency tool
https://www.politico.eu/article/facebook-crowdtangle-data-january-6-capitol-...
None dare call it reason and for that there is a treason.
Censorship is a treason against the nature of the free mind. Scores of Facebook posts from the days before and after the January 6 Capitol Hill riots in Washington are missing. By Mark Scott, Politico, August 31, 2021 The posts disappeared from Crowdtangle, a tool owned by Facebook that allows researchers to track what people are saying on the platform, according to academics from New York University and Université Grenoble Alpes. The lost posts — everything from innocuous personal updates to potential incitement to violence to mainstream news articles — have been unavailable within Facebook's transparency system since at least May, 2021. The company told POLITICO that they were accidentally removed from Crowdtangle because of a limit on how Facebook allows data to be accessed via its technical transparency tools. It said that the error had now been fixed. Facebook did not address the sizeable gap in its Crowdtangle data publicly until contacted by POLITICO, despite ongoing pressure from policymakers about the company's role in helping spread messages, posts and videos about the violent insurrection, which killed five people. On Friday, U.S. lawmakers ordered the company to hand over reams of internal documents and data linked to the riots, including details on how misinformation, which targeted the U.S. presidential election, had spread. It is unclear how many posts are still missing from Crowdtangle, when they will be restored, and if the problem solely affects U.S. content or material from all of Facebook's 2.4 billion users worldwide. The academics who discovered the problem estimate that tens of thousands of Facebook posts are currently missing. "If Facebook knew about this, and just didn't tell anyone, I think researchers should be pretty concerned about that fact," Laura Edelson, an academic at NYU and part of the team that found the missing data, told POLITICO. Edelson is in an ongoing battle with Facebook over a separate research project about what political ads are displayed within the feeds — a project the company says breaks its privacy policy. Transparency battle The failure to disclose the lost posts, which was due to a technical error, comes at a difficult time for Facebook and its efforts to promote transparency around what people see within its network. After an internal battle, the company is currently dismantling the Crowdtangle team after researchers and journalists used the tool repeatedly to trace how far-right, extremist and false content circulated widely across both Facebook and Instagram. The tech giant also published its own report this month on what content was most widely viewed during the second quarter of this year, primarily highlighting viral spam and links to mainstreams sites like YouTube. But after the New York Times was handed details about the most widely viewed posts from the first three months of the year, Facebook was forced to disclose similar statistics for that period. They showed that misinformation around COVID-19 was still among the most popular content on the site despite the company's efforts to clamp down on it. The latest episode underscores longstanding concerns about transparency on Facebook. "Researchers do assume that they are getting all the public content from Facebook pages that are indexed by Crowdtangle," said Edelson. "Those assumptions have been violated in this case." In response to POLITICO, Facebook said it had now fixed the error related to the missing Crowdtangle data, and that all the original posts were still available directly via Facebook. A spokesperson also said that roughly 80 percent of the missing posts flagged by both NYU and Université Grenoble Alpes researchers should not have been available on Crowdtangle, either because they had subsequently deleted or made private by Facebook users. She declined to comment on how many posts, in total, had gone missing from the Crowdtangle platform. "We appreciate the researchers bringing these posts to our attention," said the Facebook spokesperson. 'Something was clearly wrong' The researchers first discovered the missing posts after comparing two versions of a Crowdtangle database of Facebook content produced by U.S. media outlets between September 2020 and January 2021. After the Capitol Hill riots, the academics said they had planned to analyze what type of content Facebook had removed related to the insurrection to meet its content moderation policies. But they soon discovered that up to 30 percent of the posts collected in the weeks around the January 6 riots — roughly from December 28, 2020 to January 11, 2021 — from the second Crowdtangle database were missing compared to the original. "We came up tens of thousands of posts short. We knew something was clearly wrong," said Edelson. "We were able to find some of the posts that we couldn't find on Crowdtangle, but we were able to find that they were still available on Facebook. That's when we knew, OK, this isn't us, there is some kind of real bug here." It is unclear how extensive the problem with the Crowdtangle data is. Facebook did not comment on how many posts were still missing from the system, and POLITICO's review of the academics' work found that less than half of the roughly 50,000 missing posts were currently available via the transparency tool. The remaining Facebook content was no longer accessible, either because it had been deleted or made private on the global platform, and therefore was not automatically collected on Crowdtangle. The academics flagged the issue to Facebook on August 3 — hours before the company suspended Edelson and two other researchers' accounts, including their access to Crowdtangle, for their separate work around political ads. The researchers said they had not heard back from the company about the missing data, even though academics, journalists and policymakers continue to use the transparency tool in efforts to uncover what happened during the Capitol Hill riots. "Obviously, my situation with Facebook is not ideal. But I think even leaving aside questions of who has permission to access Crowdtangle data and other forms of Facebook transparency data, I think, at this point, Facebook has lost a tremendous amount of credibility," said Edelson. "And I don't really know how they are going to get it back."
Fritz Berggren is about to be Fired, Censored, Deplatformed, DeFinanced, and Banned from everything on the planet, simply for Speaking Freely, and you're next... http://bloodandfaith.com/2017/09/16/hello-world/ http://bloodandfaith.com/interview-fritz-are-you-a-nazi/ http://bloodandfaith.com/the-plan-christian-nations-states/ http://bloodandfaith.com/about/ http://bloodandfaith.com/archive/ https://gab.com/cybertext https://fritzreport.podbean.com/ https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mcml0enJlcG9ydC5wb2RiZWFuLmNvbS... https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/feed/id1378498041 http://www.text.net/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdwFj7U_VFQ Fritz Berggren https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDhyjRVqnmY Fritz Berggren https://www.foxnews.com/politics/state-department-letter-blinken-antisemitic... Also... https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/twitter-rolls-feature-will-automati...
Cypherpunks, the once Grand Authors of Manifesto's Against Censorship, now Refuse to Stand Up and Make Statements against Censorship as Censorship's Deadly Grip Closes In all Around Them, Crushing their Pathetically Small Nuts. Reddit CEO Steve Huffman Backstabs Dissent, Goes Even More Full Censor Leftist... https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/pbmy5y/debate_dissent_and_pr... https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/reddit-covid-coron... https://archive.is/n0Ca5 Steve Huffman The Satanist Loves Human Cannibalism https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlieporterfield/2021/08/30/dozens-of-subreddi... https://www.theverge.com/22652705/reddit-covid-misinformation-ban-nonewnorma... https://www.reddit.com/r/redditsecurity/comments/pfyqqn/covid_denialism_and_... https://archive.is/rrmNa No New Normal Reddit Bans Vaccine-Skeptic Subreddit r/NoNewNormal - Days After CEO Said He Wouldn't Last week, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman (u/spez) said that the site will not ban covid-19 misinformation because it values "dissent." Huffman, who once moderated a subreddit on cannibalism, said that while the site will encourage users to seek authoritative information on Covid-19 from the CDC, it would not stop people from posting content that runs counter to government guidelines. "Dissent is a part of Reddit and the foundation of democracy. Reddit is a place for open and authentic discussion and debate," Huffman wrote in a lengthy post. Huffman's note came in response to dozens of subreddits having gone 'private' protest the vaccine and mask-skeptic 'r/NoNewNormal' subreddit - vowing to stay locked until it was banned from the platform. Locked subreddit in protest of r/NoNewNormal (via The Verge) On Wednesday, Reddit did just that, banning NoNewNormal. Admin 'worstnerd' posted an even lengthier screed defending their about-face. In it, he accuses NoNewNormal users - without evidence - of 'brigading' other forums (invading them to cause trouble). r/NoNewNormal screenshot, 8/30/2021 via Archive.is In short, Reddit used an evidence-free claim to banish a forum which had 120,000 members engaging in "open and authentic discussion and debate" over vaccines, masks, and authoritarianism. In addition, Reddit also 'quarantined' 54 other subreddits associated with vaccine and mask hesitancy, removing them from site-wide searches and in some cases, forcing users to verify their email address before they can view quarantined content. Prior to its ban, NoNewNormal had been quarantined. The revolution will not be televised. Or tweeted. Or posted on Reddit, Facebook, YouTube, or virtually any other big tech platform. And the left - former champions of free speech and resisting authority, has become the very useful idiots they once mocked.
Reddit CEO Steve Huffman Backstabs Dissent, Goes Even More Full Censor Leftist...
Reddit... the only place on the planet where mass censorship, mind control, gleeful subjugation of self to authority, and cries to deploy deadly force against all others, gets 191,000 upvotes and 9,057 gildings and counting, and proudly recruits into their disgusting army and brainwashing indoctrination camp over 235 channels each having from 100k to 10M plus subscribers. "We call upon Reddit to take action against the rampant Coronavirus misinformation on their website. (self.vaxxhappened)"
Leftist BigTech Social and News Media has increasingly been CensorBanning... everything
SkyNews got CensorBanned apparently because of this fact filled editorial coverage...
https://www.bitchute.com/video/QqpzgO2CzmNk/ SkyNews CensorBanned
Sky News Boss Lambasts YouTube For Suspension, "Opaque" Guidelines https://www.bitchute.com/channel/skynewsaustralia/ https://www.theepochtimes.com/sky-news-boss-lambasts-youtube-for-suspension-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/sky-news-australia-suspended-by-youtube_392800... https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-lancet-updates-letter-that-dubbed-covid-19... https://www.theepochtimes.com/over-230000-australians-sign-former-pms-anti-m... Claims that Sky News Australia is spreading COVID-19 misinformation are “frankly ridiculous,” according to CEO Paul Whittaker, who issued a stinging criticism of video-sharing giant YouTube, at a parliamentary inquiry on Monday. Fronting the Standing Committee on Environment and Communications, Whittaker questioned why the Google-owned tech giant could be an arbiter of content. “There is no expectation that our viewers agree with every opinion expressed by every host, guest, or panellist,” he said. “But it now appears commonplace to discredit any debate on contentious issues as ‘misinformation’.” “YouTube’s actions make clear that it is not a neutral platform, but a publisher selectively broadcasting content and censoring certain views, while allowing videos that are patently false, misogynistic, and racist to proliferate,” Whittaker said. “Why does a tech giant, YouTube, and faceless, nameless individuals backed by an algorithm, based in California, get to decide that holding governments and decision-makers to account is ‘misinformation’? Why do they get to decide what is and isn’t allowed to be news?” he said. Paul Whittaker, CEO of Sky News Australia appearing via video link at a parliamentary inquiry into media diversity on Sept. 6, 2021 (Screenshot) The committee is investigating the state of media diversity and concentration in Australia. The inquiry was launched following a petition spearheaded by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to investigate the influence of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. In early August, YouTube suspended Sky News’ for one week for allegedly posting “COVID-19 misinformation,” issuing a “first strike” against the 24-hour news channel—akin to a warning under its three strikes policy. Lucinda Longcroft, Google Australia’s director of government affairs and public policy, told the inquiry earlier that the tech giant enforced its own code on COVID-19-related content, claiming to work with health and media authorities to combat false and harmful content. “Where there are videos that, without further context, assert that those drugs [ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine] are effective we remove them because of the danger and medical harm that could be caused to users,” Longcroft said. Over 5,000 “dangerous and misleading” videos were traced to Australian IP addresses and removed by YouTube between February 2020 to March 2021, including 23 videos posted by Sky News. Longcroft said Sky News’ content was removed due to violations of the code as well as two breaches of political integrity guidelines. However, Whittaker countered by saying that it was in the public interest for alternative drugs to be discussed, especially because no vaccines were available last year. A woman with a smartphone walks past a billboard advertisement for YouTube in Berlin on Sept. 27, 2019. (Sean Gallup/Getty Images) “Sky News Australia strongly supports vaccination. Any claims to the contrary are false and a blatant attempt to discredit and harm our news service,” he said. “It’s a scientific debate that continues to this day.” The CEO also said YouTube’s review process lacked transparency and was “incapable of compliance.” “Unlike other publishers’ policies, YouTube’s process for review and removal of content lacks transparency and a clearly articulated process which affords channel operators the opportunity to address concerns or to challenge an assessment prior to a suspension occurring,” he said. He claimed Sky News had attempted to seek confirmation from YouTube on whether historical content would trigger any further action but said no response was given. “With no transparency provided, Sky News took the proactive approach of removing a batch of videos all published during 2020 from online platforms to ensure ongoing compliance with YouTube’s arbitrary editorial guidelines,” Whittaker said, noting it was not an admission of failure to comply with YouTube’s regulations, but “merely an attempt to navigate opaque polices.” He also raised comparisons with authoritarianism. “If we’re saying that YouTube is the model that we want our regulator to abide by. That means we are saying they should be able to shutdown a major TV network with 30 minutes notice, with no complication, no explanation, no written justification, no procedural fairness. That to me sounds more like authoritarianism or a totalitarian state, rather than a liberal democracy.” Silhouettes of mobile device users are seen next to a screen projection of YouTube’s logo in this picture illustration taken March 28, 2018. (Dado Ruvic/Illustration/Reuters) Whittaker said it was “beyond debate” that YouTube should be deemed a publisher that selectively edited content for political and commercial reasons. “But unlike traditional media it does not accept any of the regulatory or legal burdens that being deemed a ‘publisher’ carries with it,” he said, calling for “vigorous debate” on treating YouTube as a publisher. Sky News has uploaded over 50,000 hours of content on YouTube and has garnered over 1.98 million followers. The channel has consistently covered updates on global efforts to track down the origins of COVID-19, some of which were initially dismissed as “conspiracy theories,” however, other news outlets have since recognised the viability of these explanations.
Leftist BigTech Social and News Media has increasingly been CensorBanning... everything
EDU's have been CensorBanning, propping shit ideologies including worshipping Govts, etc... My University Sacrificed Ideas for Ideology. So Today I Quit. https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/my-university-sacrificed-ideas-for https://www.thefire.org/10-worst-colleges-for-free-speech-2020/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwNO1PeehWc https://www.facebook.com/groups/FreethinkersPSU/ https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html https://www.skeptic.com/downloads/conceptual-penis/23311886.2017.1330439.pdf https://peterboghossian.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/fot1.jpg https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corru... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVk9a5Jcd1k https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG3QYbDeZso https://www.thefire.org/sokal-squared-hoax-paper-prof-facing-discipline-for-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeAXG3OLzoc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPyyvK_4mpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87e1aXxruTo https://peterboghossian.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/fot2.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH2WeWgcSMk https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/galileo/ https://www.chronicle.com/blogs/letters/criticism-of-ideas-is-not-harassment Peter Boghossian has taught philosophy at Portland State University for the past decade. In the letter below, sent this morning to the university’s provost, he explains why he is resigning. Dear Provost Susan Jeffords, I’m writing to you today to resign as assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University. Over the last decade, it has been my privilege to teach at the university. My specialties are critical thinking, ethics and the Socratic method, and I teach classes like Science and Pseudoscience and The Philosophy of Education. But in addition to exploring classic philosophers and traditional texts, I’ve invited a wide range of guest lecturers to address my classes, from Flat-Earthers to Christian apologists to global climate skeptics to Occupy Wall Street advocates. I’m proud of my work. I invited those speakers not because I agreed with their worldviews, but primarily because I didn’t. From those messy and difficult conversations, I’ve seen the best of what our students can achieve: questioning beliefs while respecting believers; staying even-tempered in challenging circumstances; and even changing their minds. I never once believed — nor do I now — that the purpose of instruction was to lead my students to a particular conclusion. Rather, I sought to create the conditions for rigorous thought; to help them gain the tools to hunt and furrow for their own conclusions. This is why I became a teacher and why I love teaching. But brick by brick, the university has made this kind of intellectual exploration impossible. It has transformed a bastion of free inquiry into a Social Justice factory whose only inputs were race, gender, and victimhood and whose only outputs were grievance and division. Students at Portland State are not being taught to think. Rather, they are being trained to mimic the moral certainty of ideologues. Faculty and administrators have abdicated the university’s truth-seeking mission and instead drive intolerance of divergent beliefs and opinions. This has created a culture of offense where students are now afraid to speak openly and honestly. I noticed signs of the illiberalism that has now fully swallowed the academy quite early during my time at Portland State. I witnessed students refusing to engage with different points of view. Questions from faculty at diversity trainings that challenged approved narratives were instantly dismissed. Those who asked for evidence to justify new institutional policies were accused of microaggressions. And professors were accused of bigotry for assigning canonical texts written by philosophers who happened to have been European and male. At first, I didn’t realize how systemic this was and I believed I could question this new culture. So I began asking questions. What is the evidence that trigger warnings and safe spaces contribute to student learning? Why should racial consciousness be the lens through which we view our role as educators? How did we decide that “cultural appropriation” is immoral? Unlike my colleagues, I asked these questions out loud and in public. I decided to study the new values that were engulfing Portland State and so many other educational institutions — values that sound wonderful, like diversity, equity, and inclusion, but might actually be just the opposite. The more I read the primary source material produced by critical theorists, the more I suspected that their conclusions reflected the postulates of an ideology, not insights based on evidence. I began networking with student groups who had similar concerns and brought in speakers to explore these subjects from a critical perspective. And it became increasingly clear to me that the incidents of illiberalism I had witnessed over the years were not just isolated events, but part of an institution-wide problem. The more I spoke out about these issues, the more retaliation I faced. Early in the 2016-17 academic year, a former student complained about me and the university initiated a Title IX investigation. (Title IX investigations are a part of federal law designed to protect “people from discrimination based on sex in education programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance.”) My accuser, a white male, made a slew of baseless accusations against me, which university confidentiality rules unfortunately prohibit me from discussing further. What I can share is that students of mine who were interviewed during the process told me the Title IX investigator asked them if they knew anything about me beating my wife and children. This horrifying accusation soon became a widespread rumor. With Title IX investigations there is no due process, so I didn’t have access to the particular accusations, the ability to confront my accuser, and I had no opportunity to defend myself. Finally, the results of the investigation were revealed in December 2017. Here are the last two sentences of the report: “Global Diversity & Inclusion finds there is insufficient evidence that Boghossian violated PSU’s Prohibited Discrimination & Harassment policy. GDI recommends Boghossian receive coaching.” Not only was there no apology for the false accusations, but the investigator also told me that in the future I was not allowed to render my opinion about “protected classes” or teach in such a way that my opinion about protected classes could be known — a bizarre conclusion to absurd charges. Universities can enforce ideological conformity just through the threat of these investigations. I eventually became convinced that corrupted bodies of scholarship were responsible for justifying radical departures from the traditional role of liberal arts schools and basic civility on campus. There was an urgent need to demonstrate that morally fashionable papers — no matter how absurd — could be published. I believed then that if I exposed the theoretical flaws of this body of literature, I could help the university community avoid building edifices on such shaky ground. So, in 2017, I co-published an intentionally garbled peer-reviewed paper that took aim at the new orthodoxy. Its title: “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” This example of pseudo-scholarship, which was published in Cogent Social Sciences, argued that penises were products of the human mind and responsible for climate change. Immediately thereafter, I revealed the article as a hoax designed to shed light on the flaws of the peer-review and academic publishing systems. Shortly thereafter, swastikas in the bathroom with my name under them began appearing in two bathrooms near the philosophy department. They also occasionally showed up on my office door, in one instance accompanied by bags of feces. Our university remained silent. When it acted, it was against me, not the perpetrators. I continued to believe, perhaps naively, that if I exposed the flawed thinking on which Portland State’s new values were based, I could shake the university from its madness. In 2018 I co-published a series of absurd or morally repugnant peer-reviewed articles in journals that focused on issues of race and gender. In one of them we argued that there was an epidemic of dog rape at dog parks and proposed that we leash men the way we leash dogs. Our purpose was to show that certain kinds of “scholarship” are based not on finding truth but on advancing social grievances. This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. Administrators and faculty were so angered by the papers that they published an anonymous piece in the student paper and Portland State filed formal charges against me. Their accusation? “Research misconduct” based on the absurd premise that the journal editors who accepted our intentionally deranged articles were “human subjects.” I was found guilty of not receiving approval to experiment on human subjects. Meanwhile, ideological intolerance continued to grow at Portland State. In March 2018, a tenured professor disrupted a public discussion I was holding with author Christina Hoff Sommers and evolutionary biologists Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying. In June 2018, someone triggered the fire alarm during my conversation with popular cultural critic Carl Benjamin. In October 2018, an activist pulled out the speaker wires to interrupt a panel with former Google engineer James Damore. The university did nothing to stop or address this behavior. No one was punished or disciplined. For me, the years that followed were marked by continued harassment. I’d find flyers around campus of me with a Pinocchio nose. I was spit on and threatened by passersby while walking to class. I was informed by students that my colleagues were telling them to avoid my classes. And, of course, I was subjected to more investigation. I wish I could say that what I am describing hasn’t taken a personal toll. But it has taken exactly the toll it was intended to: an increasingly intolerable working life and without the protection of tenure. This isn’t about me. This is about the kind of institutions we want and the values we choose. Every idea that has advanced human freedom has always, and without fail, been initially condemned. As individuals, we often seem incapable of remembering this lesson, but that is exactly what our institutions are for: to remind us that the freedom to question is our fundamental right. Educational institutions should remind us that that right is also our duty. Portland State University has failed in fulfilling this duty. In doing so it has failed not only its students but the public that supports it. While I am grateful for the opportunity to have taught at Portland State for over a decade, it has become clear to me that this institution is no place for people who intend to think freely and explore ideas. This is not the outcome I wanted. But I feel morally obligated to make this choice. For ten years, I have taught my students the importance of living by your principles. One of mine is to defend our system of liberal education from those who seek to destroy it. Who would I be if I didn’t? Sincerely, Peter Boghossian
Leftist BigTech Social and News Media has increasingly been CensorBanning... everything
Here we see the sissified Germans celebrating their own censorship, somehow they burnt Reichstag but still protect and use FacebookHQ, hypocrites. As the world was warned when AJ and DS and others were first censorship deplatform casualties years back... everyone, you included, would soon be subject to total censorship... you ignored warning, the warners were correct as usual, yet you still refuse to fight back... fools. Facebook Deletes German Anti-Lockdown Groups As New Censorship Rules Go Into Effect https://jonathanturley.org/2021/07/16/white-house-admits-to-flagging-posts-t... https://mishtalk.com/economics/facebooks-invisible-elite-rules-highlight-zuc... https://twitter.com/consent_factory/status/1438627137561534470 https://about.fb.com/news/2021/09/removing-new-types-of-harmful-networks/ This week, Facebook announced a new enforcement policy that seeks to deplatform groups who coordinate online and spread misinformation, hate speech, and incite violence. The new "coordinated social harm" policy was immediately used against 150 pages and groups connected to Germany's Querdenken (Lateral Thinking) movement, which has routinely fueled resistance to government health restrictions and vaccines through anti-lockdown protests. Facebook's head of security policy Nathaniel Gleicher wrote in a blog update Thursday that his team has been "expanding our network disruption efforts so we can address threats that come from groups of authentic accounts coordinating on our platform to cause social harm." Gleicher said: "Today, we're sharing our enforcement against a network of accounts, Pages and Groups operated by individuals associated with the Querdenken movement in Germany." "We removed a network of Facebook and Instagram accounts, Pages and Groups for engaging in coordinated efforts to repeatedly violate our Community Standards, including posting harmful health misinformation, hate speech and incitement to violence. We also blocked their domains from being shared on our platform. This network was operated by individuals associated with the Querdenken movement in Germany, which is linked to off-platform violence and other social harms," he said. Gleicher said the new policy allows Facebook to act against the "core network" of a group that commits widespread violations. He said individuals associated with the Querdenken movement regularly violated the platform's terms of service by spreading health misinformation, inciting violence, bullying, and harassment. Thursday's action moves Facebook into a more aggressive role as the judge of the "new normal" in a post-COVID world. They're the deciders of right and wrong and won't let people with opposing views use their platform. Welcome to #NewNormal Germany, where Facebook has just deplatformed 150 accounts of people opposing the new official ideology ... because protesting the New Normal now qualifies as "Coordinated Social Harm."https://t.co/j1XY5mgcyf — Consent Factory (@consent_factory) September 16, 2021 We have previously discussed Facebook's move to align itself with pro-Biden media. It was found that the Biden Administration has routinely flagged anti-vaxx material to be censored by the social media company. When it comes to politicians, celebrities, and other high-profile users of the platform (but not Trump), they're given special treatment in what appears to be a two-tier digital society where only leftist points of view can be expressed while everyone is deplatformed.
Leftist BigTech Social and News Media has increasingly been CensorBanning... everything
Swollen Balls And Censorship? Nicki Minaj Story Gets Even Weirder https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1438273842669965312 https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1437532566945341441 https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1437526877808128000 https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1437572694937989123 https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1438248319650656256 https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1438249396571807744 https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/1438256221660663812 https://youtu.be/6VxV717PRBU Anaconda Rapper Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend's allegedly swollen testicles are at the center of a free speech controversy, the likes of which we never saw coming. On Wednesday, Minaj told her 157 million Instagram followers that she's been placed in "Twitter jail," because "They didn't like what I was saying over there." Apparently @NICKIMINAJ is in Twitter jail. Can we get #FreeNicki trending? pic.twitter.com/zPXiSmkTWp — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) September 15, 2021 The alleged ban came after Minaj spent the day trading barbs with people over Covid-19 vaccinations and free speech, after she claimed on Monday that her cousin's friend's testicles became swollen following the Covid-19 vaccine, causing his fiancee to call off their wedding. "Make sure you're comfortable with ur decision, not bullied." My cousin in Trinidad won’t get the vaccine cuz his friend got it & became impotent. His testicles became swollen. His friend was weeks away from getting married, now the girl called off the wedding. So just pray on it & make sure you’re comfortable with ur decision, not bullied — Nicki Minaj (@NICKIMINAJ) September 13, 2021 Minaj also revealed on Monday that she wouldn't be going to the Met gala because she didn't want to travel due to her child and she's unvaccinated, adding that she'll take the jab "once I feel I’ve done enough research." They want you to get vaccinated for the Met. if I get vaccinated it won’t for the Met. It’ll be once I feel I’ve done enough research. I’m working on that now. In the meantime my loves, be safe. Wear the mask with 2 strings that grips your head & face. Not that loose one 🙏♥️ — Nicki Minaj (@NICKIMINAJ) September 13, 2021 Minaj's opinions set off a free speech row - with everyone from MSNBC's Joy Reid to MSM outlets suddenly turning her into rapper non grata. This is what happens when you’re so thirsty to down another black woman (by the request of the white man), that you didn’t bother to read all my tweets. “My God SISTER do better” imagine getting ur dumb ass on tv a min after a tweet to spread a false narrative about a black woman https://t.co/4UviONyTHy — Nicki Minaj (@NICKIMINAJ) September 14, 2021 On Wednesday, Minaj tweeted a clip of Tucker Carlson defending her - specifically, saying she's receiving hate because she's telling people to make up their own minds about getting vaccinated. Minaj also claimed that the White House invited her to visit, where she'll "ask questions on behalf of the ppl who have been made fun of for simply being human." While Minaj claims Twitter has put her in 'jail' (presumably unable to post), her tweets are still viewable as of this writing. 🎯 pic.twitter.com/BdU0knwFLT — Nicki Minaj (@NICKIMINAJ) September 15, 2021 The White House has invited me & I think it’s a step in the right direction. Yes, I’m going. I’ll be dressed in all pink like Legally Blonde so they know I mean business. I’ll ask questions on behalf of the ppl who have been made fun of for simply being human. #BallGate day 3 https://t.co/PSa3WcEjH3 — Nicki Minaj (@NICKIMINAJ) September 15, 2021 And when liberals piled on Minaj for posting a clip of a 'white supremacist,' Minaj hit back, tweeting "Ppl aren’t human any more. If you’re black & a Democrat tells u to shove marbles up ur ass, you simply have to. If another party tells u to look out for that bus, stand there & get hit." Right. I can’t speak to, agree with, even look at someone from a particular political party. Ppl aren’t human any more. If you’re black & a Democrat tells u to shove marbles up ur ass, you simply have to. If another party tells u to look out for that bus, stand there & get hit https://t.co/OhjQZCbmBa — Nicki Minaj (@NICKIMINAJ) September 15, 2021 Twitter, meanwhile, has denied banning the rapper, while the White House says they only offered 'a call' with Minaj. Testiclegate Minaj's claim about her cousin's friend's balls was 'debunked' by both Dr. Anthony Fauci and Trinidad and Tobago Minister of Health, Terrence Deyalsingh. "There’s no evidence that it happens, nor is there any mechanistic reason to imagine that it would happen," Fauci told CNN's Jake Tapper onThe Lead, adding "These claims may be innocent on her part. I’m not blaming her for anything. But she should be thinking twice about propagating information that really has no basis except a one-off anecdote. That’s not what science is all about." Devalsingh, meanwhile, said in a statement that "Claims are being made. One of the reasons we could not respond in real time to Ms. Minaj is because we had to check and make sure that what she was claiming was either true or false. Unfortunately, we wasted so much time yesterday running down this false claim." 🇹🇹Minister of Health Terrence Deyalsingh says claims made by @NICKIMINAJ are Not True! pic.twitter.com/dcApHfsq1n — Marie Hull 💉💉 (@MariefHull) September 15, 2021 That said, at least 46 claims of post-vax swollen testicles have been reported for the Covid-19 jab to the VAERS database of adverse reactions, though it's unknown if any of them resulted in a canceled wedding. And there you have it... If you've read this far you deserve to watch this.
EDU's have been CensorBanning
Heckler's Veto: 66% Of College Students Say Stopping Speech Is Free Speech https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/23/hecklers-veto-sixty-six-percent-of-col... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/07/08/the-rising-generation-of-censors-law-s... https://reports.collegepulse.com/college-free-speech-rankings-2021 https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/22/why-burn-books-when-you-can-ban-them-w... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/11/we-bury-the-ashes-of-racism-discrimina... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/12/09/free-speech-is-being-weaponized-columb... https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/04/china-was-right-academics-and-democrat... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/08/20/the-new-censors-polls-shows-almost-hal... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/09/federal-court-rules-against-suny-birmi... https://jonathanturley.org/2017/02/02/protesters-torch-free-speech-at-berkel... https://jonathanturley.org/2017/10/06/liberalism-is-white-supremacy-black-li... https://jonathanturley.org/2017/04/18/wellesley-students-editors-endorse-sil... https://jonathanturley.org/2014/03/21/california-feminism-professor-charged-... https://jonathanturley.org/2017/12/18/college-presidents-declare-there-is-no... http://www.law.cuny.edu/faculty/directory/bilek.html https://jonathanturley.org/2018/04/17/cuny-law-dean-students-shutting-down-s... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/03/23/self-cancellation-cuny-dean-resigns-an... https://jonathanturley.org/2017/05/19/california-state-university-professor-... https://jonathanturley.org/2017/11/13/fresno-state-university-professor-rema... http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/12/health/fresno-chalk-free-speech-trnd/ https://jonathanturley.org/2019/04/08/turley-and-waldron-to-debate-hate-spee... https://www.mhpbooks.com/books/antifa/ We have previously discussed the worrisome signs of a rising generation of censors in the country as leaders and writers embrace censorship and blacklisting. The latest chilling poll was released by 2021 College Free Speech Rankings after questioning a huge body of 37,000 students at 159 top-ranked U.S. colleges and universities. It found that sixty-six percent of college students think shouting down a speaker to stop them from speaking is a legitimate form of free speech. Another 23 percent believe violence can be used to cancel a speech. That is roughly one out of four supporting violence. Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Others are supporting actual book burning. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images. The most chilling aspect of this story is how many on left applaud such censorship. A prior poll shows roughly half of the public supporting not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.” Perhaps the same citizens and academics will embrace the Chinese model on social scoring and praise actions that the reported move by Chase bank. We discussed this issue recently with regard to a lawsuit against SUNY. It is also discussed in my forthcoming law review article, Jonathan Turley, Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States, 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021). This has been an issue of contention with some academics who believe that free speech includes the right to silence others. Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over the use of a heckler’s veto on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers, even including a few speakers like an ACLU official. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech. At another University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display. In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned after she made a single analogy to acting like a “slaveholder” as a self-criticism for failing to achieve equity and reparations for black faculty and students). We previously discussed the case of Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free speech rights in the matter. A district court has now ordered Thatcher to pay $17,000 and undergo First Amendment training. However, Thatcher remained defiant and the university appeared complicit in his actions by the lack of disciplinary action. The pro-life students had written messages on the sidewalk like “You CAN be pregnant & successful” and “Unborn lives matter” to “Women need love, NOT abortion.” Thatcher got students from his 8 a.m. class to help remove the anti-abortion messages and that their chalk was taken away to write pro-choice slogans on the sidewalk. The students seem entirely unconcerned that they are censoring speech and engaging in a grossly intolerant act. Instead, they refer to their teacher as telling them that they should do so. Thatcher then walked up. Thatcher invoked the controversial restriction of free speech to “zones” and says that there is no free speech right for this type of writing outside of that zone. When the students explain that they have permission, he then proceed to rub out their messages and declared “you have permission to put it down — I have permission to get rid of it.” Thatcher is arguing that same Orwellian “Stopping free speech is free speech” position. A few years ago, I debated NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron who is a leading voice for speech codes. Waldron insisted that shutting down speakers through heckling is a form of free speech. I disagree. It is the antithesis of free speech and the failure of schools to protect the exercise of free speech is the antithesis of higher education. The added increase in embracing violence is particularly chilling. A quarter of those polled supported violence to prevent others from speaking. This is the core of the philosophy of the Antifa movement. It is at its base a movement at war with free speech, defining the right itself as a tool of oppression. That purpose is evident in what is called the “bible” of the Antifa movement: Rutgers Professor Mark Bray’s Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook. Bray emphasizes the struggle of the movement against free speech: “At the heart of the anti-fascist outlook is a rejection of the classical liberal phrase that says, ‘I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’” Indeed, Bray admits that “most Americans in Antifa have been anarchists or antiauthoritarian communists… From that standpoint, ‘free speech’ as such is merely a bourgeois fantasy unworthy of consideration.” It is an illusion designed to promote what Antifa is resisting “white supremacy, hetero-patriarchy, ultra-nationalism, authoritarianism, and genocide.” Thus, all of these opposing figures are deemed fascistic and thus unworthy of being heard. Antifa has a long and well-documented history of such violence. Bray quotes one Antifa member as summing up their approach to free speech as a “nonargument . . . you have the right to speak but you also have the right to be shut up.” Notably, when George Washington University student and self-professed Antifa member Jason Charter was charged as the alleged “ringleader” of efforts to take down statues in Washington, D.C., Charter declared the “movement is winning.” He is right and this poll shows the success.
"You"Tube has nothing to do with, and gives zero shits about, you, its sole purpose is to control you and your mind, to spy, rat, and monetize you, to propagandize for [left-] Gov. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-09-29/youtube-will-remove-video... YouTube will begin removing content questioning any approved medical vaccine, not just those for Covid-19, a departure from the video site's historically hands-off approach. From a report: The division of Alphabet's Google announced Wednesday that it will extend its policy against misinformation to cover all vaccines that health authorities consider effective. The ban will include any media that claims vaccines are dangerous or lead to chronic health outcomes such as autism, said Matt Halprin, YouTube's vice president for trust and safety. A year ago, YouTube banned certain videos critical of Covid-19 vaccines. The company said it has since pulled more than 130,000 videos for violating that rule. But many videos got around the rule by making dubious claims about vaccines without mentioning Covid-19. YouTube determined its policy was too limited. "We can imagine viewers then potentially extrapolating to Covid-19," Halprin said in an interview. "We wanted to make sure that we're covering the whole gamut." https://gizmodo.com/russia-threatens-retaliation-after-youtube-deletes-rt-g-... Russia's Foreign Ministry has threatened harsh retaliatory measures against YouTube after the video sharing service suspended two German-language accounts run by Russian state media, according to a report from Russia's TASS news outlet. Russia went so far as to call the suspensions "information warfare." From a report: The YouTube accounts, RT Germany and Der Fehlende Part, were reportedly deleted after spreading misinformation about the covid-19 pandemic and had a combined subscriber count of roughly 700,000 before being deleted. RT Germany was initially suspended from posting new videos for a week after breaching YouTube's covid-19 misinformation rules, but the account was deleted completely after RT allegedly uploaded the content again to another channel called Der Fehlende Part, or "The Missing Part," in English. "Considering the nature of the incident, which is fully in line with the logic of the information warfare unleashed against Russia, taking retaliatory symmetrical measures against the German media in Russia would seem not just an appropriate, but also a necessary thing to do, especially taking into account that [the German media] were caught interfering into our country's domestic affairs on several occasions in the past," the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement to TASS on Tuesday.
Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2, Informative) by a-zA-Z0-9etc ( 6394646 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:29AM (#61844209) Homepage Disinformation has become a public nuisance. It's killing people. People who seek to gain by misleading others are doing something very similar to shouting fire in a crowded theatre. It's a deliberately destructive act. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:47AM (#61844287) Disinformation has become a public nuisance. It's killing people. TFA is about misinformation not disinformation. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3) by TheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:52AM (#61844317) That's a Venn diagram with a lot of overlap. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:59PM (#61844707) That's a Venn diagram with a lot of overlap. Disinformation and Misinformation are nothing alike. Flag as Inappropriate Re: Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:27PM (#61844873) Dafuq you talking about. Most disinformation is used to misinform... I think your talking about intent. The disinformation of Russian stooges leads to misinformation being propagated. The former has an intent to show distrust but the latter has just been duped. It doesn't change the validity of the information... Flag as Inappropriate Re: Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:13PM (#61845623) Dafuq you talking about. Most disinformation is used to misinform... The argument disinformation and misinformation is similar is like saying murder and self defense are similar. After all both end with a dead body. Flag as Inappropriate Re: Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @01:28AM (#61846991) They are similar. In both cases someone was harmed or killed. A person who kills someone in self-defense still killed someone, just like the murderer. An average person will likely have this weigh on their consciousness a fair bit even given the justification they did it to defend themselves. Only a psychopath would feel nothing from killing someone in self-defense. Nonetheless you didn't refute my argument that both disinformation and misinformation rely on information that is incorrect. So you come up with some silly comparison, which itself is flawed, but still do not engage in any reasonable argument against what your opponent is saying. You basically just proved why misinformation is so effective. Flag as Inappropriate Re: Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @01:44PM (#61848383) They are similar. This is an outlier minority position. They are clearly not similar to most members of society or the legal regimes of most states of the world. Killing an attacker may result in public praise and being branded a hero. Killing defenseless old ladies for kicks results in life imprisonment or death penalty and public outrage. Nonetheless you didn't refute my argument that both disinformation and misinformation rely on information that is incorrect. This isn't an argument its an obvious statement of fact. As with murder vs self defense the outcome isn't the relevant issue. It's the Mens rea / intent / circumstances that matter. So you come up with some silly comparison, which itself is flawed, but still do not engage in any reasonable argument against what your opponent is saying. You basically just proved why misinformation is so effective. Basically my position is humanity is comprised entirely of shitheads and therefore all that matters are structures of governance that reinforce less stinky behavior and how big and gross any particular shithead is liable to become. The one constant throughout all of human history is the corrupting influence and stench of power. Aside from the practical matter of non-existence of an impartial Oracle to decide truth demanding people only say true things places an unacceptable amount of power in the hands of shitheads who want to play Oracle complete with their shitty sensibilities and lust for smelling and shitting. Much better for society to have everyone fighting over scraps of power and influence even though some portion of them are completely full of shit and smell bad than tolerating structures which only breed corruption and even more dangerous worse smelling shit. It might suck to have to tolerate idiots who think that Joseph Smith's golden plates are anything other than a scam or Lafayette Hubbard didn't really create a religion to make money. It might suck to deal with cranks who talk of electric universe, aliens, "squibs" in the trade towers, Abrahamic religions and Saddam being in on 9/11. Yet what is proven to be far worse for society is when a few shitheads get to play Oracle and dictate to everyone what is true and what they are allowed to say. Freedom of speech I believe should be absolute. This means everyone should have the freedom to communicate any ideas and beliefs regardless of their content. It does not mean people get to use communication as an excuse to achieve whatever shitty scheme they are cooking up. It means the right to in legal parlance "pure speech". Those who don't like what you have to say have a remedy of speaking up. If you can't compete too bad so sad. The problem with (social) media is that it is intentionally architected to reinforce poor governance and promote shitty behavior intentionally for profit. The answer is legislation / anti-trust action not censorship. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful) by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:38PM (#61844575) Homepage Journal Misinformation is harmful. Censorship is harmful. Both are harmful. No matter who wins, we lose. The operators of YouTube have just pronounced themselves the proper authority on truth. Why would we trust THEM? They are humans too, full of biases and corruption, and stupidity, just like the people spreading the misinformation. The disease is bad and the cure is even worse. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:40PM (#61844587) Homepage Journal Oh man, I honestly didn't even realize the dual-meaning of my closing statement "The disease is bad and the cure is even worse." In that case "the disease" was supposed to be "misinformation." Not COVID-19. Now I sound like one of the spreaders of misinformation because of my distaste for censorship. I'm really feeling like there isn't a way to win. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3) by Goetterdaemmerung ( 140496 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:26PM (#61844865) Oh man, I honestly didn't even realize the dual-meaning of my closing statement "The disease is bad and the cure is even worse." In that case "the disease" was supposed to be "misinformation." Not COVID-19. Now I sound like one of the spreaders of misinformation because of my distaste for censorship. I'm really feeling like there isn't a way to win. The only winning move is not to play. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful) by JackieBrown ( 987087 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:01PM (#61844723) Honestly, the best way to make a conspiracy ring true to is to forbid any reference to said conspiracy. How do you trust the "science" behind covid when doctors or scientist that are critical get pulled from visibility? When you are only allowed to hear about how good something is, how do you trust that it is actually good? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Random Walk ( 252043 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @07:21AM (#61847397) The people spreading FUD on youtube are not scientists, they are crackpots. It's easy to recognize the difference, because scientists tend to take account of the difference between what is known and what is not. Scientists don't yell "VACCINES KILL YOU", they say things like "this particular side effect needs to be studied more thoroughly". Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @08:32AM (#61847481) This is the kind of video that is censored on youtube: https://rumble.com/vmpbh3-3813... [rumble.com] The video is 100% legit, the only thing these videos are doing is undermining the criminal get rich model of bigtech and its allies. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by JackieBrown ( 987087 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @10:25AM (#61847723) If it is that easy to tell the difference, then why remove it. I have to take your word for it since it's all being hidden. They are not removing the posts with people screaming "NOT TAKING A VACCINE WILL KILL THE VACINATED!!" Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:16AM (#61847857) As far as I know, this is the first time in history that the medias are blaming the people who refuse to take this product for the failure in efficiency and effectiveness of the product itself. The medias are executing this divide and conquer operation. This should be considered as a psychological warfare. Anyway, after 20 years of covid vaccine experiments, no team passed the animal trial stage successfully. Informed consent, about these experimental phase 3 products, implies to know this little scientific issue. As written this is a phase 3 experiment, this means you could be injected with the placebo as well. A summary by Alexis BUGNOLO: https://twitter.com/GaumontRen... [twitter.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @08:27AM (#61847473) These drug companies are serial scammers; This is likely the reason why MSM and bigtech adore them. If drug companies willfully choose to put harmful products in the market, when they can be sued, why would we trust any product where they have NO liability? In case it hasn't sunk in, let me reiterate...3 of the 4 covid vaccine makers have been sued for products they brought to market even though they knew injuries and deaths would result. Johnson & Johnson has lost major lawsuits in 1995, 1996, 2001, 2010, 2011, 2016, 2019 (For what it's worth, J&J's vaccine also contains tissues from aborted fetal cells, perhaps a topic for another discussion) Pfizer has the distinction of the biggest criminal payout in history. They have lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. You can check out their rap sheet here. Maybe that's why they are demanding that countries where they don't have liability protection put up collateral to cover vaccine-injury lawsuits. Astra Zeneca has similarly lost so many lawsuits it's hard to count. Here's one. Here's another...you get the point. And in case you missed it, the company had their covid vaccine suspended in at least 18 countries over concerns of blood clots, and they completely botched their meeting with the FDA with numbers from their study that didn't match. Oh, and apparently J&J (whose vaccine is approved for "Emergency Use" in the US) and Astrazenca (whose vaccine is not approved for "Emergency Use" in the US), had a little mix up in their ingredients...in 15 million doses. Oops. ... https://www.deconstructingconv... [deconstruc...tional.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by aquacrayfish ( 1986878 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:29PM (#61848135) In general, sure, but people have been all in on all sorts of vaccine conspiracies since they came out. People don't trust the science because there are organized media channels (TV, podcasts, etc.) that have been injecting bad faith arguments. I don't know what the 'right thing' to do is, but up until YouTube doing this it certainly hasn't felt like we're moving in a great direction. This move will likely not change much because this late in the game people tend to have their minds made up with the information they have, correct or otherwise. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:40PM (#61848167) Could you explain where the conspiracy is? He gives verifiable facts. Science is not a religion; The expression "trust the science" means you are 100% science illiterate. If the “vaccines” were actually vaccines (not an experimental therapeutic) and worked with minimal side effects then censorship would not be necessary. The act of censorship is all you need to know really. It’s a tacit admission to run towards verboten information. Is this Dutch Politician "trust the science", or he is someone very well informed? https://www.bitchute.com/video... [bitchute.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by LordArgon ( 1683588 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:24PM (#61846477) >The operators of YouTube have just pronounced themselves the proper authority on truth. Ugh, this is so misleading. If you actually read the policy update blog, they've spent a lot of time working with actual public health authorities to craft this policy. They aren't making things up according to their whims - they're following the best science we have to date. That's literally the best possible authority and the ONLY one you (or they) should trust. Issues of science are never solved by public debate or unfettered speech - they're solved by doing more science. If these wackos had any integrity or interest in real truth, they would be doing real scientific research instead of publishing sensationalist non$en$e to scare laypeople. Good riddance. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3) by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:18PM (#61845109) Homepage I agree it's a nuisance, and I agree that it's dangerous, but it's also dangerous to see censorship by big nebulous organizations that control so much of the communication bandwidth. It's actually pretty easy to imagine a vaccine that does end up having some problems in the future, and you've just made it impossible to post a video to YouTube about it. Don't you think the pharmaceutical company will be happy that they can now get YouTube's help in covering it up? "That vaccine is approved! You can't say anything negative about it!" This is a sad day, both for the fact that we seem to deem it necessary because there is so much misinformation, and because it's so bad that people like yourself are willing to allow the bending of fundamentally important democratic principles in order to deal with it. You admit that you're not swayed by these arguments because you understand they're B.S., but your goal is to protect other people you don't even know from this B.S. by accepting a (frankly untrustworthy) 3rd party's determination of what passes for the "truth" on their website. The 10,000 foot view of this is that it's bad for society all around. We've never been a population full of logical reasonable thinkers. There has always been lots of misinformation. In fact, most information that large corporate or political organizations come out with is carefully selected to promote a selected narrative. There is a spectrum of objectivity, but we never get to the absolute objective truth. That's why a healthy democracy depends on the proverbial firehose of B.S. in order to challenge current beliefs, make us re-evaluate what we hold true, and nudge us ever so slowly towards a slightly more accurate view of reality. Just because it's painful doesn't mean we shouldn't bear it. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by jabuzz ( 182671 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @05:15AM (#61847209) Homepage In which case gather the data, publish a peer reviewed paper in an appropriate journal. Then saying vaccine X causes harm Y will not be misinformation about a vaccine and you will be fine to publish a YouTube video about it. However if you post a video that says a vaccine has a microchip in it, will sterilise you, de-religion you (how the fucking hell that works is beyond me) etc. etc. then yes it is not even an opinion is just fantasy and it gets pulled, keep doing it and your account gets suspended. Opinions are not facts. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:4, Insightful) by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:36PM (#61845219) Journal Why would I guess that you would be insisting (pre Trump, that is) that we not believe what evil corporations tell us is "the truth". My, how times have changed, as long as they genuflect toward your particular banners, eh? Now they're the good guys and we have people on slashdot (!) INSISTING angrily that 'freedom of speech' only narrowly applies to government and corporations can muzzle whomever they have the ability to. You know, for the public good. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by LordArgon ( 1683588 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:31PM (#61846507) That's such a bad argument. This isn't a matter of political opinion - it's a matter of scientific knowledge. You don't have to believe the corporation because you can crosscheck their policies with actual public health authorities, who are making decisions according to the best science we have. Scientific knowledge is hardly infallible but the ONLY rational choice laypeople have, *by the very definition of layperson*, is to follow the advice of the actual health authorities. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:15AM (#61847851) Journal "trust it, it's scientific knowledge" is absolutely a load of crap, though. Find me one - ANY- scientist who will assert that we know the complete truth about something that will never change, particularly about something so complex, and absolutely at the front-end as COVID. (Don't bother, because you probably CAN find such certainty; it's a sign of a snake-oil salesman, not a scientist.) I was accused of 'peddling lies and disinformation' on THIS SITE when last year I merely said that the question of where this came from (natural, vs lab leak was the context of that discussion) /wasn't settled/. Was that scientific "fact" then? Because various social media sites were already screening that conversation at that time for what the "facts" were. The idea that we take whatever "a scientist" says as some sort of infallible holy writ is unbelievable. As if scientists, and the organizations they belong to, aren't subject to tribalism, politics, personal bias, and the host of other very HUMAN factors that play a role in what's "believed to be true". Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-science. Not at all. Fucking creationists, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers...all of a breed of particularly stupid people. Frankly, if you're stupid enough to home-dose yourself with veterinary meds or dumb shit like that, I call that a win for Darwin. But I am reasonably scientifically literate myself, and only someone trying to shill a political opinion would insist 'just trust it, the science says so'. That's not science, that's religion. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by LordArgon ( 1683588 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:42AM (#61847965) You misunderstand and are presenting a false choice - it's not all or nothing and has nothing to do with religion. The bottom line is we need heuristics that make the most reliable decisions given the available information. That ONLY rational heuristic for laypeople is "what do the majority of actual experts think right now"? That says NOTHING about infallibility or that what experts think won't change in the future - that's not a flaw, that's just how science works. But any other heuristic is pure hubris for laypeople - they (myself included) literally don't have the knowledge or tools to evaluate anything else. It's when they think they DO that they become vulnerable to misinformation and spread bullshit. To be clear, trusting experts is itself NOT binary - there are things for which the science is just about AS settled as possible, such as evolution and vaccines. Then there are things where lots of experts (/global health authorities) think meaningfully different things and there's more leeway for personal judgment, just because the answer is very much not clear to anybody. I had this same debate at the height of the mask debates early on in the pandemic - I know somebody who was insisting people NOT where masks simply because the CDC said not to at the time. But he was ignoring that plenty of health authorities in Asian countries WERE advocating masks. The expert/global health opinion was unclear and he was making the mistake of trusting just a specific, single one. I can understand your frustration at people thinking scientific knowledge is complete or insulting you for calling out where it's incomplete. But that doesn't change the core issue that, even though it's guaranteed to be wrong some percentage of the time, the best *bet* we have at any given moment is to act in accordance with the opinion of the majority of experts. People want certainty that just doesn't exist and we have to figure out how to make the best decisions available, knowing that they'll be wrong some percentage of the time. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0, Troll) by Fatalintent ( 7507602 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:42AM (#61844253) Will it still be disinformation if Trump gets back in office? Then will we be crying about censorship when it doesnt go with our current agenda? This is dangerous. Once you censor and once you give up or take away freedoms, you don't get them back. Sometimes the ends really does not justify the means. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:4, Insightful) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:03PM (#61844383) Will it still be disinformation if Trump gets back in office? Yes, reality doesn't change based on who is President. This is not a "both sides" problem. One "side" has completely untethered themselves from reality thanks to the right-wing media ecosystem. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0, Offtopic) by rapierian ( 608068 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:27PM (#61844875) Because Russia Collusion was completely based on reality. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Informative) by SvnLyrBrto ( 62138 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:34PM (#61845213) Yes. It was: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com] https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24... [npr.org] https://www.wired.com/story/ru... [wired.com] https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com] https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com] https://techcrunch.com/2018/05... [techcrunch.com] https://nymag.com/intelligence... [nymag.com] And those are just the top handful of articles from googling for: "facebook russia 2016". It doesn't include their shenanigans with other social networks, traditional media, leaks, hacking, and the rest. So yes, it is entirely based in reality. We don't "have the receipts," as they say, in my specific examples. But that's because Facebook WROTE the receipts after cashing the damn checks. So you can take your dear leader's "the Russia hoax" BS and just GTFO. You're not fooling anyone. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3, Insightful) by VicVegas ( 990077 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:20PM (#61845415) Homepage https://www.thenation.com/arti... [thenation.com] Russiagaters are great at ignoring evidence to the contrary of their conspiracy. I'm saying this as a far Leftie, not a Trump-Humper. Russiagate was a great excuse for the Democratic Party to completely ignore the actual reasons they lost to a gameshow host. I'm sure it is very comfy having your head buried in the sand. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful) by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:47PM (#61845523) It depends on what you think "Russiagate" actually is. I don't think Trump is a KGB asset. Honestly he's too fucking stupid and can't keep his mouth shut. Is he being deferential to Putin because he wants Putin's help in the form of disinformation campaigns to help him win? I think that's pretty obviously true. We already know the reasons Hillary lost to Trump. She was very unpopular. Trump is even more unpopular. IN fact Trump and Hillary were the 2 least popular presidential candidates in US history. What happens when 2 very unpopular candidates are in an election together? One of them wins. And the electoral college advantage for Trump was just enough to help him beat Hillary despite losing the popular vote. Our dumb election system causes dogshit candidates to be nominated. It only benefits the two political parties. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3, Insightful) by VicVegas ( 990077 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:40PM (#61845757) Homepage https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1... [nytimes.com] The reasons go beyond Hillary's disastrous campaign and are quite the condemnation of what the Democratic Party has become. Obama acting like Reagan turned off a lot of voters, such as myself. I voted for him in 2008, but not in 2012. The Dems chased me from their party, and no planet destroying Republican will ever get my vote. So, third party it is, until the Dems get their heads out of billionaire butts and do more than write strongly worded letters or post sassy tweets or blame unelected, appointed officials for not being able to pass legislation that would actually help people. Trump did quite a few things that Putin didn't want, but those are always ignored in favor of the narrative that he was sucking up to Putin. So, no, it isn't pretty obviously true. Just take a look at the gas pipeline thru Germany for an example. Biden is fine with it, while Trump was against it. So... is Biden sucking up to Putin? No, he isn't, just like Trump wasn't. Just like the walls weren't closing in on Trump every day, despite what the media organs of the Democratic Party were screeching (MSNBC, CNN, Politico, WaPo, etc.). I didn't let Trump's victory turn off my critical thinking skills, unlike most registered Democrats. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3) by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:34PM (#61846349) What are some things Trump did that Putin didn't want? I can think of like 1 or 2, but not quite a lot. And it IS obviously true that Trump sought and welcomed Russia's help. The evidence that Trump was sucking up to Putin is not contradicted by the fact that he also did some things that Putin maybe didn't like. Trump does lots of things that lots of people don't like because he's a buffoon. Being for or against a gas pipeline isn't sucking up to anyone. What I am referring to is constantly talking about how powerful Putin is. And when asked if Putin is a killer, he trashes America to defend Putin. He sides with Putin over our own intelligence services publicly. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by VicVegas ( 990077 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @01:23PM (#61848331) Homepage Don't confuse words with actions. The cloud of misinformation and outright lies that spewed from the media wing of the Democratic Party was constantly making mountains out of molehills. A dumb reporter asks a dumb President a dumb question and the dumb answer is trotted out as "evidence" of the dumb President's subservience. I put such things as "Trump trusts Russia over our own intelligence services" in the same category as "Trump puts catsup on his steak." Just a bunch of hot air in a feeble attempt to insult the person in the White House. Just like criticizing Obama for wearing a tan suit. Meaningless. Or like AOC issuing sassy tweets, but not actually doing anything to help people, as she promised she would when she campaigned for office. Meaningless. Don't let the theater fool you. The media organs of the Democratic Party put political gotcha over truth. The same media organizations that couldn't stop beating the drums of war when Bush Jr. wanted to invade Iraq. Our fourth estate has utterly failed us, for over two decades now. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by Chelloveck ( 14643 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @03:25PM (#61848773) Homepage It was both. Russia was certainly sowing disinformation around the campaign and attempting to put Trump in office. Is it because he was in league with them or because he was merely a useful idiot? Probably the latter. Between flattery and insults he's ridiculously easy to influence. There's no doubt that Russia was actively trying to influence the election via propaganda, regardless of whether or not they tried anything more direct. On the other hand, Democrats assumed there was no way they could lose to an idiot like Trump. A week-old ham sandwich would be a better president than he would. They didn't understand just how much hatred there was for her. Once she lost Russia was an easy scapegoat for Democrats to avoid introspection. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by VicVegas ( 990077 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @05:10PM (#61849143) Homepage https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1... [nytimes.com] This article talks about indictments that went nowhere and hypes IRA's $100,000 spent on advertising, which if you downloaded the examples provided by Congress, you see that almost all the ads that were run had nothing to do with elections and everything to do with trying to gain followers to the accounts that posted the ads. This article is much ado about nothing and is not evidence of ANYTHING. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/24... [npr.org] This article builds on the whole idea that the IRA was election meddling, when again, most of what it did had nothing to do with elections. As if the IRA accounts posting dumb memes without paying to boost them is somehow nefarious and further evidence of their election twerking. https://www.wired.com/story/ru... [wired.com] This article is about lax regulations when it comes to political advertising and does not contain any proof of Russian election twerking. https://www.bbc.com/news/techn... [bbc.com] If you've seen the incredibly dumb memes that were put out by the IRA, you would realize how racist it is to say black Americans were influenced by them. https://www.theguardian.com/te... [theguardian.com] This is another article that makes a mountain out of a molehill, claiming that IRA's dumb memes, which mostly weren't about elections, are somehow evidence of election twerking. Almost like I'm seeing a theme in the Russiagate conspiracy articles. Just keep repeating the same wildly exaggerated claims over and over as if that is evidence for something. https://techcrunch.com/2018/05... [techcrunch.com] Oh look, another article doing the same thing. They had to comb through gobs of memes to cherry pick the political ones. https://nymag.com/intelligence... [nymag.com] This article is about Facebook being haunted by the results of the 2016 election, and is not evidence of anything. Have you noticed the incredibly large number of Russiagate stories that have been retracted? I have. And isn't it funny, how none of the retracted stories are saying Russia didn't influence the election. All the retracted stories fall on one side of the fence. https://greenwald.substack.com... [substack.com] But then we have one of Hillary's lawyers indicted for lying to the FBI about Russiagate. Almost like the whole thing is a bogus conspiracy. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Alypius ( 3606369 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:45PM (#61845263) You mean how Biden-Harris said they wouldn't take the Trump vaccine [msn.com] but, now that they're in power, it's the most important thing ever [nbcnews.com]? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful) by tsqr ( 808554 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:28PM (#61845441) You mean how Biden-Harris said they wouldn't take the Trump vaccine [msn.com] but, now that they're in power, it's the most important thing ever [nbcnews.com]? Get your facts straight. Here's what Kamala Harris actually said: If Dr. Fauci, if the doctors tell us we should take it, I’ll be the first in line to take it. Absolutely. But if Donald Trump tells me to take it, I’m not taking it. So all she's saying in regard to Trump is that she wouldn't take him at his word. Given his demonstrated problems with truthfulness, that's not unreasonable. The article contains no quote at all from Biden, so there's nothing to refute. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:39PM (#61846529) isnt it funny the very same broadcast they where going to push mask they all where standing there without mask becouse they didn't relise the camera was on. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:06PM (#61845353) You mean how Biden-Harris said they wouldn't take the Trump vaccine [msn.com] Hmm, an opinion article backed by tweets from a random guy I've never heard of. Some great evidence you have there sir! Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:29PM (#61845449) Thanks for providing yet another example of the right-wing media being untethered from reality. First, Biden-Harris didn't say anything close to what you're claiming. Harris was the one talking about the vaccine in the quote you're trying to butcher. Second, what she actually said is she would not trust the vaccine if Trump said it was good and "the doctors" did not agree. The big tell that you are being lied to is the article you're citing doesn't include what she actually said [youtube.com]. But reality doesn't agree with your claims, so you've jettisoned reality. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:53PM (#61845543) How are you this dumb? Also Turmp wouldn't even publicly take the vaccine he claims to have created because he is scared of his own dumb as shit supporters Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:42PM (#61844945) Journal The left believes a ton of conspiracy theories, like there was a grand conspiracy to take out the government on January 6, or that Russia made Trump win in 2016. Joining a party causes you to turn your brain off, because you want to go along with a crowd. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:20PM (#61845421) like there was a grand conspiracy to take out the government on January 6 This would be an example of being untethered from reality thanks to the right-wing media ecosystem. Because lying about what "the left" believes is a lot easier than talking about what "the left" actually believes. The other way that this diverges from reality is "the left" aren't authoritarians. They aren't all marching in lock-step with the same beliefs. Because unlike the right, they are not consuming one media ecosystem utterly untethered from reality. But lying about it and pretending "the left" is a mirror image of the right is again a lot easier than talking about what various factions of "the left" actually believe. "The left" believes there was a poorly-orchestrated coup attempt on 1/6. So far, the only evidence against this is claims that are not backed by any of the actual evidence. or that Russia made Trump win in 2016 There is plenty of proof they ran operations to influence it. Were there efforts alone enough to make Trump win? No, but it helped. The primary source of Trump's win in 2016 is Clinton ran one of the most incompetent campaigns in modern history. For example, how the fuck do you keep trusting your analytics when they get the MI primary wrong by 30 points? Clinton's bad campaign made it very close, and then every little nudge helps. Joining a party causes you to turn your brain off, because you want to go along with a crowd. Joining the Republican party does. One only has to look at the shit we're going through with Manchin, Sinema, and the idiotic 12 in the House to realize the Democratic party isn't lock-step organization you're claiming it to be. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:34PM (#61845477) Journal The lack of self-awareness in your post is astounding. A confluence of motivated reasoning, intentional blindness, and decrying party conformity while at the same time you are conforming to all the conspiracies of your party. You literally turned your brain off. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:42PM (#61845513) Again, this is not a both-sides problem, no matter how much you want to make it a both-sides problem. Alternatively, put up or shut up. Where's the evidence the 1/6 events were not as claimed? Or the Russia did not run an information operation in 2016? 'Cause I've got multiple court cases, leaked memos, dead cops, and the Muller report saying those happened. (I eagerly await you to pretend no proof of collusion with Russia is no proof of Russia doing anything, as folks like you always do when asked for proof) Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:11PM (#61845611) IF you think Russia hasn't run an op in every election year since 1946 you probably need to check into a nursing home, or euthanasia clinic. Of course, the CIA are equally as bad, and probably worse. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:13PM (#61845625) Journal Again, this is not a both-sides problem, no matter how much you want to make it a both-sides problem. You're right, it's a you problem. You've demonstrated multiple logical fallacies in your post starting with motivated reasoning. Don't ever do that again. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:28PM (#61845703) You know, it's a lot shorter to type "I have no proof for any of my claims". Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:02PM (#61845847) Journal I do have proof for my claims. Look at your posts. They're entirely motivated reasoning. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:57PM (#61846413) The Russians were clearly involved in screwing with the 2016 Presidential election. The implication that the Russian efforts were exclusively anti-Clinton is funny. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2, Insightful) by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:50PM (#61845535) A conspiracy implies secrecy. Trump spread the big lie and incited his dumb supporters publicly. He thinks he can do anything and get away with it as long as it is public. And honestly, it seems like he is right. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:12PM (#61845621) Journal He thinks he can do anything and get away with it as long as it is public. And honestly, it seems like he is right. Clearly not, is your brain screwed on backwards? If he could get away with anything, he would still be president. Or his daughter would. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:35PM (#61846159) Getting away with something usually just means avoiding punishment, which is how I meant it. I don't consider not winning an election to be a punishment. It's just something that happens when someone is very unpopular. He is getting away with crimes. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Frankablu ( 812139 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @10:06PM (#61846709) Journal Well January 6 was a coup. Since you don't know what that word means let me explain it to you. A coup is where the people storm the rulers' place of governance and the country's security forces do not respond. The non response of the country's security forces is what makes something a coup. Also did the pipebooms spray confetti in your world? Well in 2015 I had to listen to my co-worker with a russian wife explain to me in great detail why Trump would be a great president for Russia. When he got into power he handed over US military positions to the Russians. Russia put in effort to get him elected for their own internal interests and Trump repaid the favor during his time in office. Why do you think Trump gave the US military positions to Russian? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @10:25PM (#61846743) Journal Well January 6 was a coup. Keep on pushing the crazy, because you are crazy. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:58PM (#61845039) Yes, reality doesn't change based on who is President. The issue at hand is not about objective reality itself. To be exceedingly generous it is the interpretation or belief of what reality is to those with power. Or to be more realistic objective reality is whatever those with power say it is. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by SethJohnson ( 112166 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:15PM (#61845101) Homepage Journal Please mod this into the stratosphere as Informative. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:32PM (#61846513) This is not a "both sides" problem. One "side" has completely untethered themselves from reality thanks to the right-wing media ecosystem. O M G Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful) by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:38PM (#61844925) Journal No, you have to understand, my ideas are all correct. Everyone else should be censored. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0, Troll) by hallkbrdz ( 896248 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:51AM (#61844305) Exactly. Either you can openly discuss things and have different viewpoints allowing individuals to decide for themselves, or you have state controlled ideas with no allowed opposition. Big media and tech have choose to side with the state instead of the people. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful) by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:22PM (#61844491) Would you want to find out the hard way after surgery from an accident that your humors were excised correctly but your bile was still imbalanced? There is a reason we use evidence based medicine, revoke medical licenses for circumventing it, and don’t except made up BS opinions. It’s not state sponsored censorship, it’s because science works. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3, Insightful) by RobinH ( 124750 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:38PM (#61845227) Homepage Except that "evidence based medicine" is a concept that's only firmly taken hold in the last few decades [wikipedia.org]. Doctors routinely (and sometimes still) make a lot of gut-based decisions at odds with evidence, or they're not aware of evidence. Science does work, but it works mostly by disagreement and upending long held beliefs. You must fight censorship if you support science. Remember, most scholarly papers that make it to publication are later proven to be wrong. We tend to only publish surprising results. So don't pretend that science has this big "book of truth" that they let the rest of us peek at from time to time. And that's coming from me, who is very pro-science. To paraphrase, "Science is the worst way of discovering things about the world... except for all the others." Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3) by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:42PM (#61845247) I think a lot of people don't understand that diagnosis of most diseases isn't done through some sort of actual biochemical test, or chemical assay - it's literally "you have X out of Y of these symptoms, so we'll say you have Z". If we were doing medicine like science, diagnoses would have clear falsification criteria. Medicine is an art, practiced by people in white robes. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:14PM (#61845389) Medicine is only an art because it’s messing with the only alien technology we have ever found and it’s far far more advanced than anything humans have ever conceived of yet. Add to it that every person is different, with different responses to the same treatments/medications and it does require some “art” but that’s only because we lack understanding and information and will fade away as we make progress. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0, Troll) by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:44PM (#61844613) Like the science that says the most vaccinated countries in the world aren't seeing any slowdown in covid cases? Or that proves over the last 2 years of data that mask mandates and lockdowns didn't make a difference in overall pandemic trajectory between countries or states? You aren't practicing science, you're practicing religion and calling it science. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful) by Fatalintent ( 7507602 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:42PM (#61844951) I think the disagreement here is you have people that absolutely believe the science they are told is the real science is the real science. Don't forget, when Trump was in office most of the climate change information was stripped from the official website. Was that misinformation then? Now that it is coming back is considered real information and not misinformation? Remember when meshes came out for hernias. The science and studies showed they were safe. Now there are lawsuits galore because they arent. What about pfizers latest recall their anti smoking drug. Did it not go through FDA channels and get approved? That means the science said it was safe. Now it is being recalled because it causes cancer. REAL science is meant to be questioned. There is a reason why the theory of relativity, while highly valued is still called a theory and not a fact is because science needs to have open discussion and the findings that come out that do not support the current science need to be analyzed. Desperation to get back to normal does not nullify doing science correctly. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:39PM (#61845235) I, for one, welcome our unfalsifiable overlords. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:44PM (#61845515) There is a reason why the theory of relativity, while highly valued is still called a theory Yes, it's because English has multiple uses for words. Not because there's the doubt you are trying to claim. Also, all your examples of drugs that later caused problems are not vaccines. Because vaccines don't stick around in your system to cause the problems you're trying to link them to. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:43PM (#61845983) Also, all your examples of drugs that later caused problems are not vaccines. Because vaccines don't stick around in your system to cause the problems you're trying to link them to. Are you saying we the drug companies cannot go wrong with vaccines but can with other drugs, that seem silly there well may be unforeseen side effects. If they are guaranteed safe and we know what will happen, why even waste our time testing, just make the vaccine and give it to people. The answer is we don't know what will happen, the body is complicated. I can't even be sure what a change to a computer program will do so I always test every change, and that is far simpler, less variance and we know far more about it than the human body. I believe that the current vaccines are safe to the best of our knowledge, which is the best we can ever get, but it does not mean we need to ban the questioning of them. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Maxo-Texas ( 864189 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:22PM (#61846471) FYI... Excerpts from "Scientific Law vs. Theory: How Are They Different?" When reviewing scientific research or information about the world around you, it's important to know how to separate scientific law from theory. These closely related terms are similar yet not the same. Discover that both are equally important components of the scientific method as you explore scientific law vs. theory. A scientific law focuses solely on describing what. A scientific law provides a description of a directly observable phenomenon. It describes what will or is expected to happen in a certain set of circumstances. What is a scientific theory explores why. A theory is about underlying causes, seeking to explain the reason the phenomenon occurs. The focus of a theory is to provide a logical explanation for things that occur in nature. There can be more than one theory about the same phenomenon. The law of conservation of energy states that energy can't be created or destroyed. It can only be changed into a different form or transferred to another object. This "law" describes a phenomenon, but does not seek to provide a reason that the phenomenon occurs. atomic theory - Atomic theory indicates that all matter is made up of atoms, which are microscopic particles that cannot be divided, created or destroyed. It explains why substances composed of one element (such as pure gold) are different from items that consist of multiple elements (such as a metal alloy). This "theory" explains *why*... This is also pretty good: https://thehappyscientist.com/... [thehappyscientist.com] (answer- never... because given proper definitions, the question is nonsensical" Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:-1) by Guildor_sm ( 6446612 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:06PM (#61848045) people have short memories. We've developed vaccines in the past that have gone on to do unthinkable damage, and death. Only after the CDC/FDA regulation, distribution (and drive for profit) does it finally get banned. Here's one example right from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previ... [cdc.gov] We're human, we make mistakes. Our mistakes should not be hidden when it affects the lives of others, and even more so when you're talking about the public / general population. Vaccines should not be administered without telling the truth! In the UK for instance, our Health and Safety Execitive have admitted that more people have died of Covid after receiveing one or more jabs, than those who have not had any jabs. Does that sound like the vaccines work to you? But this fact burried in statistics would likely be removed from youtube, thanks to this fascist dictatorship by the powers that be. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:37PM (#61846525) climate change is a natural cycle the earth has. the misinformation come from agenda based groups who love to use that as a excuse to push bad policy's. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by drn8 ( 883816 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @02:59PM (#61848679) The Chantix recall is for some recent batches that may have been tainted with an impurity during manufacturing. The drug is still approved and it has no bearing on the safety of Chantix over the 15 years it's been on the market. https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by Chas ( 5144 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:15PM (#61844803) Homepage Journal #BranchCovidians Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:20PM (#61845661) Homepage Lol your references are ancient. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:39PM (#61845497) Maybe the most vaccinated countries aren't seeing a slowdown because their rates are already very low. Only the countries doing really badly can see huge improvements. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:55PM (#61845025) Journal But... That's censorship! Give people the "facts" about blood-letting and let them make their own choice! Big science wants to run barbershop surgeons out of business. Follow the money, sheeple! Why do you hate freedom? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:52PM (#61846013) Why not really, do you see a run on people doing blood letting if that happen, if people are that stupid then perhaps they deserve what they get. If you cannot convince people that blood letting is bad then perhaps that is an indicator of how little people trust you. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:40PM (#61846175) Journal You're putting the blame in the wrong place. It ought to be on the people spreading the false information! The reason a lot of these people don't trust legitimate sources is because they've been told not to trust them by charismatic conspiracy peddlers. I'm not clear on the psychology, but I understand that it has something to do with making the otherwise powerless victim feel like they're important because they have secret knowledge that others don't have. Evil assholes take advantage of that vulnerability to build their little misinformation cults. Bloodletting isn't that far off the mark. There are people taking so much livestock dewormer that they're shedding their intestinal lining. They feel awful but they still keep eating horse paste. They think they feel like crap because their body is "getting rid of 'toxins'" and that's just how it feels. They think the bits of their intestinal lining they're leaving in the commode are really "rope worms" and see it as a sign that the treatment is working! (Rope worms aren't even a real parasite!) Misinformation is very obviously harming them, but they can't break free because they only trust the guys who told them to eat poison and trust no one else! Worse, they think that they're the ones who have a lock on the truth! I'm not going to accept blame for that. I've never given them a reason not to trust me and I've always told them the truth. The only people at fault here are the conspiracy peddlers and the right-wing media outlets that lend them credibility. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:25PM (#61844505) Big media and tech have choose to side with the state instead of the people. They've sided with their sponsors, who would very much like to see this pandemic end so they can get back to making money. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:05PM (#61844753) And the pharmaceutical companies who would be thrilled with selling a new shot that you're required by The State to take every six months for the rest of your life. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:4, Insightful) by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:21PM (#61844825) Big media and tech have choose to side with the state instead of the people. Big media and big tech side with themselves and their profits, not the state (spoiler; they hate the state!) And it turns out that killing your users is terrible for profit. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:5, Insightful) by hackertourist ( 2202674 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:18PM (#61845107) Either you can openly discuss things and have different viewpoints allowing individuals to decide for themselves Except that's not what's happening here. Instead of discussion, we get people being led down gradual, but increasingly-crazy rabbitholes by algorithms designed to increase 'engagement'. We get whole sections of society so infected by nonsense they've become immune to any sort of rational argument. Open discussion is failing to curb this, so sane, rational people are looking for different avenues to stem this tsunami of bullshit that's rolling over us. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:44PM (#61845257) What if you're the one infected, and you've become immune to rational argument? How would you know? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:07PM (#61845359) Homepage Journal Not in the case of public health. It's one thing if someone doesn't understand something and it gets them killed, it's another if their ignorance and rejection of expert advice gets YOU killed. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by Kitkoan ( 1719118 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:10PM (#61846085) The issue here isn't that we aren't talking about different opinions, we are talking about facts. There aren't different viewpoints to reality. You can try to declare that water isn't wet all you want, but the facts are it is wet, its not someones viewpoint, its not some state controlled idea, its not some conspiracy theory, or shadowing group trying to control, etc... Its facts. And thats what this is about, making sure that people are given facts and not some rando hearsay that can lead them to no longer have the real facts to make real decisions. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:02PM (#61844739) If what Trump says is True then it isn't Disinformation. However Trump has a habit of lying, or at least saying to his base what he thinks they want to hear, despite how factual it is. The thing is, this is verifiable incorrect data that is being spread, it is not a political opinion, it is just wrong information meant to deceive us. How do I know, well I work with the actual raw data, and I personally know and trust the others who provide such data up. The thing is, Vaccines are Safe and Effective. Not getting them will put you in much more danger. The Vaccine isn't new technology pulled out of someones Ass but from 20 years of research, into the mRNA. Those who are Vaccinated, are under a 10% chance on catching Covid (And NOT SPREADING IT OTHERS) of those who catch Covid have much lighter symptoms on the whole, and are generally much safer from compilations. This isn't from CNN or MSNBC, but looking at the Data. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:3) by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:49PM (#61845285) You're confusing group risk with individual risk. Yes, it is better for the group that 1 in a million children die from any given vaccine. But for that one child, it's a pretty shitty outcome. If you're going to push vaccines, be honest - "Vaccines might fuck you up, but on average, fucking you up is a price our society is willing to pay to keep a bunch of other people, who aren't you, safe". Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by AndThenThereIsThis ( 7314166 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:06PM (#61845355) DATA is questionable since it was never verified that the person receiving the treatment didn't already have natural immunity. Given the way the treatment was administered in most of the world, there is no way to know if the effectivity of the treatment was from the treatment or an already existing natural immunity. The bug was running free, in the wild, for well over a year. Millions acquired immunity in the traditional manner long before the treatment being glorified was available; there were also other proven effective treatments available before emergency use was granted so that whole fiasco is bogus as well. Any data showing effectiveness of the treatment is dubious, at best, since the baseline was never verified; unbelievably sloppy... Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:22PM (#61844489) Once you censor and once you give up or take away freedoms, you don't get them back. This has nothing to do with giving up freedoms. Did you miss the part where this being done by YouTube, not the government? They can pull your video for any reason, it's being hosted on their dime. Don't like it? Host your anti-vaxx videos on your own site. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:07PM (#61844771) Stop pretending that there's a difference between trillion-dollar oligopolies and the government. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:59PM (#61845043) Journal They don't understand the simple fact that not all censorship is nefarious. I'm really glad that we don't let, for example, food companies lie about their ingredients. Lying can cause serious harm. I don't see why things should be any different when it comes to vaccine misinformation. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by hsthompson69 ( 1674722 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:47PM (#61845271) In california, you can lie about your HIV status, and have unprotected sex with someone, infect them, and be held harmless. So, yes, lying can cause serious harm. For bonus points, you'll realize that telling the truth can also cause serious harm :) Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:50PM (#61845301) They don't understand the simple fact that not all censorship is nefarious. Freedom of speech sucks less than the alternatives. People are inherently shitheads. When you give shitheads power they turn into even bigger shitheads. I'm really glad that we don't let, for example, food companies lie about their ingredients. 0g trans fat Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:25PM (#61846481) YouTube is for practical purposes a monopoly. If YouTube prohibits display of a video, it is just as effective as government-imposed censorship. YouTube and others have removed well-documented information regarding COVID, for instance medicines used to treat COVID in poorer countries. There are better approaches to handling statements that YouTube personnel believe to be bad or inappropriate. YouTube requires proof of age for viewing some sexual material. YouTube could post warnings on controversial pages or even overlay warnings on the video. YouTube is handling the issue poorly. Government may not be imposing censorship, but YouTube is under continuing pressure from both the public and government to behave in a restrictive manner. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:40PM (#61846533) stop pretending the government isnt telling these company what to do. they have been cought telling Facebook what to censer. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:01PM (#61845051) Journal Sounds like the classic slippery-slope fallacy. Both directions can slippery-slope out of control if managed poorly. Freedom to troll can also slippery slope into really bad problems. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:36PM (#61845491) What freedoms are being taken away? Do you have the freedom to force someone to publish your speech? What about the freedom to control your own platform? What about Google's freedom of speech? Freedom of speech means the government can't censor you. It doesn't mean that everyone has to be your soapbox. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by ewibble ( 1655195 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:28PM (#61845937) Youtube is not everyone they are a major media organization, that is refusing publish any feedback against government approved vaccine. Let me make this clear, I have had both doses, I think everybody that is eligible should get vaccinated, however if people are stopped from commenting on these platforms I will no longer believe anything posted that site. They have made their position clear we don't allow questioning of the information we present, so the the information you present is useless to me. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by TsuruchiBrian ( 2731979 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:38PM (#61846361) So being a major media organization means you are obligated to publish everyone's speech, even speech you disagree with? Fox News is a major media organization. Should they be forced to publish my content? Science journals control what they publish. So if science journals don't publish flat earth conspiracy theories does that make them useless because their globe earth narratives "are not allowed to be questioned"? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @10:14PM (#61846727) Under laws in the EU they would have to present balanced arguments. Science journals are well known for rejecting landmark papers in various fields. Flag as Inappropriate Re: Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:-1, Troll) by Oxycontinental ( 6078752 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:33AM (#61844223) Here in canada, dissinformation is anything that the establishment do not like. Recently they are muzzling doctors if they are not towing the covid line. Flag as Inappropriate Re: Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Alypius ( 3606369 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:40PM (#61845241) It's not different south of your border. Flag as Inappropriate Alberta? No doctors are muzzled there. (Score:2) by smap77 ( 1022907 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:28AM (#61846919) In Alberta they just keep finding coat closets to turn into ICUs to keep their ICU utilization stats below 100%. Who needs to muzzle doctors when the provincial governor can just make up new ICU capacity? Similar disinformation tactics to Florida, but different. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by usedtobestine ( 7476084 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:43AM (#61844261) I can't wait until they start applying this to everything else. Once they apply it to Thalidomide we can all forget the horrible birth defects it caused in the 1950's. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:05PM (#61844395) It seems like only a year ago the same "Authorities" were saying completely opposite things than they do today. Is their "misinformation" from a year ago being banned? No, back then the people now proven to be correct were the ones banned. Shame on you. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:59PM (#61844709) So give a single example of where the same "Authorities" were saying completely opposite things about the vaccines than they do today. A single one. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:22PM (#61844835) OK: "Anthony S. Fauci, the government’s leading infectious-disease expert, told Axios that the public is misinterpreting the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s announcement last week that fully vaccinated people can go without masks indoors." https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:26PM (#61844869) That is not different information on the vaccine, that is a difference in policy for masks. Try again. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:34PM (#61844905) Have you forgotten the experts telling us the mandates would end once the vaccine arrived? Average people are aware of 'gaslighting' now, the damage you're doing to your side is immeasurable. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:45PM (#61844967) Still zero to do with the vaccine and everything to do with policies. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:22PM (#61844839) Nobody disagrees that disinformation is a public nuisance. Who do you want to decide what disinformation is? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by Kisai ( 213879 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:49PM (#61844995) It depends. There's three tiers of information out there. 1. Public information that is scientifically accurate, and sometimes just needs to be uncovered. 2. Fictional information that is is intended to mislead and usually results in someone benefiting from it 3. Fictional information that is not intended to mislead and obvious to anyone who can speak the language it's written in. Most public information that is public, will be the same no matter who talks about it. Fictional information that is intended to mislead will be be inaccurate, even when it comes from the same person. Because it rapidly falls apart as the person trying to mislead doesn't actually have anything solid. Fictional information that is not intended to mislead (eg satire) is plainly obvious and anyone who speaks the same language as the information can clearly see that it's satire at some level and not likely cause any confusion. The problem comes in when people treat vaccine misinformation the same way the treat flat-earthers, creationists, young-earthers, where at first it seems like it's the third category, satire, but turns out the misinformation is extremely misguided, harmful and no longer satire. It's that kind of mixing of satire and mistruth that results in these things persisting for as long as they do. Vaccines do not cause autism. Autisim is caused entirely by toxic environments in the prenatal stage to the best of our knowledge, and that results in changes in genes that favor survival over typical development. It's not like autism doesn't exist in other mammals, we just don't know what it looks like in other mammals. For all we know wolves are "normal" canids and most pet "dogs" that can be trained are autistic. Meanwhile any other animal we've domesticated (eg cats, foxes, birds) don't exhibit this desire to learn. Cats and Foxes in particular can learn to "behave" like a dog, but they still possess their survival instincts. Pet dogs however, especially dogs that have been bred to be props (like Pugs, Chihuahua's and fluffy dogs like Lhasa Apso and Pomeranians) wouldn't survive a week outside without any humans around. But I digress, the entire spectrum of neuro-divergency can't be summed up with a single lone cause. We know toxicity in the environment plays a part because of how much people smoked up until the 90's. However you can quite literately find photos and streamers on the internet who are smoking and drinking while pregnant. Most children born of parents who smoke or drink experience some level of ND, because they consumed substances in the time up to conception to birth. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:0) by ChrisMaple ( 607946 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:36PM (#61846523) Do a search for feral chihuahua. They might not survive in the wilderness, but they survive as scavengers in cities. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by danda ( 11343 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:40PM (#61845761) Disinformation has become a public nuisance. It's killing people. So why isn't slashdot banned from the internet long ago then? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Aubz ( 7986666 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:47PM (#61845783) Moronic. Informed consent requires being informed about the issue in question. Denying people access to information takes away the possibility of being informed. Who the f#ck do the pinheads in charge of YouTube think they are, my mother? Didn't the CEO of YouTube give herself a free speech award a few months ago? What a joke. The vaccines are safe, just ask the loved ones of the more than 15000 dead, according to VAERS, in the US and over 25000 dead in the EU, excluding the UK, according to EU EudraVigilance system. It might be noted that VAERS figures have been estimated to only record between one 10% and 1% of actual casualties. Go here for some interesting links, if you actually want to be informed https://linkfiend.com/ [linkfiend.com] else take the vaccine and good luck to you Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by superdave80 ( 1226592 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:51PM (#61846009) Nope, I couldn't disagree with you more. If people want to get medical advice from GODDAMN YOUTUBE(!!!) when you can go talk to an actual doctor (or lookup REAL information about vaccines from reputable sources), then let them. I'm tired of having everything made super-duper extra safe for the dumb people of this world. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:2) by labnet ( 457441 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:56PM (#61846033) I’m so disappointed you were modded 5. Back in the day, /. Would defend to the death freedom of information. Censoring turns to tyranny of truth. Don’t send ideas underground, let them out in the open where they can be challenged. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:34PM (#61846519) so they better delete every news channel on youtube. the media has done nothing but lie and had facts about covid. with so called safety that killed more people then the virus ever could. the fact 80% of those in hospital now took that so called vaccine. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by a-zA-Z0-9etc ( 6394646 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @08:05AM (#61847429) Homepage The replies to that simple statement have been informative all on their own. All sorts of nonsense to read here, including people who think I'm a Democratic and therefore wouldn't believe in facts if Trump spoke them, or those who list long debunked nonsense about "victims" of vaccination, or that doctors are "muzzled" or even those who decide bring their nonsensical views about not believing in anthropomorphic climate change as if that will throw light on the situation with Covid. It's disappointing, frankly. I thought Slashdot readers had a bit more sense than this. BTW, I'm not a Democrat or a Republican. I'm also not a US citizen nor a resident of that country, and I would not want to be one. You literally couldn't pay me enough to move to the US (and yes, I have turned down offers). So no, this has nothing at all to do with your partisan politics, nothing to do with "Russiagate" and nothing to do with whether or not you think there was an attempted coup on January 6th. It's just to do with facts about a deadly pandemic which is out there killing people worldwide while it also doesn't care about your partisan politics. I'm really really fed up with watching people express belief in utter nonsense. Misinformation, including here on Slashdot, and including that which seeks to paint anyone who actually believes in facts as some kind of partisan troll, is a scourge. Covid is slowly working its way up the list of most deadly pandemics of all time (currently its in seventh place [wikipedia.org]) and it has been helped the entire way by people attempting to argue such utter nonsense as that it doesn't exists at all. Get a grip, people. We can end this, but not through misinformation. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Good. It's about time that they did this. (Score:1) by Methadras ( 1912048 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:59PM (#61849789) No it doesn't. That's absurd hyperbole. The shouting fire in a crowded theater argument is wrong, old, tired and a lie. Stop using it. Also, you is the arbiter of determining what misinformation is vs disinformation? Are you going to hold people liable for their opinions whether you like them or not? Flag as Inappropriate Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:44AM (#61844267) Remember all the various things we called "misinformation" over the past couple years which turned out to be true? Imagine what they might block in pursuit of "The Truth" which will actually be true. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2, Troll) by mspohr ( 589790 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:50AM (#61844299) Ah yes, good that we now know that smoking is good for you; bacon is good for you; climate change doesn't exist and even if it exists it will make life better for everyone; and the Earth is flat. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1, Informative) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:07PM (#61844407) I think he's referring to things like Fauci telling us all how ineffective masks are, the current Vice-President telling people to not trust the vaccine, etc, etc. But you knew that. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:3) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:43PM (#61844609) Homepage “I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump” on the reliability of a vaccine, Harris said. The California senator, however, added that she would trust a “credible” source who could vouch that a vaccine was safe for Americans to receive. https://www.politico.com/news/... [politico.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:03PM (#61844745) Now due the lab leak theory. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by JackieBrown ( 987087 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:06PM (#61844759) You're reaching. If Trump was president and not credible, why would the people he hired have credibility? She was attacking the entire system with her comments. And that was her right to do so but stop acting like she was saying anything different unless you honestly think she was stupid enough to think Trump was in the labs making the vaccines. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by inode_buddha ( 576844 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:28PM (#61845181) Journal "You're reaching. If Trump was president and not credible, why would the people he hired have credibility?" How about because they have advanced degrees and publications in their respective fields? And decades of experience? The only thing a President needs is to win the correct popularity contest every 4 years. They can then surround themselves with subject-matter experts in their Cabinet. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by apocalyptic_mystic ( 7890132 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:24PM (#61845675) But they aren't people he hired. Dr. Fauci, for instance, has had his current position since the Reagan administration. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:20PM (#61845117) Journal You're so full of shit. Harris said nothing of the sort. All she said was that she wouldn't trust Donnie's word alone, and that we should instead listen to the experts. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:3) by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:02PM (#61845843) Remember all the various things we called "misinformation" over the past couple years which turned out to be true? Could you be specific? I only know of one lie (of tens of thousands) that happened to collide with a possible truth. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:42PM (#61844597) Homepage So head over to BitChute if you don't like YouTube. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:11PM (#61844785) Ah, yes. Separate but equal. Now to the back of of the bus you go - and don't even think about stopping at that water fountain, the one designated for your kind is hidden away over there.... I think I've seen this movie before... Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2) by Whorhay ( 1319089 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:19PM (#61844819) I think you're deliberately misunderstanding the issue here. If you want to drink from the Youtube fountain you're perfectly welcome. If you'd like to take a shit in it then you shouldn't really be surprised when you're kept away from it. Apparently there is a Bitchute fountain that encourages shitting in it though. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:25PM (#61844851) There's that Segregationist attitude I was hoping for! You're so much better than the 'unclean' amirite! Superior, even! Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:20PM (#61845121) There's that Segregationist attitude I was hoping for! You're so much better than the 'unclean' amirite! Superior, even! Dunno about the OP but I'm suppressionist, not segregationist. I'm definitely much better than the 'unclean'. Presumably that includes you. Yes, I am better than you. Much better than you. In every possible way. Deal with it. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2) by Whorhay ( 1319089 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:10PM (#61845373) Segregation is really only wrong and a problem when it's based on immutable characteristics, or things that ultimately are not of concern for a society. People crying about being suppressed/censored because they are choosing to "go full retard" deserve no mercy or quarter. Segregation in the USA and elsewhere has almost always revolved around ancestry. But good job trying to reframe your self imposed suffering based on deplorable choices, as being on the level of people persecuted for who their ancestors were. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:39PM (#61844931) Homepage Brighter individuals would say this is the free market at work. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:48PM (#61844989) No, only very stupid individuals would say that. There's no place for trillion-dollar oligopolies controlling speech in a free-market. I will continue to champion those folks' right to be very stupid though. Such is the price of freedom. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:27PM (#61845171) Homepage Great, I'm looking forward to Parler (or whatever is left of them) allowing Ilhan Omar and AOC to post on their platform. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:18PM (#61845111) Journal Remember all the various things we called "misinformation" over the past couple years which turned out to be true? Who is this "we"? I only remember one crazy old guy shouting about how the news was 'fake'. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2) by im_thatoneguy ( 819432 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:37PM (#61845225) So NBC News should be legally required to give air time to every random conspiracy nut that comes out of the woodwork with a theory? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:13PM (#61845385) Homepage Journal The difference is the harm that is being done here. If there had been less misinformation spread about COVID then it's likely that hundreds of thousands of people would still be alive. If a terrorist organization killed hundreds of thousands of people you would want something done about it. When it's Tucker Carlson and Fox News doing it, apparently that's fine. Some of the prominent anti-vaxxers word's have been far more deadly than any bomb, any hijacked aircraft. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by Jastiv ( 958017 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:22AM (#61847871) Homepage Again, this is under the assumption that human life = good. That is a religious argument. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:1) by onefriedrice ( 1171917 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:41PM (#61845979) The Party members didn't mind censorship. Censorship makes us feel safe and comfortable. "Please Big Brother, tell me what I should think. Don't let me see opposing viewpoints that might confuse me. I love you Big Brother." I did at one point believe that Americans would always reject censorship on the scale we're talking about. That was before I actually read "1984" (it wasn't required reading in my cohort) et al. and came to better understand the effects that a concerted propaganda campaign can have on the minds of people. So I'm not surprised to see many -- probably the majority -- of people here clamoring for more censorship. Despite that, I was very surprised how apparently easy it was for the powers that be to manipulate people to the point we see now. How quickly they were able to get people to beg corporations to only allow state-sanctioned speech. Lest they possibly hear ideas or an argument that makes them feel uncomfortable. Even people that rightly opposed the Patriot Act which was enacted under the guise of protecting the public from scary terrorists, those same people today use the same rationale to justify censorship. "We have to protect ourselves from the scary virus after all." Well as dumb or corrupt as the people were who argued for the Patriot Act, at least they didn't make it their mission to shut down opposing ideas. This is a level of fascism that AFAIK we haven't seen in America. Eventually everyone in America will be in only one of two camps that don't necessarily align with political parties: people and sheeple. Those who think for themselves, and those who are conditioned to bleat for a corporate state to make them feel safe. PS- I don't mind sharing that I'm vaccinated. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Ministry of Truth, here we come (Score:2) by kwalker ( 1383 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:28PM (#61846491) Journal Remember all the various things we called "misinformation" over the past couple years which turned out to be true? Imagine what they might block in pursuit of "The Truth" which will actually be true. No, no I don't. All what things? I do remember a boatload of things that were called truth at the time, but turned out not to be. Flag as Inappropriate ...after 3 years (Score:5, Insightful) by gurps_npc ( 621217 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:54AM (#61844327) Homepage It's not just about removal, it's about timely removal. They need to remove these as fast as they remove copyright claims. Flag as Inappropriate Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:3, Insightful) by iamnotx0r ( 7683968 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:58AM (#61844347) When the bullpucky from all this clears in 20 years. I bet no 40 to 60 year old(in 20 years) will admit they were ever on the wrong side. Be careful of what you think you agree with. Make sure you are not being propagandized and just one of the lemmings that thinks they know(from perceived free will). Almost all censorship, and agreeing with it, is long term terrible for a society. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:5, Insightful) by Powercntrl ( 458442 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:39PM (#61844583) You're still free to share whatever bullshit tickles your fancy, you just have to do it on your own dime. As in, how it used to work throughout most of human history since the invention of the written word. It's still free to stand on a street corner and hold up a sign. That costs nothing but your time (and possibly your dignity). It's amazing how many people believe they have some sort of God-given right to put their shit on someone else's privately-owned computer(s). Flag as Inappropriate Ignorant. (Score:3) by twocows ( 1216842 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:54PM (#61846683) This is misleading at best and ignores reality at worst. When you have just about every single major corporation at every step of the chain, from the platform providers to the payment processors to the infrastructure providers to the policy makers, working in tandem to, in their own words, "deplatform" people whose opinions they don't like, it's not a simple matter of paying for your own platform. They literally will not LET you do that. The fact that they are presently using this power for what seems to be benevolent purposes is not germane to the problem: they should not have this power. If you want to talk about street corner analogies, here's the actual analogous situation: the people who want to silence your message own the street corner, the materials required to build signs, the world's leading sign-designers and billions of dollars of research in making a better and more attractive sign than yours, AND they have tracking and analytics built into every car passing by so that they know what people want and how best to appeal to their insecurities. You, on the other hand, have passion and nowhere to direct it. If they don't like what you're saying, you won't have the means to make a sign, let alone a street corner to stand on. I don't really mind the platform providers having this power, honestly. It's bad, but it's not the worst. The worst are the ones further down the chain: payment processors, infrastructure providers, etc. They should be regulated as backbone providers and should have no say whatsoever over who can or can't use their services short of failure to pay or criminal activity. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:2) by Waccoon ( 1186667 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @10:04PM (#61846699) It's amazing how many people believe they have some sort of God-given right to put their shit on someone else's privately-owned computer(s). Absolutely. Just read an EULA sometime. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:2) by Omega Hacker ( 6676 ) <omega@nosPAM.omegacs.net> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:46PM (#61844637) <quote>When the bullpucky from all this clears in 20 years. I bet no 40 to 60 year old(in 20 years) will admit they were ever on the wrong side.</quote> Nope, because if they follow this approach to it's logical conclusion, between COVID and whatever else happens in the next 20yrs, they'll be mostly dead anyway and thus unable to admit they were wrong. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:3) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:48PM (#61844647) Homepage Plenty of other video hosting sites for you to choose from. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship by Corporations. Who'd a thunk it. (Score:2) by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:27PM (#61845695) Almost all censorship, and agreeing with it, is long term terrible for a society. Not being given a platform is not the same thing as being censored. You're not entitled to force someone to listen to your bullshit. Flag as Inappropriate Why can't denialists claim it was all BS forever? (Score:2) by UpnAtom ( 551727 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @10:05PM (#61846707) Homepage Unless they actually get a bad case of COVID, can't they just lie to themselves about it forever? At this point, their ego is so invested in lies that it's going to hurt like hell to admit they were wrong. And this isn't like Brexit where you can't get petrol this week, and you couldn't get a blood test last week. Unless something bad happens to you or someone you care about, why bother with the truth? Flag as Inappropriate People use youtube for information? (Score:5, Insightful) by mveloso ( 325617 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:00PM (#61844359) It's incredible that society has progressed so far that people are taking medical advice from random people on a video website that was mainly known for cat videos back in the day. Flag as Inappropriate Re: People use youtube for information? (Score:2) by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:22PM (#61844837) Yout watched the news on the same tv station that showed funniest home videos... It's not that different. The problem is critical thinking and education. Flag as Inappropriate Re: People use youtube for information? (Score:1) by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @07:28AM (#61847403) Yout watched the news on the same tv station that showed funniest home videos... It's not that different. The problem is critical thinking and education. There is an enormous difference. It is in fact the same difference as between Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica. One of the sources has a vetting process - on the TV news not everyone can get air time to spew their lies. Most stories will also have a comment from the opposing viewpoint - and that comment is provided by an expert in the field, not some uneducated random person on the street. On Youtube anyone can publish a video; no vetting process, no contrary explanations, no requirements on expertise or experience. Anyone can say anything and pretend to be an expert. Academic circles do not accept Wikipedia as a source on anything, and the public should not accept Youtube as a source on anything. That should be the first result of critical thinking. Flag as Inappropriate Re: People use youtube for information? (Score:2) by IdanceNmyCar ( 7335658 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @01:17PM (#61848311) My point was that youtube is just TV and on a TV channel there were many different types of information. In fact I believe youtube even coop'ed the term "channel" from this context. As for vetting. There are youtube channels that do this with their content, though I think your point about TV news is disingenuous. There is a lot of TV news then and now that only puts opposing views as a talking point, how "radical" those views are from their narrative is limited. News likely was only such in a very relative context for a very small point of time Be it American, Russian, or Chinese news, they are all propoganda of a sort. Likewise even Encyclopaedia Britannica is a rather sad source of information. Encyclopaedia Britannica is built of the research of others, just as Wikipedia is, and in both cases if you are publishing in academia, you do not cite either but instead if you do cite anything related to them, you cite their sources. This is the nature of the beast with academia, which I myself have been in and in that time never saw either referenced. We agree Youtube should not be accepted as a source for anything but what my point was about and where we seem to disagree is that the transition towards youtube being a source is TV. A pattern was created and people embraced it without question. Now leaders and educated individuals are asking how to deal with the issue but the resolution of the problem relies first on understanding how it developed. Flag as Inappropriate Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2) by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:35PM (#61844907) Hey, I use it for finding out what the election results will be before the election! https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2) by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:36PM (#61844919) Hey, I use it for finding out what the election results will be before the election! https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] I hope I don't need to point out this is a joke... Flag as Inappropriate Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2) by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:45PM (#61844965) Journal Youtube is unfortunately good for a lot of informational things. If you want to BBQ or a car repair, there are plenty of tutorials. I say unfortunately because I don't like watching a whole video when I can read a transcript much faster. Flag as Inappropriate Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2) by Drethon ( 1445051 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:47PM (#61844983) Youtube is unfortunately good for a lot of informational things. If you want to BBQ or a car repair, there are plenty of tutorials. I say unfortunately because I don't like watching a whole video when I can read a transcript much faster. This is my problem with all the video news articles I chose to ignore these days. Flag as Inappropriate Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:1) by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:14PM (#61845095) Journal Youtube is unfortunately good for a lot of informational things. If you want to BBQ or a car repair, there are plenty of tutorials... Even those are sometimes dodgy, as they can give wrong advice that makes your car crash or poisons your food, like cooking your food in plastic. I'm surprised there hasn't been more lawsuits. Flag as Inappropriate Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2) by J-1000 ( 869558 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:34PM (#61845217) YouTube is a platform, not a single source of information. Implying that it's not a credible source is akin to saying the local library isn't a credible source. This reminds me of the posts one used to see a lot of back in the day scoffing at Wikipedia. Flag as Inappropriate Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2) by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:28PM (#61845701) It's incredible that society has progressed so far What makes you think that people believing quackery is in any way new or an example of society progressing? This shit is as old as time itself, the only thing new is we have a platform for people to share it with the world. Flag as Inappropriate Re:People use youtube for information? (Score:2) by Micah NC ( 5616634 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:41PM (#61848175) Thirty years ago people had more confidence in the "experts" Flag as Inappropriate we have tough choices to make (Score:4, Insightful) by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:00PM (#61844363) gonna have a tough choice, do we want for-profit companies deciding what's right and wrong? do we want gov't deciding? sure, we might cherry pick some times when that appears to be the right choice, but how many times in history can we also point to times when the minority voice turns out to be right? there is no 100% solution to many/most complex issues of humanity, only tradeoffs; so to take a big-picture tack, if I have to choose between... empowering and depending upon the common person to decide for themselves how to best determine their pursuit of happiness -- or -- empowering 3rd parties -- just as imbued with all the human failings an individual has -- to decide for others .... for me, I put my faith in the individual, not some distant and disinterested 3rd party; is it perfect? no, but that's not a reasonable expectation anyway; I just have faith that in the long run, it's best now before some on-the-spectrum pedant starts bashing their keyboard to set me straight, let me be clear that I'm not an anarchist or somebody that thinks gov't has no place anywhere; I know it's not an all-or-nothing proposition, but I do want to make sure we are careful when we move to disempower the individual, which is what happens when anybody or anything makes decisions for them from the individual's perspective, gov't is good for only a handful of things; but it seems in the last few generations we've come to think it's the best place solve humanity's problems and the price for that is the disempowerment of the individual... pretty steep price for the capitulation of personal responsibility Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:3) by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:53PM (#61844675) from the individual's perspective, gov't is good for only a handful of things; but it seems in the last few generations we've come to think it's the best place solve humanity's problems and the price for that is the disempowerment of the individual... pretty steep price for the capitulation of personal responsibility It's true. What has government ever really done for us? All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, public health (i.e. National Health Systems in every developed country other than the US), education, public order, roads (the US interstate system), what has government ever done for us? -- Brought peace (the proportion of people dying violent deaths has been dropping steadily over the past millenia, hand in hand with civic structures). Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:06PM (#61844761) your arguing against a point I never made and don't see yourself as an on-the-spectrum contrarian obstructionist yes, you're exceptional, so in your case, some 3rd party making decisions for you is the way to go Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:4, Insightful) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:56PM (#61844691) gonna have a tough choice, do we want for-profit companies deciding what's right and wrong? do we want gov't deciding? sure, we might cherry pick some times when that appears to be the right choice, but how many times in history can we also point to times when the minority voice turns out to be right? No but people forget that YouTube is not a public utility. YouTube is not part of the government. They are part of Google which is a for profit company who gets to decide what people can and cannot do on their platform. That is the nature of capitalism. Flag as Inappropriate Jail med trolls, send a message (Score:4, Insightful) by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:55PM (#61845027) Journal In my opinion medical info is too important to let yahoos lie. If we need to shore up the medical info evaluation procedure, then so be it. A consolation prize is to increase the legal penalties and enforcement on med liars and context manipulators. For example, if you present the opinion of an outlier doctor, you have to clearly state it's an outlier opinion. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Jail med trolls, send a message (Score:1) by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @10:58AM (#61847793) Homepage Journal For example, if you present the opinion of an outlier doctor, you have to clearly state it's an outlier opinion. Just because a doctor is an outlier doesn't mean that doctor is wrong. Ignaz Semmelweis and Louis Pasteur were outliers but they were also right. Should they have been jailed? You're not advocating for science. You're advocating for totalitarianism and using science as the justification. LK Flag as Inappropriate Re: we have tough choices to make (Score:1) by knaapie ( 214889 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:59PM (#61844703) Homepage I agree with a lot in your comment, but I fail to see what an on-the-spectrum person has to do with anything you say. Disrespect to people without any reason doesnâ(TM)t really help bring across your argument. Flag as Inappropriate Re: we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:26PM (#61844855) lol, yes, I thought about that, went with it anyway; apologies to the unintentionally harmed however, my point against tangential reponses whose only intent is to impede based on foolish minutia and pedantics stands; turns out that in my experience folks on the spectrum do that more than others; I might be more qualified to know than you think it's just a way to get my digs in early from some of the more dipshit replies I'll be getting (not yours) Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by J-1000 ( 869558 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:39PM (#61845237) Tough choices indeed. Let's say the government chose to mandate that all these companies allow anything that falls under "free speech". Well then you can't have some things we take for granted, like a space for children's content. Heck could you even have curated lists at all, for any reason? "Free speech, man." YouTube should be allowed to do this, as painful as that may be. If we feel their influence is too great, then throw the anti-trust book at them until that influence is diminished. Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:34PM (#61845475) That's a false dilemma. You can have free speech without having the right to say it to people who don't want to listen. What children sees should be controlled by parents. That's a viewer-side self-restriction, which is different from the platform blocking all non-child-friendly content even for people who want to see it. As an adult, I would be perfectly fine if social media companies gave us options or filter lists that we can select for ourselves. I don't want to see gore, so I would enable a filter for those. However, I'm not concerned about vaccine misinformation, so I would like to be able to disable the filter for those. Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by J-1000 ( 869558 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:05PM (#61845857) That's a viewer-side self-restriction, which is different from the platform blocking all non-child-friendly content even for people who want to see it. PBS Kids refuses to publish non-child-friendly content. Should we be upset with them? Having government say "you MUST allow this content" is worse than having them say you can't. Much worse. Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by J-1000 ( 869558 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:07PM (#61845867) Ignore "much worse" for now, as it detracts from the point. The point is, it's bad. Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:54PM (#61846231) PBS Kids is not a generic platform for video hosting. They don't support 30 million creators and billions of users. In fact they don't allow user generated content at all. Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:46PM (#61845267) gonna have a tough choice, do we want for-profit companies deciding what's right and wrong? do we want gov't deciding? If by 'we' you mean Americans then I have bad news for you. The Supreme Court of the United States has already decided that for-profit companies get to publish or not publish what other people give them, entirely at their own discretion. SCOTUS likes private property rights, especially for for-profit companies. The bigger and more profitable the better. sure, we might cherry pick some times when that appears to be the right choice, but how many times in history can we also point to times when the minority voice turns out to be right? Cherry pick? The Internet has enabled a vast social experiment, where all the voices are allowed to be heard, and even amplified to a degree never before possible in human history. And what have we learned? That the minority voice is so absurdly wrong all of the time that it's laughable. Which we already knew, if you're one of the people who, you know, talked to people. In person. Before cell phones. Think Hank Hill standing out by the back fence drinking beers with the neighbors down the street. Do you know how often the minority in that group is wrong? Literally every day they talk about something new, one of them says something wrong. And when his buddies try to correct him and the obstinate asshole doubles down, well, it doesn't matter that much. Only two or three people heard him being a moron. Today, two or three million people can hear him being a moron, because fucking Facebook promotes that shit as people in his network try to correct him, which drives 'engagement', which sells ads. Your problem is your underlying assumption: that dissenting assertions are not only somehow magically valid, but frequently correct. You are wrong. Those assertions, expressed as fact, are constantly wrong. They're wrong all the time. They're wrong every day of the week and twice on Sundays. And being in the minority while wrong is not somehow virtuous. It doesn't make them less wrong. It doesn't make them "good people". On the contrary, when public health is involved, it makes them bad people. And they're still wrong. Objective facts do exist, despite post-modernist asshole philosophies to the contrary. Reality is that which continues to exist even when you don't believe in it. Making claims that contradict objective reality is called being wrong. It's a thing that happens. And now it happens on a massive scale, where everybody can see, and bandwagon, and otherwise act like emotion-driven tribalist assholes. This has happened before in human history. It does not end well. Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:18PM (#61845409) not arguing who is right/wrong nor the validity of an assertion, just that the empowerment to decide is best left to the individual based on your statements, it would seem that you think people with a minority voice wrong all or most of the time and therefore unfit for self-determination; tyranny and oppression are founded on the notion that one person/group knows what's best for everyone else; that's another reality about human history that I didn't see mentioned in your response but yet deserves far more than a passing consideration, because it sure doesn't end well either as imperfect as it is, self-determination and free-will sure beat the phukk out of some 3rd party deciding right/wrong, health decisions, morality, etc. for everyone else Flag as Inappropriate "put my faith in the individual" (Score:2) by aepervius ( 535155 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:50PM (#61845291) Yeah well I long stopped putting my faith into individuals. Individual are ignorant (be it due to lack of education or willful rejection), cheats, individuals murder and rape, individual tax cheat, individual mislead other on vaccination (remember the autism kerfufel ? Because a doc which was selling his own alternative pretended to find a link between autism and some vaccine ? How many kids died because they skipped that vaccine ? More than zero - just google it), individual reject sciences, individual do all sort of SHIT because they are not expert and simply follow anybody convincing enough (see debate are not won by the most knowledgeable individual on a subject, but usually by the most charismatic and convincing). Individual think people stole the 2016 elections and you know the follow up on the 6th January insurrection. And I pass many others some with lethal consequences. Some want to err on the side of allowing individual to do stuff freely. Some want individual reigned in when the consequences on innocent third party are strong enough. I am in the second group, I have seen enough people devastated because of "individuals". Even in this very thread we have people spreading misinformation or intentionally (or not) doing false equivocation. Flag as Inappropriate Re:"put my faith in the individual" (Score:2) by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:39PM (#61845751) a fair assessment would include all the benefits of individual self-determination as well as any negatives; individuals have also done amazing and unexpected good things, so to leave them out only because they don't support your view is not honest but in fact, another way to disingenuously influence others, not much different than someone *intentionally and knowingly* spreading lies since the result is the same: decisions made on bad or incomplete info that being said, our choices do have consequences, whether meted out by life in general (like dying from not being vaccinated) or perhaps an entity outside of the individual deems them worthy of punishment (like jail or an ass-whoopin) it's all about who gets to decide, the classic individual vs 'the collective' (in whatever form it takes); the bar for removing self-determination and free-will should, in my book, be extremely high and be done on a case-by-case basis when possible, much like when we have due process to throw someone in jail, which is effectively removing their right of self-determination and free-will and that's the biggest difference between some wholesale censorship or coercion: the aspect of considering the exact circumstances and facts of a specific 'transgression' aren't part of the equation; a one-size-fits-all approach has so many downsides it's hard for me to consider it seriously while giving full import to individual rights it's hard nut to crack, and I'm sure your life experiences make your pov make sense to you.... I would never want to take that from you; but I also don't want to take it from anybody else, even if I thought I was 100% objectively right Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:30PM (#61845713) gonna have a tough choice, do we want for-profit companies deciding what's right and wrong? For their own platform, absolutely. You aren't proposing of depriving a private company the right of association (a right inseparable from that of speech) are you? No one is entitled to force another to give them a platform and a megaphone. Flag as Inappropriate Re:we have tough choices to make (Score:2) by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:55PM (#61845811) you are correct: I am not "proposing of depriving a private company the right of association" and "No one is entitled to force another to give them a platform and a megaphone." whether YT's content is right or wrong is best determined by the individual engaging with it; personal responsibility is what I advocate; private companies are free to run themselves as they see fit; and I have to say it, since somebody will assume otherwise.... all are subject to certain baseline norms, like no fraud or murder or rape, etc ignorance and foolishness, however, are not crimes and thankfully so.... we're all guilty of those at many times in life hope this clears it up Flag as Inappropriate Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:5, Informative) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:01PM (#61844375) This is a terrible idea because it's going to let people with a vested interest set the "facts", regardless how true or valid they're. I'm NOT an Anti-vaxxer, I fully support getting vaccines, but I also support the open expression of information. Can any health "expert", list every possible side effect of the C Vaccine? I'm sure they can list the "approved" side effects, and they can list the "approved" complications, but what if a new complicate or side effect is discovered they won't accept? A good example is a lower abdominal issue I developed 1 week after getting the first shot. It led to 7 ER visits, and a urology visit, but no doctor is will to say "it's related to the C Vaccine", except they can't tell me what caused it, and we've isolated virtually all variables apart from freak occurrence. I got my second shot yesterday, so if it comes back (and it never really went away), then we have a correlation, but if Health Canada won't accept it as a complication, will YouTube allow videos about it? If you've never had infected testicles you're lucky, because they don't just hurt at the moment, the fallout can last a year+, which what I'm going through right now. While it's fine to say it's "Not the C Vaccine", you then have to give me some options on what caused it, because if you don't then you're irrationally throwing out possible correlations. That's why this is dangerous, it's shutting down the trade of information, in favour of biased groups from accepting that information, based solely on their opinion, regardless if that's medically / scientifically sound. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2, Flamebait) by amorsen ( 7485 ) <benny+slashdot@amorsen.dk> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:42PM (#61844595) If you've never had infected testicles you're lucky We finally found Nicki Minaj's cousin's friend [gq.com]! Why didn't you come forward sooner? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by leonbev ( 111395 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:43PM (#61844607) Journal Yeah, the problem that I see with this is if someone finds a legitimate problem with a vaccine (like there is a tainted batch out there), how do you report that to the public? It seems like all of the social media platforms are likely going to set up AI filters flagging everything about vaccines that isn't coming from the CDC as "fake news", so the warning will likely go unneeded. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:55PM (#61844683) Good point! Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:02PM (#61844737) Journal Yeah, the problem that I see with this is if someone finds a legitimate problem with a vaccine (like there is a tainted batch out there), how do you report that to the public? Talk to your doctor, who has a channel for reporting to the CDC. Also, you can call a news reporter, who will be happy to do an expose if the problem is sufficiently widespread (or sufficiently serious) and the CDC is not taking action. You know, the same ways this was done before social media existed. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by labnet ( 457441 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:26PM (#61845687) But the problem with this is the vaccine has become political. The narrative is vaccinate everyone, suppress problems, suppress other options such as diet exercise vitamin D zinc IVM. Give big pharma complete legal indemnity. It’s just got a bad smell about it, and making some billion dollar private Corp arbiter of the truth sets us up for an Orwellian future. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:55AM (#61847633) Journal But the problem with this is the vaccine has become political. All the more reason to get it off of social media and handle it through professional scientific channels. The narrative is vaccinate everyone As is only sensible. suppress other options such as diet exercise vitamin D zinc IVM Oh, bullshit. Those other "options" aren't preventions, they're at best weak mitigations of severity. The vaccine flat out stops the vast majority of infection, and if everyone got vaccinated that alone would push R below 1 and cause the virus to fizzle out. And the vaccines do far, far more to reduce the severity and deadliness of breakthrough infections than all of your "other options" combined. Also, you forgot Regeneron, HCL and bleach. It’s just got a bad smell about it, and making some billion dollar private Corp arbiter of the truth sets us up for an Orwellian future. This I agree with, but needs must when the devil drives. We can always impose regulations to prevent this sort of thing if it becomes an actual problem. And the big corps know that very well and will step lightly to avoid their businesses being squashed. Actually, this action by YouTube has clearly been taken only to prevent government from stepping in to tell them what to do. Or have you forgotten all of those congressional hearings? I assure you that Big Tech has not. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:01PM (#61845335) Yeah, the problem that I see with this is if someone finds a legitimate problem with a vaccine (like there is a tainted batch out there), how do you report that to the public? It seems like all of the social media platforms are likely going to set up AI filters flagging everything about vaccines that isn't coming from the CDC as "fake news", so the warning will likely go unneeded. Who, exactly, do you believe would be in a position to find such a legitimate problem with a vaccine, and who would not go to the government, or publish it in a paper, or go to the news, but would instead put in on youtube? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:07PM (#61845595) how do you report that to the public? Your doctor reports it to the CDC, who then finds out where remaining doses of the bad batch are, and stops them from being used. Simultaneously, they notify the people who got injected with the bad batch so they can get appropriate medical care. You do not have sufficient information to determine if it actually was a bad batch, or if your cheating on Nicki's cousin caused you to get an STD. Flag as Inappropriate Who determines? (Score:1) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:55PM (#61844679) Homepage Doctors and medical professionals you dullard. If 100,000 doctors say the vaccine is safe and 1 does not, what can you gather? Twitter and social media are not sources of data. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:07PM (#61844765) Except there's a vested interest in not accepting new data. Let's assume I'm the only person on earth who suffers from infected nuts from the C vaccine, and my doctors accepts that, and reports it. Do you think Health Canada documentation will be updated overnight? Do you think our Health Care "experts" will even know of it, or accept it? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines? (Score:2) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:38PM (#61844923) Homepage Why would big pharma waste all this time and effort making a vaccine if they already had the cure? Don't give me that patent excuse either. All they have to do is change the shape and color of the pill to get a new patent. It's been done before. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:25PM (#61845151) I think you misunderstood, I'm not suggesting they had a secret cure, I'm suggesting Health Canada won't forcibly update all documentation in short order on new information coming in. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines? (Score:2) by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:06PM (#61845865) And if you're the only person with infected nuts, does it make sense running to youtube and convincing everyone that they, too, will get infected nuts if they get vaccinated? Cuz that's the kind of crap that is happening... Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @10:01AM (#61847661) Not running to YouTube, but it's worth mentioning. My point is we shouldn't leave the decision in the hands of single groups with biased vested interest. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines? (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:48PM (#61846553) nope they will say hes spreading misinformation and try and revoke his liance. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @10:10AM (#61847689) They won't revoke his license, that's nonsense. What they will do, mostly likely, is ignore the single data point because it's a not trend or statistically relevant. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines? (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:04PM (#61848031) oh boy you really dont pay attention do you. i guess ignoring realty is part of being a lefty. thats excaly what there doing to doctors who speak agenst the agenda. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines? (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:46PM (#61846547) you know they have been threatening and burying doctors who spoke about how ineffective it is and its dangers, even people at the cdc quit aka got forced out if they didn't spout the media lies. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines? (Score:1) by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:32PM (#61848149) Homepage Journal Doctors and medical professionals you dullard. If 100,000 doctors say the vaccine is safe and 1 does not, what can you gather? Twitter and social media are not sources of data. In response to a paper written by "100 Authors Against Einstein", Albert reportedly said "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!" I'm not likening every kook who touts his personal conspiracy theory as being in any way similar to Einstein but I am making the point that it's about what you can prove, not how many people believe what you believe. LK Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:09PM (#61844781) There is no "approved" list of side effects or complications. They are listed no by acceptance but by their statistical occurrence. Your abdominal issue is most likely just something that happened to happen in close proximity time wise by random chance. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:35PM (#61844913) Yes, and I'm willing to accept that, providing the doctors can tell me what or why it happened. Now that I'm double vaxxed if it happens again, then they have no choice. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:43PM (#61844957) Medicine has not yet reached the point where every single thing that happens can be explained unfortunately, sometimes shit just happens. Here's to hoping that it doesn't happen again. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:28PM (#61845177) Exactly, but let's assume it happens in the next couple of weeks, then I have 2 occurrences linked to the vaccine timeframe. If my doctors refuse to give me an answer, and refuse to link it against the C vaccine, then what? This is the problem, because if doctors / Health Canada won't accept new data or aren't willing to throw suspect data up the chain, even just to be careful, then we have a case where "facts" might not be accurate. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:51PM (#61846567) yea im sure my heart issue and iron problems just happend the day after i got the shot. despite a full workup that very same day showing i was fine. you better wake up bro not only are we under the most incompetent government in history there also nothing more then communist grabbing power threw fear. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @06:17PM (#61849367) Ah yes, the old communist takeover by giving people heart issues. More likely that the people doing your full workup missed something. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:26PM (#61845161) Journal Occam's razor here is a "freak occurrence" if there is no statistical pattern of such a side-effect. Similar per swollen-balls-gate. [apnews.com] Do note that if your body is borderline from failing somewhere, then the immune response from a vaccine may knock it over the threshold to trigger the fault. But this is a known side-effect of vaccines in general and one most of society has accepted for decades. (A mild flu can do the same.) If a few object, tough luck because the needs of the many often outweigh the needs of a few. If you don't like it, move in a deserted island. Society requires rules, dammit! Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:18PM (#61845405) I have no problem with that, but even if the vaccine triggered it the would Health Canada update the information? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1) by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:39PM (#61845499) Journal That sounds like a different problem. If your medical info systems are that slow, then trolling is only half Canada's problem. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:52PM (#61846571) you are aware this approved vaccine is the same one that killed people and brought back unchanged. so enjoy that blood clot. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:05PM (#61845579) I'm NOT an Anti-vaxxer, I fully support getting vaccines, but I also support the open expression of information. Can any health "expert", list every possible side effect of the C Vaccine? I'm sure they can list the "approved" side effects, and they can list the "approved" complications, but what if a new complicate or side effect is discovered they won't accept? You're an anti-vaxxer. There is no "approved" list of side effects. But your belief in one puts you firmly in the antivaxxer camp. While it's fine to say it's "Not the C Vaccine", you then have to give me some options on what caused it No, you have to give some mechanism by which it could be the COVID vaccine. The reason your doctors won't say it was the vaccine is there's no known mechanism by which the vaccine could have caused it. So, come up with one, prove it, and collect your Nobel. Or get an STD test, 'cause that's probably what's actually causing it. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:48PM (#61845789) Unless they ran 6 STI tests, and they all came up clean. Then maybe they ran a bunch of imaging tests (4), blood panels (5) and urine tests (5), and still couldn't tell me anything. When you run that many tests and still can't give me an answer, it either means you don't know, or you're too afraid to throw a label it as a possible side effect just in case. You possible side effect from the vaccine? https://www.canada.ca/en/publi... [canada.ca] There's plenty, not to mention you could develop a rare nerve / heart disorder and possibly be fucked for life, so throw that on top. When I say we shouldn't trust our health "experts", what I mean is they can't be trusted. You can't demonstrate an anti-vaxxer, as I got both shots of the vaccine, which automatically discounts the anti-vaxxer idea full stop. The doctors had 7 changes to get me an answer, and couldn't, so I'm not out of place to link the infections to the only out-of-place occurrence right around when they happened. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:33PM (#61845727) but I also support the open expression of information. I do as well. I support free speech. I support freedom of association. And I support YouTube's right to choose not to associate or amplifier bullshit they don't want to be associated with. If you're a proponent of free speech then you should also be a proponent of a private company not being forced to carry speech. Otherwise you're a hypocrite. If people want to spread bullshit then can do so on their own platform. You're not entitled to use someone else's megaphone. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:52PM (#61845801) If you don't want to risk seeing "misinformation", then stick the official health channels, because that would be the same idea, without the over censoring of possibly correct, but ignored evidence. Leave the decision with Health Canada, and they'll pull down lots of valid medical data, for instance the medical benefits of THCd8 or THCV, which they've publicly stated are zero, while at the same time offering access to medical cannabis. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:-1) by Aisha.Washington ( 4531453 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:05PM (#61846433) I do as well. I support free speech. I support freedom of association. And I support YouTube's right to choose not to associate or amplifier bullshit they don't want to be associated with. If you're a proponent of free speech then you should also be a proponent of a private company not being forced to carry speech. Otherwise you're a hypocrite. If people want to spread bullshit then can do so on their own platform. You're not entitled to use someone else's megaphone. People argued "freedom of association" when they banned black people from their business, or they didn't want to bake cakes for gay couples. You disgust me. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:36PM (#61845741) You're trying to equate talking about the problem with your doctor with go on youtube and tell the world something that isn't necessarily true. You should tell your doc and the doc should report it to whatever the canadian equivalent of VAERS is. The canadian equivalent of the CDC should be reviewing all of those reports and if there looks like there might be correlation between vaccine and your condition, then they should review all of the facts (medical records, etc) and determine if there is causation. Once it is determined that yes, a certain percentage might get the side effect you have, then sure it is good to run out on youtube and tell the world about your painful testicles. But until that point, you can't have an open expression of information because you have no real information. You have a guy that got the vaccine but also has painful testicles. That is it. Disproving other causes does not imply that the only other option is caused by vaccine. So giving you a platform where you can go out and just claim that getting the vaccine causes painful testicles is really a disservice to everyone everywhere. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:57PM (#61845821) You're missing the point that our Canadian medical system is garbage, and we can't trust it. They get some information right, but they get A LOT of information wrong. If anyone is going to filter data to fit the tag line, it's Heath Canada, which is why all information should be allowed, and the person watching / listening should make up their own mind. To drive this home, Health Canada told me that THCd8 has NO MEDICAL BENEFICIAL USES, and they refused to read the research surrounding it. When they can't get well established cannabis research down, why should we trust them with a rushed vaccine that skipped proper testing. They found the heart issue AFTER administering it to the public, and only declared it a serious issue when 13+ people had it diagnosed. A proper Health Org would have listed it right away, without question, and then sought to prove it was. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:22PM (#61845923) THCd8? Seriously? You're going to pick out an even more politicized issue of medical marijuana and use that as an argument? The rest of your statement all stems from the misinformation youtube and others need to curb. The vaccine was properly tested, regardless of what you've read. The heart issue has an extremely low probability of occurring and is likely connected to other comorbidity issues, and it is so limited that it is still more beneficial to get vaccinated than not. Those are truths, regardless what you might have learned on youtube. Flag as Inappropriate The Testimonies Project (Score:-1) by ackerrj ( 1136479 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:22PM (#61845919) Tell the people in this video, who's lives are ruined, that this is disinformation: Israel: The Testimonies Project: https://rumble.com/vmpbh3-3813... [rumble.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:44PM (#61846541) they whont accept the real side effects because it trashes this vaccine is totally safe bro. also they hide 80% of new cases are vaccinated. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:2) by Murdoch5 ( 1563847 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @10:08AM (#61847681) I know we've reported record numbers after the vaccine rollout, but how much of that can be tied against the vaccine it up for debate. My point is, we shouldn't let single groups with a vested interest set the "facts", vs being truthful with the "facts". Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:02PM (#61848023) lefty have no interest in facts or truth. just agendas and power grabs. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who determines it's misinformation? (Score:1) by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:44AM (#61847977) Homepage Journal This is a terrible idea because it's going to let people with a vested interest set the "facts", regardless how true or valid they're. Exactly this. Have you ever had an influential Wikipedia editor decide that something you have posted and documented isn't in line with their beliefs? I have. They somehow even have the ability to get your account suspended despite the fact that you've broken no rules. That's why this is dangerous, it's shutting down the trade of information, in favour of biased groups from accepting that information, based solely on their opinion, regardless if that's medically / scientifically sound. Several years ago, I had a respiratory issue. My doctors diagnosed me with things from COPD/emphysema to asthma. By googling my symptoms, I found people who had the exact same issue that I did and I pursued those. It turns out that my respiratory issue was caused by an h. pylori infection weakening my esophageal sphincter and sleep apnea causing me to aspirate stomach acid while I slept. I got a course of antibiotics to treat the h. pylori and a CPAP to treat the apnea. Now, my lungs are back to normal. No trace of COPD, emphysema or asthma. What really stands out to me is that when I went to see the gastroenterologist, I had to argue to even get tested for h. pylori. The doctor was sure that I didn't have it because a gastroscopy didn't show any ulcers. I refused to leave his office until he agreed to test me. Just to get me to shut up, the doctor agreed. 2-3 days later, I got a telephone call confirming that I did have an h. pylori infection and a prescription would be called in for me. I'm not a doctor. The people who shared their experiences online weren't doctors either but they were right when the trained medical professionals were wrong. I don't doubt that they would have eventually found the underlying causes of my issues but only after endless bouts of trial and error with another year of suffering and damage being done to my lungs. LK Flag as Inappropriate No fixing this (Score:3) by burtosis ( 1124179 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:28PM (#61844517) The answer to who watches the watcher is the public at large, but this breaks down when the population reaches a critical mass of poorly uneducated people who can’t think critically. This is a result of defunding education for over four decades and it’s not going to get better for another 40 even if we suddenly fixed it all today. We have to wait for these people to die off, which is happening a bit faster than average thanks to the inability to tell what’s real and self harm through ignorance. Flag as Inappropriate Re:No fixing this (Score:1) by luther349 ( 645380 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:54PM (#61846573) at least the courts have been ruling agenst this nonsense as of late. Flag as Inappropriate Last time I checked, YouTube is not a researcher. (Score:2) by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:34PM (#61844557) Just a condescending cunt, that thinks it knows better, exactly because it knows so little. Exactly like those it tries to stop. And ain't that a typical pattern in stupid assholes! The only problem here is, who has power over whom. Anti-vaxxers would not be a problem if it wouldn't affect anyone else. YouTube wouldn't be a problem if it wouldn't affect anyone else. Solution: 1. Spread more self-thinking and problem solving skills to children and promote their curiosity so they grow up as individuals and researchers. Without their stupid brainwashed abusive believer parents knowing or finding out. 2. Watch them grow up to not obey all the condescending assholes and dictators and throw out all the morons. Then anti-vaxxers won't be a thing anymore. And assholes like YT neither. Flag as Inappropriate contaminated discourse and general social issues (Score:3) by doom ( 14564 ) <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:37PM (#61844571) Homepage Journal It sure would be nice if I could talk about the actual problem here-- see, government doesn't regulate speech because First Ammendment, so instead we pressure Big Tech into doing it for us, and that's legal because Regulation is Bad. But if I do try to talk about it, I'm lending support to a bunch of antivaxxer nutjobs (spare me your cherry-picked Studies guys, I'm busy watching unvaccinated people overwhelm hospitals in the red lands). The idea that we need robust social institutions with reasonable checks-and-balances built-in and transparent decision making and so on, that's all irrelevant in the modern world, where I'm supposed to just go "Oh good, google did the Right Thing. This time." Flag as Inappropriate Re:contaminated discourse and general social issue (Score:2) by doesnothingwell ( 945891 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:09PM (#61845081) I do not want YouTube, or any other public platform, censoring people. Who are they to determine the truth? I agree but govt policy won't save us until people get educated. After the last forty years I've observed this is not likely. Most people resist school levies without asking "How stupid do you want future adults to be?" There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov Flag as Inappropriate If I had a dime... (Score:5, Insightful) by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:06PM (#61844755) If I had a dime for every time a dumbass tried to use VAERS as a data source, I'd be rich. VAERS is not a source of data. Anyone can go on there and report anything they want. I could go on VAERS and report the vaccine grew back my hair and made my penis 50% larger. It would mean absolutely nothing, VAERS will accept the report and include the information, but that wouldn't make VAERS a source of truth or a source of data on hair restoration or penis enlargment, VAERS is completely unsubstantiated claims. Any time you see someone using "data from VAERS", you can automatically discredit them as trying to manufacture evidence to support their own twisted arguments and agendas. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2) by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta' `ydenneks'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:02PM (#61845057) Homepage Wouldn't you say that's a pretty significant problem, then? That we don't have any way to record adverse vaccination events with any accuracy or integrity? Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2) by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:18PM (#61845407) No, it's not a problem. VAERS exists to allow public health officials and researchers to identify outliers when compared to the overall population. Are there more reports of toes falling off from vaccinated patients vs what would be expected in the general population? That is how you identify adverse reactions, you report everything and look for trends. It's why drug trials do the same thing. I take a drug my doctor was involved with during its clinical trials. We were discussing the risks and she told me about how they looked in the insert and what they actually meant. One study participant drowned in an accident. It was reported as a death in the study. Why? Well, who can say if his drowning was related to the drug. If a number of others in the study had also died or been injured in accidents, above what is expected in their demographic, then hey, maybe the drug could be causing something that is contributing to the accidents. Or maybe just one kid got unlucky. But you won't know until you have enough of a sample size so you report everything. Otherwise something actually is a problem with a drug or vaccine, but might not superficially look like it on an individual case by case basis, might get overlooked. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2) by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta' `ydenneks'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:38PM (#61845747) Homepage Well, either VAERS can't be used to show the risk of serious adverse reactions to the c19 vaccine OR it can be. If it can't because the data is unreliable, then that would mean we have absolutely no facilities in place to measure the potential adverse reactions to vaccines ( and not just the c19 vaccine ). This would be a huge problem, and in any case undermine any claims that the vaccine is 100% safe. If I can be used, then there is a significant issue with the c19 vaccines, which would undermine any claims that the vaccine is 100% safe. In either case, there's absolutely no way to make any claims as to the safety of the vaccine. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:15PM (#61845891) It cannot be used because the data is unreliable. This would be a huge problem, and in any case undermine any claims that the vaccine is 100% safe. Nobody said it was 100% safe. Nothing is 100% safe. Even baby aspirin can harm you. If you required 100% safety from everything, you'd have to stop eating, drinking, breathing, going outside, staying inside, ... It is statistically safe, however, and it is significantly more safe than catching Covid directly. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2) by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta' `ydenneks'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:40PM (#61845973) Homepage How do you know? If you discount the VAERS data, you have nothing upon which to make such a claim. Well, ok; you have the data from the company selling the vaccines. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:45PM (#61846391) yeah, there's just that pesky US data of 391 million doses given, 185m fully vaccinated or worldwide 6.2 billion doses and 2.6b fully vaccinated, most without significant side effect or long term impact (regardless what the anti-vaxers say), and other than the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, no other serious interruptions in vaccine delivery. Plus there's FDA approval on Pfizer, authorizations on boosters, massive and measurable differences of hospitalization rates and deaths of vaccinated vs non-vaccinated... There's all kinds of real world data supporting the benefits of covid vaccinations vs crazy anti-vax theories that just don't hold up to scrutiny. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2) by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta' `ydenneks'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:20PM (#61846465) Homepage So there's no real world data on adverse c19 vaccine reactions. Gotcha. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2) by marka63 ( 1237718 ) <marka@isc.org> on Thursday September 30, 2021 @07:09PM (#61849491) No vaccine is 100% safe. Every single one has risks. They all have benefits too. Taking a vaccine is a risk benefit analysis. With COVID-19 vaccines the analysis clearly comes down on the benefit side. I took AZ just after the reports of TTS where coming in. I knew that the was about a 1 chance in a million that I could die from an adverse reaction. I also knew that my chances of dying from COVID-19 where 1000's of time higher if I didn't have the vaccine. I also knew that it is inevitable that I would get COVID-19 if I didn't take the vaccine as none of the vaccines are good enough to generate herd immunity with 2 doses (the jury is still out on 3 doses). Just about everything you do in life has risks and benefits. Do you drive to the supermarket? There is a risk that you will die in a car crash on the way there or back. You will get less exercise. There are also benefits like it takes less time. You can bring home more goods. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2) by grasshoppa ( 657393 ) <`gro.oc-onpt' `ta' `ydenneks'> on Thursday September 30, 2021 @07:32PM (#61849529) Homepage If we can't use VEARS then there's no database tracking severe adverse reactions to the vaccine, so how can you say the analysis clearly comes down on the benefit side? It's a statement completely untethered from any data, and therefore reality. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @07:56PM (#61849565) Some lawyers are trying to do the job about the deaths linked to the usage of remdesivir and every else: https://rumble.com/vn12v1-atto... [rumble.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2) by marka63 ( 1237718 ) <marka@isc.org> on Thursday September 30, 2021 @08:18PM (#61849613) VEARS is about reporting POTENTIAL adverse affects. It takes analysis to extract signal from the noise in VEARS, to see if the event is statistically different in occurrence to the background rate of the event being reported. This sort of analysis is how TTS was discovered for AZ. Similarly myocarditis with Pfizer. VEARS is a tool. You can use it correctly or incorrectly. Citing single events being reported there as evidence that there is a problem is using it incorrectly. Reporting potential observed side effects is using it correctly, be it I felt really crook through to a person died and everything in between. Using the data set as a whole to look for anomalies is correct use. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @08:36PM (#61849647) VAERS was around 150 deaths by year before the "vaxxs". Removing the "noise" is trivial. Here is a specialist: https://videos.francesoir.fr/?... [francesoir.fr] Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:1) by cecom ( 698048 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:11PM (#61845091) Journal OK, VAERS is flawed. So, where do you get your "better" data from? Oh, you have none? And you are using that to manufacture evidence to support your twisted arguments and agenda. Brilliant. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2) by dark.nebulae ( 3950923 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:05PM (#61845349) VAERS represents one piece of the whole process. Take the J&J vaccine. Reports of adverse effects came into VAERS. VAERS was not the source of truth that there was a problem or not, it was only the report of a possible but not corroborated adverse effect. All reports are medically, scientifically and factually reviewed and, once correlation was found, J&J was paused until the data was fully reviewed. The result was to resume J&J with additional recommendations for those with a higher probability of adverse effects. The point is that VAERS is used to accept the reports of adverse effects, but on their own they are meaningless. It is the additional medical reviews that will determine if there is a problem or not, reviews which incorporate all available data including the full medical record, not just partial details exposed by VAERS. I could pay a small group of people to open reports on VAERS claiming that the vaccine caused their testicles to shrink and they became impotent. VAERS would accept the reports and, probably within days or hours news stories about vaccine impotence would start from the anti-vax sites and eventually get pushed into other media and social media, all without a single basis in truth or fact. The medical review would disprove and discard these reports, but all of that would not unring the bell of vaccine impotence that would continue to be spread although completely discredited. Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:12PM (#61845617) made my penis 50% larger Didn't someone discover viagra from VAERS? Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:2) by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:34PM (#61845733) I could go on VAERS and report the vaccine grew back my hair and made my penis 50% larger. Balls. The vaccine causes balls to get larger and weddings to break up. https://www.wired.com/story/ni... [wired.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:If I had a dime... (Score:0) by ToddInSF ( 765534 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @05:00PM (#61849105) Journal It exists to track problems, you're not an honest person here. Flag as Inappropriate do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:26AM (#61844199) Only one covid vaccine has been recently "approved" in the USA. Flag as Inappropriate › Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:5, Insightful) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:27AM (#61844203) Emergency approval is still an approval. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:5, Informative) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:33AM (#61844219) Also the main difference between emergency approval and regular approval: Manufacturers were allowed to make the vaccines before testing was complete. Distribution was still not authorized until testing has passed, and yes the vaccines still had to pass testing. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0, Troll) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:38AM (#61844235) Quit spewing your lies and ignorance. Passing testing is not approval either. Only one vaccine is approved. That has very specific legal and risk meaning. Most vaccines for covid do not have approval, it's even possible one or more never do. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:3, Insightful) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:46AM (#61844281) Quit spewing your lies and ignorance. Passing testing is not approval either. Why do you lie [fda.gov] so much? "Clinical trials are evaluating investigational COVID-19 vaccines in tens of thousands of study participants to generate the scientific data and other information needed by FDA to determine safety and effectiveness. These clinical trials are being conducted according to the rigorous standards set forth by the FDA. For an EUA to be issued for a vaccine, for which there is adequate manufacturing information to ensure quality and consistency, FDA must determine that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks of the vaccine. An EUA request for a COVID-19 vaccine can be submitted to FDA based on a final analysis of a phase 3 clinical efficacy trial or an interim analysis of such trial, i.e., an analysis performed before the planned end of the trial once the data have met the pre-specified success criteria for the study’s primary efficacy endpoint." Before an EUA application can be started, phase 3 clinical trials must be complete and be successful. Only one vaccine is approved. That has very specific legal and risk meaning. Most vaccines for covid do not have approval, it's even possible one or more never do. That you do not seem to know. Basically your ignorance [contagionlive.com] drives all of your points. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll) by kick6 ( 1081615 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:02PM (#61844379) Homepage Before an EAU application can be started, phase 3 clinical trials must be complete and successful. From the bolded portion of your quote or an interim analysis of such trial, i.e., an analysis performed before the planned end of the trial once the data have met the pre-specified success criteria So, no they don't have to be complete and successful. They just have to have started, and seem to be making antibodies and not really killing that many people. That's a severely different stand than approved if you're one of the people that has suffered side effects from one of these vaccines. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:10PM (#61844417) So, no they don't have to be complete and successful. They just have to have started, and seem to be making antibodies and not really killing that many people. That's a severely different stand than approved if you're one of the people that has suffered side effects from one of these vaccines. Bahahahahahaah. Do you know what phase 3 clinical trials mean and what it takes to not only get to but pass phase 3? I suggest you read about that first. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:30PM (#61844531) Arrogance and ignorance go hand-in-hand... ugh... Quit pretending you know "what phase 3 clinical trials mean". You're about as far from an expert as a person can get. Yes, it's a big deal, but that's all an ignorant fool like you should feel comfortable saying. Even then, you should back that up with an real experts opinion. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:36PM (#61844567) The poster literally said something that 1) was not factually true 2) based on ignorance of the subject area 3) all of my points are backed by experts which in this case is the FDA. His post would be saying the equivalent of saying an All-in-one computer is not a a "real" computer because it does not have a graphics chip. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0, Troll) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:59AM (#61844351) You stupidly repeat misinformation even when told the difference. "Approved" vaccine has had clinical trial people followed for six months or more, EUA vaccines have not. "Approved" vaccine has had detailed manufacturing plans and procedures submitted, EUA vaccines have not. "Approved" vaccine has high level of FDA presence and inspection during manufacturing, EUA vaccine have not. "Approved" vaccine has the decision based on above, EUA vaccines don't You are just "virtue signalling", imagining you have the proper and right view but not based on any facts. You just keep spewing misinformation. Only one vaccine is "approved" and that has the very specific differences I listed above. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:3) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:13PM (#61844449) You stupidly repeat misinformation even when told the difference. Both EUA and regulatory require passing clinical trials. That is the point you refuse to admit. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:00PM (#61844719) Shifting the goalposts. You are not worth the time, or you are a paid troll. Comirnaty (which sounds like "community" spoken like one of the victims with Bell's Palsy) is not even available in the USA and is the only "approved" vax here. This whole thing reeks and is rotten. There is no mandate from OSHA from the government to the public, yet Biden made some sort of decree on television, and the propagandist mainstream media would have you think that your company has to fire you for not having it. At the end of the day when 90% of the US population has been injected with this toxic nightmare, they will be able to point and say that they never really made anyone get it. Our healthcare system will be riddled with WHO KNOWS WHAT once the long-term effects manifest themselves. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:07PM (#61844769) https://www.projectveritas.com/news/johnson-and-johnson-children-dont-need-t... [projectveritas.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:5, Insightful) by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:19PM (#61845647) If you get your medical advice from Project Veritas, you might just be qualified to host the Darwin Awards. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:24PM (#61845671) Enjoy your embolisms. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:30PM (#61845945) Pass the horse paste. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1) by prof_robinson ( 2632705 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:10PM (#61846081) All you prove with that comment is your total ignorance of the subject at hand, and that you get your opinions from highly propagandistic sources Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:15PM (#61846293) Neigh! Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by hankcooper ( 1931836 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @04:44PM (#61849045) Homepage What a moron brainwashed fool ðY' Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @06:03PM (#61849335) You know we're laughing AT you, and not laughing WITH you, correct? Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:20PM (#61844823) Our healthcare system will be riddled with WHO KNOWS WHAT once the long-term effects manifest themselves. Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. [wikipedia.org] Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:56PM (#61845815) ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii jtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMQtii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNQjii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii cSMMNMMNMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï iiSWMMNMMNMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï 6WMMNMMNMNYii ii iiJcii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii i5WMMNMMNMN5ii ii iiJHMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii5NMMNMMNMW5ii ii iiJHMMNMMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii icXMMNMMNMMNYii ii tKMMNMMNMMNW6ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii jDMMNMMNMMHJiitQMMNMMNMMNMMNMW5ii ii i [youtube.com] ii iitcii ii ijQMMNMMNMMKDMMNMMNMMQWMMNMMNMN5ii ii [youtube.com] ii tKMWSii ii iijQMMNMMNMMNMMNMMQti SWMMNMMNMNYi i [youtube.com] itQMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMNMKtii iicSMMNMMNMMHJi [youtube.com] iJHMMNMMNMW6ii ii cSMMNMMNMMNMDjii ii icXMMNMMNN5 [youtube.com] ii YNMMNMMNMN5 cASWMMNMMNMMNMMNMDcii ii icDMMW6 ii [youtube.com] ii ii5NMMNMMNMNSNMMNMMNMH MMNMMNMMXcii ii ij5 i ii [youtube.com] ii ii i5WMMNMMNMMNMMNMN5ii5NMMNMMNMMScii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ii 6WMMNMMNMMNW5ii ii 6WMMNMMNMWSii ii ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ii iiSWMMNMMW6ii ii iitKMMNMMNMMXcii ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ii ii cSMMWSii ii iitQMMNMMNMMDjii ii ii iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iïc6cii ii ijQMMNMMNMMQjii ii ïi ii iï [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ijDMMNMMNMMQtii ii ïi ii iï i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iicXMMNMMNMMKtii ii ïi ii iï iii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii iijQMMNMMNHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii itKMMHJii ii ïi ii iï ii ii i [youtube.com] ii ii ïi ii iï ii ii ii tYii ii ïi ii iï ii ii iii [youtube.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:08PM (#61849695) What long-term effects? The vaccine doesn't stay in the body long. Once it is gone, so is any "danger" you fucking numpty. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @08:09PM (#61849589) Comirnaty IS the name of the Pfizer vaccine that is approved here and what has been given to people since the EUA. What the fuck is wrong with covidiots? Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:02PM (#61849683) Comirnaty is BioNTech, this product is not official the same as the Pfizer one. The covid cultists are not smart enough to understand the history behind covid vaccines; Now we have all the data and they can't understand that the virus is safer than the vaccines: https://videos.francesoir.fr/?... [francesoir.fr] Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:33PM (#61844551) Emergency approval IS approval you fucking idiot. Flag as Inappropriate No. UR mom. (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:44PM (#61844615) No. UR mom is. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by mennucc1 ( 568756 ) <d9slash@mennucc1.debian.net> on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:56PM (#61848225) Homepage Journal you have a broken link, the correct one should be https://www.contagionlive.com/... [contagionlive.com] there is an extra - at the end Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:4, Informative) by MatthiasF ( 1853064 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:46AM (#61844285) Three vaccines are allowed for use against COVID-19. https://www.fda.gov/emergency-... [fda.gov] It would be illegal to treat people with a vaccine openly without FDA authorization. And no, I'm not going to get into a pedantic battle about how the words "authorized" and "approved" are different, all that matters is that the FDA has given the OK for use of those three vaccines. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:49AM (#61844297) No he wants to rely on the specific terminology that only one vaccine is "approved" without realizing or admitting what is the difference between EUA and regulatory approval. But as you pointed out, EUA does not mean that any medication can be given without the FDA allowing it. EUA does not mean there has been no testing done. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:31PM (#61844545) Journal No he wants to rely on the specific terminology that only one vaccine is "approved" without realizing or admitting what is the difference between EUA and regulatory approval. It's like the moron on Twitter who was complaining the government could force you to get vaccinated, and when asked if he had a shot for measles replied (to the effect), "Yeah. I was immunized. I didn't get vaccinated." Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:49PM (#61844651) Care to mention all the problems with the measles vaccine when it was initially introduced or would that just prove that fictional twitter person you invented correct? https://www.nvic.org/vaccines-... [nvic.org] "At the time of vaccine approval, a single dose of the live attenuated Rubeovax was reported to be 95 percent effective at preventing measles, and protection from measles infection lasted at least 3 years and eight months. However, 30 to 40 percent of children who received Rubeovax experienced fever of 103 degrees or higher beginning on or around the sixth day following vaccination, lasting between 2 to 5 days. 30 to 60 percent of individuals who received Rubeovax also developed a “modified measles rash”. Due to the high number of side effects, public health and Merck officials recommended that Rubeovax be administered in conjunction with measles immune globulin, as co-administration significantly reduced vaccine reactions." Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:3) by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:00PM (#61844711) Yeah, vaccines containing live attenuated viruses are pretty terrible; they are still better than the disease but have many issues. Which is why we almost never use those anymore. I think what you are saying is "wow, vaccine science works, we moved away from these dangerous vaccines to our current very-safe vaccines." And I agree with you; excellent point! Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:20PM (#61844821) Now tell us about the lessons-learned from previous coronavirus vaccines. Oh right, none have ever existed before. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:50PM (#61844999) Actually, we've been testing vaccines for different coronavirus for about a decade (including mRNA vaccines), ever since SARS. They haven't been in wide use until the COVID-19 vaccine, because most coronaviruses are not deadly, but yeah, we have a lot of lessons learned. And we've learned a lot more since we started wide-spread vaccinations last winter, including "fewer major side effects than most medicines" and "very effective at keeping people alive and out of the ICU". Anything else that you don't know and want me to tell you about? I'd think that Google would be a faster way of learning, but to each their own. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:58PM (#61845037) Are you sure it's not because no potential coronavirus vaccine has ever worked? No, can't be because of that! Pretty soon we won't even be able to find that fact online and then people like you will be shouting "you can't find a link to show that so it can't be true!" That's the real goal of information suppression. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:3) by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:32PM (#61845203) Homepage Journal Are you sure it's not because no potential coronavirus vaccine has ever worked? No, can't be because of that! Pretty soon we won't even be able to find that fact online and then people like you will be shouting "you can't find a link to show that so it can't be true!" Lots of coronavirus vaccines in animals have worked. Anyone spending three minutes with a search engine can find links proving that what you're saying is NOT true. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:10PM (#61845085) Are you sure it's not because no potential coronavirus vaccine has ever worked? No, can't be because of that! And why do you think that is? It could not possibly be that the rate of corona virus infection before 2020 was so low that priority and funding for such a vaccine was also low. Because researchers and pharmaceutical companies like spending millions of dollars on diseases that affect few people. No that cannot be it at all. Pretty soon we won't even be able to find that fact online and then people like you will be shouting "you can't find a link to show that so it can't be true!" That's the real goal of information suppression. Yes because YouTube is the only site you can go on the Internet. The only one that has ever existed too. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:22PM (#61845125) "Yes because YouTube is the only site you can go on the Internet. The only one that has ever existed too." "... because those white schools are the only schools your kid can go to..." - Gov. George Wallace (D), 1964 Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:03AM (#61847811) Bahahaha. That is an idiotic comparison and you know it. Since the early days of the Internet, people have thought that anonymous means they are entitled to post whatever they want on someone else's forum. That has never true. The fact that you would compare a private company making policy changes means that your civil rights have been infringed only underscores your sense of entitlement. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1) by baristabrian ( 1635747 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @04:26PM (#61849007) Personally, I feel very strongly that NOBODY should be able to post ANYTHING on the internet without being registered using foolproof biometrics and SSN. And EVERY website and domain and server would have to be registered to at least one HUMAN, also by using verifiable certifications. That shut up a LOT of cowardly pussies here on Huffpost for nerds. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1) by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:29PM (#61844521) Homepage Journal Ok, so we have these vaccines in the pipeline. I consider that a good thing. My concern is...WHERE is the money, trials and development of therapeutics to treat people that HAVE covid? I mean, with all the breakthrough cases we're seeing, it would appear we still need to actually treat the disease...both for the vaccinated and the unvacinnated. I see no news...no push and almost nothing mentioned in the media about therapeutics to actually treat people that HAVE the disease. They have plenty to tell about proposed past treatments that they say are not effective, but nothing to say about work on those that are being looked at that ARE possible tx vectors. With the growing number of breakthrough cases, and looking down the road at potential future variants , shouldn't therapeutics be the next great hill to conquer? The vaccines aren't really working, IMHO, in the sense that other vaccines of the past have done. Vaccines for polio, smallpox, etc....you get the vaccine, you almost never hear of a breakthrough case there. These covid vaccines, while they seem to work GREAT to help lower your chances or serious illness, hospitalization and death, do not seem to prevent you from getting the disease. So, where are the treatments to go along with this? Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:4, Interesting) by Captain Segfault ( 686912 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:08PM (#61845075) Homepage Journal If you're not hearing about this stuff you're living under a rock. First off, -- you probably understand this but it is worth calling out explicitly -- the vaccines *do* have a very real preventative effect. The problem is that the "prevention" is far from 100%, for various reasons. We know obvious factors: how good is the early immune response triggered by the vaccine, to what extent to variants reduce that, how much does it drop over time, how large is the incoming viral dose at initial exposure. As far as I know we don't understand the relative importance of these factors, on a spectrum from "most fully vaccinated people are mostly immune but breakthrough cases happen, more frequently during a major surge" to "most people will eventually get exposed to a large enough viral dose to have a breakthrough infection". It isn't that clear that a hypothetical attempt to vaccinate a largely immunologically naive population against polio or measles wouldn't have the same issues with breakthrough cases we're having with SARS-CoV-2. On top of that, measles *did* have outbreak levels of breakthrough cases until they added a second dose to the standard regimen after the 1989 Chicago measles outbreak. Even then breakthrough measles is still a thing -- it's just rare and almost always really mild when it happens. It may well be that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines similarly need an extra dose, or need the two doses to be further spaced than 3-4 weeks to provide robust long lasting immunity. Still, regarding treatments: the biggest problem with respect to treatment is that by the time you know that a case is serious you're past the point where antivirals help that much -- at that point you're dealing as much with the immune system destroying the body. Dexamethazone was a big deal in improving the situation there, and came with something like a 1/3 reduction in chance of death. On the other hand, there are a number of existing antiviral treatments that improve the situation if applied early on -- remdesivir and the various monoclonal antibodies -- but they don't help *that* much unless they come early and they all require hospitalization level treatment. If hospital systems are overwhelmed, treatments that require hospitalization of likely otherwise sub-hospitalization cases cases are not that helpful except for high risk patients. There are two game changers here: 1. There's a fair bit of news about an oral covid treatment that Pfizer just launched phase 2/3 trials for. That has the same "needs to be early to be helpful" issues that existing antiviral treatments do, except that it would actually be viable to take them far more early -- at first positive test or even after known exposure. 2. In an environment where hospital systems are not overwhelmed with covid cases among the immunologically naive, even those more intensive early treatments would be far more helpful than they are now. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0, Troll) by Twinbee ( 767046 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:36PM (#61845743) the vaccines *do* have a very real preventative effect. Not always: https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org] Also, imperfect vaccination can make things worse: https://journals.plos.org/plos... [plos.org] Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:11PM (#61844787) What the hell are you talking about? There are lots of studies on things like monoclonal antibodies (successful with limits), remdesivir (successful with limits), ivermectin (not successful) and HCQ (not successful); the successful therapies have emergency use authorizations and are being used now. The problem is that treating viruses is REALLY REALLY HARD and we don't have any generic agents which we can use or modify to attack covid. There is lots of funding and lots of research, but it all comes up empty. That's why crap like HCQ becomes so popular; because when there is nothing truly effective, scared people make up ineffective stuff. See also "cats during the Black Death". Also, no vaccine is 100% effective, and no vaccine keeps you from being infected by the disease. Vaccines mean that when you are infected, your body has a much better chance of destroying the infection before it becomes a problem. This is true for the covid vaccine, and the polio vaccine, and every other vaccine. I'll be infected by flu viruses a dozen times this winter; some of the time my body will destroy the infection on its own, some of the time the flu vaccine I just got will make the difference, and if I'm unlucky then one of those infections will bring me down for a week. And same thing with COVID. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:28PM (#61845179) There are lots of studies on things like monoclonal antibodies (successful with limits), remdesivir (successful with limits), The world health organization disagrees or is unaware of evidence supporting efficacy of remdesivir. https://www.who.int/news-room/... [who.int] I'm in the same boat. The only studies I'm aware of including remdesivir conclude that no positive health outcomes were observed. " Remdesivir therapy for five days did not produce improvement in clinical outcomes in moderate to severe COVID-19 cases." https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov] The problem is that treating viruses is REALLY REALLY HARD and we don't have any generic agents which we can use or modify to attack covid. There is lots of funding and lots of research, but it all comes up empty. Is this why Oxford PRINCIPAL trial is currently including Ivermectin in late 2021 after all this time? Is this why the NIH is still saying "There is insufficient evidence for the COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19. Results from adequately powered, well-designed, and well-conducted clinical trials are needed to provide more specific, evidence-based guidance on the role of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19."? What doesn't stand to turn a profit seems to be left up to academic and clinician side projects to scrounge up resources in their spare time and sometimes on their own dime. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:01PM (#61845341) You may be right about remdesivir; I haven't paid enough attention lately, and I apologize for not double-checking my memory. What doesn't stand to turn a profit seems to be left up to academic and clinician side projects to scrounge up resources in their spare time and sometimes on their own dime. Merc sells ivermectin and would happily bump the prices of the human-usable versions if they thought they could make a profit (and not lose it all in lawsuits). Unless you think that their accountants are polically motivated? I'm glad that people are doing ivermectin (and HCQ) studies; we need them. Nobody wants to stop research. We just don't want to encourage people to use it without some proof of efficacy. The experts have families at risk of COVID too; they want effective treatments as much or more than we do. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:30PM (#61845455) Merc sells ivermectin and would happily bump the prices of the human-usable versions if they thought they could make a profit (and not lose it all in lawsuits). Unless you think that their accountants are polically motivated? From what I understand Merc is also working on a treatment for Covid-19 and this drug is off patent and being mass produced by other manufacturers. I personally don't see a financial incentive for Merc to pursuit a trial for an off patent dirt cheap drug. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1) by prof_robinson ( 2632705 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:14PM (#61846099) That's why Pfizer is creating their own version of ivermectin, tweaked just enough to put it back under patent. Its going to be a daily pill. This way, Pfizer can still make money, and you can still make horse jokes and look down on those Indian rubes Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @10:58PM (#61846787) Ivermectin is normally given ONCE, as in "one time". Sometimes twice in patients with compromised immunity. When it's used for its intended purpose, it's ridiculously effective. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:20PM (#61846625) Remdesivir works best before symptoms show up. Best defense? Get vaccinated or stay in your home when you get infected and don't overwhelm the hospitals. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by labnet ( 457441 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:33PM (#61845731) Ivermectin is very effective. You just choose to followed be wilfully blind. There are now plenty of small high quality double blind studies showing it’s effectiveness. Many countries have now rolled it out as preventative treatment with great success. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Major_Disorder ( 5019363 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:52PM (#61846011) Ivermectin is very effective. You just choose to followed be wilfully blind. There are now plenty of small high quality double blind studies showing it’s effectiveness. Many countries have now rolled it out as preventative treatment with great success. Link to these "studies" or I am calling you out as full of something warm and brown. Hint, some guys blog is not going to cut it. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:36PM (#61846655) Lying covidiot. Keep taking your horse paste, it will end well for humanity. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by aRTeeNLCH ( 6256058 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:51PM (#61845307) Just search and you shall find. For instance this article on measles breakthrough: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/previ... [cdc.gov] Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:18PM (#61846623) Almost anyone who gets covid today and nearly all of them that choke to death do so because they are fucktarded. How is that a concern? Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:05PM (#61844397) Not a "pedantic battle" at all, very specific differences. Approval means major things EUA does not. The observation of clinical trial participants is six months or more, the detailed plans and procedures of manufacturing have to be submitted, presence and high level of oversight by FDA in plants, and of course the decision for approval itself. EUA has none of the above. That said, I had moderna shots, but it's a lie to say it was FDA approved and there are risks assumed and shortcuts taken for EUA that most vaccines we get have, because of the virulent nature and death and maiming toll of covid. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:12PM (#61844433) Again you seem to be side stepping your main argument: The vaccines had to pass clinical trials. Are you willing to admit that, yes, the vaccines passed clinical trials? Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1, Troll) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:46PM (#61844635) No, you seem to be side stepping major differences. For example, for EUA only *half* the cinical trial subjects had to be followed for only 2 months. that the vaccines passed a quick and limited type of "clinical trials" for EUA? Are you wiling to admit your folly in not seeing for example the HUGE difference the clinical trial followup for approval takes compared to the very rushed trial analysis EUA takes? Are you aware that most vaccines we have had subjects followed for *years*? You seem to be just making things up without even during cursory research on the topic. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:46PM (#61844975) No, you seem to be side stepping major differences. For example, for EUA only *half* the cinical trial subjects had to be followed for only 2 months. that the vaccines passed a quick and limited type of "clinical trials" for EUA? What the hell are you talking about? A drug either passes all 3 phases clinical trials or it does not. And it must pass to be allowed to be distributed. That is it. The time of the clinical trials has never been instituted as a requirement. Please show me where the FDA or any regulatory body has mandates: “Clinical trials must last six months" Are you wiling to admit your folly in not seeing for example the HUGE difference the clinical trial followup for approval takes compared to the very rushed trial analysis EUA takes? Are you aware that most vaccines we have had subjects followed for *years*? Again what the fuck are you talking about? To be allowed to be distributed, it must pass phase 3. You are adding additional requirements that DO NOT EXIST. By your logic, nothing can be released without years of testing before release. Have you thought about that? That is as idiotic as saying Ford should not release a car this year that has not passed requirements that have yet to be passed. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:35PM (#61844559) Pedantic yes, and you continue to be a fucking idiot Flag as Inappropriate No. UR mom is (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:51PM (#61845003) No. UR mom. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by chrism238 ( 657741 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:50PM (#61846005) Three vaccines are allowed for use against COVID-19. Such a US-centric belief. More pedantics. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:18PM (#61844467) Homepage Quit spewing your lies and ignorance. Passing testing is not approval either. Only one vaccine is approved. That has very specific legal and risk meaning. Most vaccines for covid do not have approval, it's even possible one or more never do. The post you are replying to was accurate. Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson covid-19 vaccines all have been approved by the FDA. Pfizer has been fully approved for people age 16 and over; Moderna and Johnson & Johnson have been approved for emergency use. The statement by @jeff4747 was accurate: Emergency approval is still an approval. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0, Troll) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:52PM (#61844665) Wrong. Liar. The other vaccines have only EUA not approval and the differences are HUGE. EUA means only half of clinical subjects followed for only two months. Approved vaccines have all subjects followed for six months or more (most vaccines we have are with subjects followed for years) EUA means manufacturer did not have to submit detailed plans and procedures for making. Approved vaccines require that. EUA means FDA does not have high level manufacturing site oversight and inspection, approved vaccines do. EUA means FDA never approved the vaccine and did the above requirements, "approved" means just that, based on the above. You need to stop your misconceptions and posting based only on your ignorance of the subject, you are a source of misinformation. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Geoffrey.landis ( 926948 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:30PM (#61844889) Homepage Wrong. Liar. The other vaccines have only EUA not approval Yes. And that is a form of approval; they are approved for emergency use. Stop trying to redefine the English language. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:19PM (#61845413) Wrong. Liar. The other vaccines have only EUA not approval Yes. And that is a form of approval; they are approved for emergency use. Stop trying to redefine the English language. He's not trying to redefine the English Language. He's providing examples of Legal definitions. FDA Approval for drugs in the U.S. has a very specific meaning legally, and any lesser "approval" is called something different, like "EUA". We're currently talking about laws, approval, and consequences of such, and thus the proper terms should be used, not colloquial English. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Pascoea ( 968200 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:33PM (#61844899) You've posted this same thing at least 3 times in this article that I've seen so far but you've provided no sources, nor given any support for why you're a credible source for information. Just saying, that would go a long way. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:36PM (#61845223) What does the "A" in EUA stand for again? Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by WaffleMonster ( 969671 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:08PM (#61845365) What does the "A" in EUA stand for again? I honestly don't understand this thread. There is a clear meaning even for laypersons what an approved drug is. It means the FDA approved it. There is no other credible interpretation of an FDA approved drug. Emergency use authorization is explicitly not FDA approval. You are free to argue the merits of Covid vaccines or make educated guesses as to the difference if any yet there is no factual basis to the idea that EUA = approval when it most certainly does not. The questioning of motives is pointless. If there are questions about someone's position or what something means you ask for clarification or provide additional context. It is not acceptable to assume EUA = FDA approval. You can think its in the bag / inevitable / assured yet the definition and processes exist independent of ones assumptions. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:24PM (#61845673) Cool. Good luck with your horse paste. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:43PM (#61846669) EUA is approval by the FDA. It is in the name. Where you are going wrong is that you are a covidiot and as such, mentally retarded. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by dagarath ( 33684 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:13PM (#61845883) EUA means only half of clinical subjects followed for only two months. I find no support for this claim from the FDA's documents on Emergency Use Authorization processes. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Major_Disorder ( 5019363 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:55PM (#61846023) Approved vaccines have all subjects followed for six months or more (most vaccines we have are with subjects followed for years) Since a new flu vaccine is released EVERY SINGLE YEAR. I say you are full of shit. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2, Troll) by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:52AM (#61844315) Emergency approval is still an approval. It is an emergency use authorization. That is NOT the same thing as "FDA approved". Not even close. My understanding is this is also the reason they want to discredit and destroy anyone claiming that therapeutics are effective, because they likely would not be able to retain the justification for "emergency use" authorization. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:06PM (#61844403) It is an emergency use authorization. That is NOT the same thing as "FDA approved" And no one is claiming it is. Emergency use authorization is a form of approval. This is an article in "regular" media talking about the concept of approval, not attempting to turn words into magic tokens. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:5, Insightful) by MooseTick ( 895855 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:53PM (#61844671) Homepage Am I the only one who thinks too many people here are hung up on their personal precise definition of the word "approval", and missing the big picture? The FDA hasn't done any giant studies on whether Cheetos cause cancer or if drinking Mountain Dew causes blindness but I don't see anyone hesitating consuming those products because they weren't "approved". Anti-vaxers let fear control their lives about as those 250lb white guys who have to take their guns everywhere because of the 1 in 1000000 chance they could be victimized. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1, Troll) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:58PM (#61844701) Words have meanings. More importantly words have powerful meanings in Law. Orwell is rolling over in his grave. He warned us all about folks like you. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Dynedain ( 141758 ) <`moc.nilcmynohtna' `ta' `2todhsals'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:33PM (#61844901) Homepage And no-one on this thread is qualified to debate the legal definitions of the terminology being used. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:46PM (#61844971) Really? We aren't qualified to think for ourselves? And worse you want YouTube neckbeards to be the ultimate arbiter? Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Dynedain ( 141758 ) <`moc.nilcmynohtna' `ta' `2todhsals'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:53PM (#61845019) Homepage This is what happens when there are threats to remove Section 230 protections. Content hosting platforms are going to take proactive action to squash controversial content that could otherwise leave them legally liable to serve. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:35PM (#61845483) Words have meanings. Meanings. Plural. When the FDA gives "emergency use authorization", that is an approval. It is not "FDA Approved", because that's a different meaning of the word approve. Words are not the magic tokens you want them to be. Actual language is complex. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:15PM (#61844801) "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." -old legal adage Complaining about the precise definition of "approval" is "pounding the table"; it's what you do when you know you're wrong. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:06PM (#61845587) "If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, pound the table." -old legal adage Complaining about the precise definition of "approval" is "pounding the table"; it's what you do when you know you're wrong. Definitions are facts. The law uses those facts. To ignore definitions when talking about law is to pound the table, which is what you know you're doing. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0, Troll) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:35AM (#61844229) False, the two phrases have very different legal and health/risk meanings. Only one vaccine has approval, the rest have "emergency use authorization." It could even be none of the other vaccines ever get approved and the emergency use revoked. Learn about the process, reasoning, risks and meanings, it's quite interesting. And by the way, the two doses I received were not approved, only had an authorization. "Emergeny use authorization" is NOT approval. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by TheMiddleRoad ( 1153113 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:52AM (#61844307) On the legal level, you are correct. In a more regular use of the word "approval", I think most people would think that "emergency use authorization" is a form of approval. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2, Insightful) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:01PM (#61844367) That's the problem though. You're misleading people by your use of the word 'Approved' and there are legal and possible health consequences for the people who believe your lie. Why are you afraid of just telling people the truth and letting them decide for themselves? Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:4, Insightful) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:57PM (#61844693) Journal Why are you afraid of just telling people the truth and letting them decide for themselves? They are telling the truth. The message is just simplified. See, most people aren't capable of understanding the difference between EUA and full approval. Most people aren't medical researchers. It's complicated and nuanced and difficult to understand how those differences affect risk. The whole message is noisy, and that noise is what dishonest actors are exploiting. People like you want to split hairs over the legal vs the common use of the word 'approved' to make people think that EUA means completely untested. That's what I'd call a lie. As for trusting people to make informed decisions about the vaccine, I should remind you that there are people who believe that: - Covid is a hoax created by the liberal media - the vaccine contains 'microchips' for some reason. - vaccinated people are dangerous because the vaccine was engineered to make people spread a different, more deadly, disease. - the vaccine is designed to kill anyone who gets it inside three years. - the vaccine is significantly more deadly than the virus - a lot of nonsense about blood clots - Dr. Fauci refused to take the vaccine and the world leaders are getting saline injections - Dr. Fauci was tried and executed in Guantanamo Bay and we're seeing a "body double" - Bill Gates created the vaccine has been arrested by the military. This is just a small sample of the insanity people are spreading about the virus and vaccine. These people are not capable of making informed decisions. They "did their own research" and this is what they came away believing. We need a simple message that's easy to understand if we want to save people's lives. You want to needlessly complicate that message for reasons I dare not speculate about. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1, Flamebait) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:18PM (#61844815) That's really the root of the disagreement. You believe you're smarter than everyone else and should be able to forcibly inject your lessors whereas I believe people should be able to make their own informed decisions. To be able to make that informed decision requires all available information which can be hard to do when one side is being actively suppressed. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:4, Insightful) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:59PM (#61845325) Journal I believe people should be able to make their own informed decisions. This is the lie the libertarians tell themselves: People magically have access to perfect information and will always act in their own rational self-interest. That's pure fantasy. People, even with easy access to reliable information, will go out of their way to make choices harmful to themselves and others. But that's the best-case. As I've demonstrated, they're also incapable of separating legitimate information for insane conspiracies. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by Jastiv ( 958017 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:29AM (#61847909) Homepage That is assuming that protecting people from themselves is a noble goal rather than a vice to be avoided at all costs. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:37AM (#61847935) Australia takes "seriously" to protect this women from COVID, this should be a noble goal: https://twitter.com/MichaelPSe... [twitter.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @04:14PM (#61848965) Journal You must be new to this whole 'civilization' thing. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by cthulhu11 ( 842924 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @03:34PM (#61848809) These are the fundamental lies of "libertarians". Time and again we see that a significant fraction of people -- and especially businesses -- will NOT act reasonably without regulation. With regard to vaccines, "people" are not immunologists for the most part, so we rationally rely on experts. The GP's "informed decision" sophistry is also a key part of the "libertarian" lie, their denial that elitism is the driver of their whole philosophy. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:52PM (#61845541) Homepage Journal That's really the root of the disagreement. You believe you're smarter than everyone else and should be able to forcibly inject your lessors whereas I believe people should be able to make their own informed decisions. To be able to make that informed decision requires all available information which can be hard to do when one side is being actively suppressed. Not all issues have more than one side. The very notion that you have to present a contrary view for everything, no matter how wacky, is exactly how we ended up with this insanity to begin with. It is provably impossible to become more informed by adding provably incorrect data to a collection of proven facts. You can only become less informed and more confused. And for the most part, this is also true for adding grossly misleading information, thanks to the human tendency to latch onto ideas and not change their opinions even when proven wrong. When lives are on the line, it is vitally important that factually correct information be the first thing that people are exposed to. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:53PM (#61846679) SCOTUS has disagreed with you for over 100 years. George Washington disagrees with you. Why? You are fucktarded, that's why. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by TimothyHollins ( 4720957 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @07:10AM (#61847367) No side is being suppressed, but one side is being blocked and banned due to spreading lies and misinformation intentionally. There are no "informed" decisions to be made there. If you belong in the 2% of the population that has increased risk of side effects from vaccination that is one thing, but what we are seeing is that 20-25% of the population refuse the vaccine on emotional grounds. Second, he is not smarter than everyone else, just smarter than the anti-vaxxers, which is not that difficult. And he is absolutely right to "forcibly inject" the lessors - not because his freedoms are greater than theirs, but because public health affects everyone; you are not a hermit living alone in the woods. There is no "freedom" to risk the lives of others any more than there is a freedom to drive drunk and risk hitting someone with your car. Or do you believe that driving drunk is also an informed decision? Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by dryeo ( 100693 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:43PM (#61846863) The blood clots were a real thing, with AstraZenaca. Killed 3 Canadians and its use was discontinued. For Americans, they never had access to that vaccine so have to settle for the 1 in 4 chance of Covid giving a blood clot instead of the 1 in a 100,000 (60,000?) chance with AstraZenaca. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:52AM (#61846953) Journal Ah, you don't know. Two things then: The crazies think that "the vaccine" is causing blood clots in women at an alarming rate and the media is keeping it a secret. This is often tied in with the "killing more people than the virus" claims from the same idiots. As for Astrazenica, Canada allows it for 18 and older [canada.ca]. I think the only country that actually discontinued its use was Norway. Most of the EU allows it, as does Australia. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by dryeo ( 100693 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @01:20AM (#61846983) OK, I haven't kept up with the crazies. As for AstraZenaca, while it is still allowed, we did stop using it. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by cthulhu11 ( 842924 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @03:36PM (#61848813) Notably, if YouTube is only just now starting to do this, they're eight months too late for it to make a difference. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:44PM (#61844617) Because you're a fucking moron Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:56PM (#61844689) People have the right to be morons though. You don't have the right to forcibly inject them with anything no matter how much you want that power over everyone. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:14PM (#61845627) The Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by dumb_jedi ( 955432 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:20PM (#61845659) While people DO have the right to be morons, they don't have the right to put other people at risk. That's the reason we have speed limits when driving. People refusing to get vaccinated because of bogus reasons not only puts themselves in risk, with others as well: - Risk of transmitting COVID to someone vulnerable (even indirectly) - Risk of breeding mutations - Risk of overwhelming the heath care system which denies care for other people. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:53AM (#61844321) It could even be none of the other vaccines ever get approved and the emergency use revoked. Learn about the process, reasoning, risks and meanings, it's quite interesting. We do. You seem to construct all of your arguments on terminology that makes little difference. For example, you would argue that seedless grapes are not technically fruit as they have no seeds. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:05PM (#61844399) This is an article in regular media, talking about the concept of "approval". Words are not the magic you want them to be. Emergency use authorization is a form of approval. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2, Insightful) by FuegoFuerte ( 247200 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:00PM (#61845049) When talking about compliance-related topics, words have specific meanings and it's rather disingenuous to imply otherwise. In the context of the FDA (which is what we're specifically talking about when talking about vaccines and medications), "Authorization" is not a form of "Approval". Emergency Use Authorization is, by its very definition, authorization to use a non-approved medicine or in this case vaccine due to some extenuating circumstance, based on early evidence that it is likely to be effective. This is very similar to dealing with a much more computer-nerd-centric topic of federal compliance - if I sell "FIPS 140-2 compliant" hardware, it means it should do everything FIPS 140-2 requires, but if I'm building an environment that's going to host IL4 or IL5 data and is subject to FEDRAMP or similar, I can't use that hardware (at least, not without a whole lot of additional paperwork). I have to use FIPS 140-2 (and soon, 140-3) validated hardware, which means it's been submitted to NIST and fully tested to meet the FIPS 140-2 (or -3) criteria, and has gone through the entire process to get the government's stamp of approval. If I have a legitimate need to use specific hardware that is undergoing the validation process and is likely to pass, I may be able to get an AOR (acceptance of risk) allowing me to use that hardware pre-validation. Vaccines are the same, it's just the FDA instead of NIST, and the words used are different. If this were NIST, we would currently have an AOR to use the vaccine, pre-validation. We could call the vaccine compliant, but that's a weasel-word as it doesn't have a solid legal meaning in this context. We could still use it because we went through the process to get an AOR though, as we believe it to be useful where nothing else is, and it is going through the official validation process and likely to pass. So, words have meaning, and in a legal/regulatory context such as this they have very specific meanings, and one can not simply pick from a thesaurus to say they're the same thing. They aren't, and to say otherwise is either ignorant or intentionally deceitful. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:16PM (#61845631) "The FDA approved the vaccine for emergency use" is factually correct. "Approve" is not the magic token you are trying to make it. It's a word with multiple definitions. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by FuegoFuerte ( 247200 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:29PM (#61845709) It is NOT factually correct. The FDA *authorized* the vaccine for emergency use. Words have meanings, and when dealing with regulatory topics they are very specific meanings, and are NOT interchangeable, like you seem to believe. Don't believe me? Maybe you should ask the FDA if they "approved" any vaccine for emergency use. And then, you can try telling an auditor for an IL5 environment that you're using FIPS 140-2 compliant hardware too, and see what they say. For bonus laughs, when they ask if it's validated, tell them you validated it by checking with the manufacturer that it was compliant. Let us all know how far that gets you. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @10:05PM (#61846705) Covidiots are like sovcits using "travelling" as if it is a magic word that exempts them from drivers licenses and car registration. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:17PM (#61846303) Emergency approval is still an approval. Sure, and an emergency exit is still an exit. What? Well it is, my logic is unassailable, See it meets a lower standard of approval, and it makes no sense to wag fingers are normal citizens for being scared of the vaccine if the FDA doesnâ(TM)t even feel that the merit full approval. If emergency approval and regular approval were the same, there would be no distinction made The FDA website openly admits that they do not know about the long-term effects, but some random people on the Internet sweat itâ(TM)s safe long-term. Why the random people donâ(TM)t share their research with the FDA, so the FDA can be as sure, is a mystery. In the 50s a 60â(TM)s people received polio vaccines contaminated with a virus that was known to cause cancer. Until very recently, the FDA and CDC had a section about this on their websites. They were recently deleted. If you made a video about this, it would be banned. And the party which claims to loathe big pharma suddenly realizes that big pharma is beyond reproach! It sure sounds like they care about you. With that kind of integrity, how could they not? The elite will determine what you should worry about, and the conformists will turn you in if they catch you worrying about unapproved things. Trust the Party, they say. In any event, whatever, nothing can be done. You cannot help people are tell them anything. Read your history and you will see the same thing, ad-nauseum. Moral-panic, government salvation, government abuse, backlash, rinse and repeat. You deserve the world that you are helping to create and when you get it, there will be nobody to help you. Nobody. Oh sure, it seems like utopia, it always does. But it never is. The psychopaths in the ruling class are good at what they do. So good that the people cheer as itâ(TM)s being done, Then, once it is too late ⦠well, I am sure it will be fine. After all, you are you, the special one. I am sure that this time it will different. And if not, it will be someone else fault. At least that is while you will think. Others. Those other people. Probably those smelly people in the working class. Or minorities, they have much lower vaccination rates than good affluent white people. Yeah, it is those damn minorities, as usual. Fucking minorities not getting their vaccinations. Maybe we should round them up and put them in some kind of camp. Someplace where they can concentrate without the constant barrage of misinformation they currently receive. I mean it has never been done before. Someone should try it. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:31AM (#61844213) That is a lie as all CoVID vaccines required approval prior to being administered. But way to prove YouTube's point as your post includes misinformation that is easily debunked. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:3) by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:12PM (#61844435) That is a lie as all CoVID vaccines required approval prior to being administered. They require permission/authorization from the FDA - which in this case is done by the EUA, not by Clearance / Approval; The CoVID Vaccines were reviewed and are authorized by the FDA for use due to the emergency situation. Which is just as good and important as approval. It Does seem deceptive when people cite only that they have not been approved as if it indicate some kind of problem while also omitting the fact that they have in-fact been reviewed carefully, and authorized and recommended for use by the federal government agencies. See the FDA's website [fda.gov] the FDA can issue an EUA to provide access to medical products that may potentially be used when there are no adequate, approved, and available options. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0, Troll) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:32AM (#61844217) no, you are the liar. Most vaccines have "emergency use authorization", not approval. Only one vaccine has approval. Big difference. Educate your ignorant self before making accusations. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:40AM (#61844249) Most vaccines have "emergency use authorization", not approval. Only one vaccine has approval. Big difference. By saying that only one vaccine has been "approved", you want to obscure the fact that none of the vaccines cannot be administered unless the FDA says they can be under EUA or regulatory approval. In other words, you are being blatantly dishonest. Educate your ignorant self before making accusations. And what is the difference between EUA and regulatory approval? If you know what difference is, then you are dishonest with your first statement. If you don't know, it is ironic that you call others "ignorant". Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:57AM (#61844341) Journal At the end of the day the normal process for a radical new medical technology using genetic modification takes years to decades and not just because it takes that long to jump through the hoops but because many year trials to establish safety over time are required first in animals and then in humans. That process wasn't followed. The safety it establishes isn't established and the reasons it exists were disregarded. Saying something was FDA approved is normally synonymous with saying it was rigorously vetted for safety. Your argument is that all people should care about is that the portion of our staff we charge with testing medical treatments signed off permitting someone to offer the treatment. That is a far cry from silencing anyone who disagrees with the call or people not having the right to disagree. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2, Informative) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:09PM (#61844413) At the end of the day the normal process for a radical new medical technology using genetic modification takes years to decades and not just because it takes that long to jump through the hoops but because many year trials to establish safety over time are required first in animals and then in humans. By "radical new", you mean decades old [nature.com], then yes. The first animal trials were of a mRNA vaccine was in 1995 with mRNA being suggested as a drug back in 1988. So decades old. That process wasn't followed. What part was not followed that meets your criteria? The safety it establishes isn't established and the reasons it exists were disregarded. That is factually false. There is an established protocol for EUA. The main difference is that manufacturers are allowed to start making something before testing is complete. That is the main difference. The drug/vaccine still has to pass clinical trials. Your argument is that all people should care about is that the portion of our staff we charge with testing medical treatments signed off permitting someone to offer the treatment. Please cite when I said that. I never said that. That is a strawman argument at best. That is a far cry from silencing anyone who disagrees with the call or people not having the right to disagree. He can disagree but I can calling him out for posting misinformation and outright lies. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:31PM (#61844539) Journal "He can disagree but I can calling him out for posting misinformation and outright lies." In my world communicating the underlying picture accurately is primary and literally correct statements are of secondary importance. If someone is doing so in good faith it isn't a lie. Factual statements delivered in a manner that detracts from accurate portrayal of the underlying picture are misinformation and lies. "Please cite when I said that. I never said that. That is a strawman argument at best." No, it is a far characterization of your position, in the context in which you are expressing it (in support of actions taken by Youtube to suppress opinions and communications in disagreement with our staff aka the FDA). "By "radical new", you mean decades old [nature.com], then yes. The first animal trials were of a mRNA vaccine was in 1995 with mRNA being suggested as a drug back in 1988. So decades old." Again, misleading. There are hundreds if not thousands of treatments about which you could make similar claims that we haven't even gotten to work in animal trials. These vaccines have undergone no long term clinical trials and the only trial of significant scale that has been conducted has been the public release. Even that is highly suspect with a strong bias against reporting complications. I had a close relative die of heart complications within 72hrs of taking the Pfizer vaccine with no history of heart issues. She was in remission and the coroner ruled the death unknown and her doctor listed it as cancer. They refused to report the vaccine related death even though it was in the mandatory window for automatic reporting 'don't even go there' the coroner said when we mentioned it. I had to report it manually. "What part was not followed that meets your criteria?" Duration. Reduced duration or skipped clinical trials on populations which are not statistically significant prevent establishing the safety that clinical trials are intended to establish. Basic Research/Drug Development and Pre-Clinical/Translational Research (combined) 3 to 6 years Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 Clinical Trials (combined) 6 to 7 years FDA Review/Manufacturing 0.5 to 2 years Phase 4 Clinical Trial/Post-Market Surveillance/Report Adverse Events 0.5 to 10 years (at least as long as the drug is on the market) * https://www.brightfocus.org/clinical-trials/how-clinical-trials-work/phases-... Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:52PM (#61844669) No, it is a far characterization of your position, in the context in which you are expressing it (in support of actions taken by Youtube to suppress opinions and communications in disagreement with our staff aka the FDA). So no I did not say what you accused me of saying. How is that not dishonest on your part? So you are admitting you used a strawman argument. Again, misleading. There are hundreds if not thousands of treatments about which you could make similar claims that we haven't even gotten to work in animal trials. Your assertion is the technology is "radical new" when it is in fact decades old. Factually you are wrong. These vaccines have undergone no long term clinical trials and the only trial of significant scale that has been conducted has been the public release. This is another dishonest tactic called shifting the goals. This was not your initial objection. But by your standard, no medication would ever be released as you would requite decades long testing before release. Your assertion is silly and illogical. Even that is highly suspect with a strong bias against reporting complications. What do you mean "bias"? There is a separate reporting system just for vaccines in addition to the general FDA monitoring system. I have no idea what you are talking about. I had a close relative die of heart complications within 72hrs of taking the Pfizer vaccine with no history of heart issues. She was in remission and the coroner ruled the death unknown and her doctor listed it as cancer. They refused to report the vaccine related death even though it was in the mandatory window for automatic reporting 'don't even go there' the coroner said when we mentioned it. I had to report it manually. So your cousin died of cancer but you want to blame it on the vaccine. Logical fallacy: Correlation is not causation. Duration. Reduced duration or skipped clinical trials on populations which are not statistically significant prevent establishing the safety that clinical trials are intended to establish. Citation needed. Basic Research/Drug Development and Pre-Clinical/Translational Research (combined) 3 to 6 years Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 Clinical Trials (combined) 6 to 7 years FDA Review/Manufacturing 0.5 to 2 years Phase 4 Clinical Trial/Post-Market Surveillance/Report Adverse Events 0.5 to 10 years (at least as long as the drug is on the market) You do understand that the "average" time of an approval is not the required time? You do understand that, right? In this post alone, you have at least 3 logical fallacies. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by dagarath ( 33684 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:36PM (#61845737) Since none of the vaccines (pfizer/moderna/J&J) in question involve genetic modification your point fails. Check your biology before posting. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @10:31PM (#61846755) mRNA doesn't modify genes. Your entire argument is based on a lie and total ignorance. Fuck off, covidiot. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:50AM (#61844303) You just keep spewing your ignorance, talking out of your ass without doing a shred of research or attempt at educating yourself. You are the one who doesn't know what the difference is. You are the one being dishonest. Full approval requires longer observation of those in clinical study with more data gathered. Manufacturers have to provide details of procedure plans and process, and have more oversight of production. Then decision for approval made That has NOT happened yet with the other vaccines, and it could be some fail in this more rigorous review. "Approval" by FDA has very specific definition. Only one vaccine thus far has it. it could be one or more other covid vaccines never gets it for a myriad of reasons. Stop the virtual signalling and talking out of your ass, this is specific legal thing that hasn't happened for most vaccines. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:16PM (#61844453) Does EUA require passing clinical trials or not? By saying only one vaccine has been "approved" you want to create a narrative that does not exist and at the same time create false narratives about what others are doing. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:30PM (#61844891) Journal Why split this hair? One vaccine is fully approved, the others are approved for emergency use. No one is claiming that full approval and approval for emergency use are the same. I think you're playing silly semantic games because you want people to erroneously think that "approved for emergency use" means "untested" so that you can imply the vaccine is "unsafe". What I don't know is why anyone would want to discourage others from getting the vaccine. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:3) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:38PM (#61844577) Homepage What a hill to die on. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:45AM (#61844271) Youtube targets a worldwide audience. It couldn't care less whether the USA has 2 different types of approval (EUA and regular). Also, other countries including Canada fully approved Moderna and other vaccines. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:06PM (#61844401) Homepage The European Medicines Agency also has a Conditional Marketing Authorisation [europa.eu] process that is separate from the usual long-term marketing authorization. The former was used for fast-track authorization of Covid vaccines. I won't claim that every country has a fast track for emergency authorization, but I suspect most do for exactly the same reason that the US does, and so YouTube should think about how to handle the differences. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:53PM (#61845017) Of course a lot of countries probably have 2 or more ways to approve a vaccine. But Youtube shouldn't care about that. Are you saying videos saying Moderna vaccine causes autism should be allowed but not those who say the same of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine? And should those videos concerning Moderna be only available in the USA and other countries where the vaccine is not fully approved? Canada also has some sort of EUA (altough the procedure is different) but Moderna is now fully approved, just like Pfizer-BioNTech. The approval for both was given on the same day, in a semi-automatic manner because the previous "temporary" authorization expired. So yes, it varies by jurisdiction. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:32PM (#61846649) Homepage "Youtube shouldn't care about that." And then what? YouTube treats a conditional or emergency use approval from Niue the same as a full approval from the FDA, for the purposes of policing disinformation? They have a country-specific list of banned videos for medical disinformation, election misinformation, press freedom violations, memory-holed truths, inconvenient protests, and so on? I assume you have a brain. Use it. Follow your argument to its logical conclusion. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:21AM (#61847547) "Youtube shouldn't care about that." And then what? YouTube treats a conditional or emergency use approval from Niue the same as a full approval from the FDA, for the purposes of policing disinformation? I never said that. I just don't see any case where YouTube should make a difference between EUA and "full" approval by the FDA. They have a country-specific list of banned videos for medical disinformation, election misinformation, press freedom violations, memory-holed truths, inconvenient protests, and so on? I don't know. You tell me. I guess they are free to do it as it pleases them. Not that I really care, but I don't think they do it for every country, maybe only the major ones. I assume you have a brain. Use it. Follow your argument to its logical conclusion. The only logical conclusion here is that you are an idiot. Look, it seems you didn't get my point at all. The distinction between an EUA and a full approval is futile when comes the time to decide whether to block or allow misinformation on vaccines on an online video sharing platform. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Entrope ( 68843 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:30AM (#61847565) Homepage Why should YouTube ignore the distinction that the drug regulatory agency itself makes? Because you really, really want them to allow misinformation about colloidal silver or St John's Wort or whatever other snake oil isn't approved by the FDA? Look, if YouTube wanted to be consistent, they should have this rule about medical misinformation or disinformation more generally. They shouldn't be stricter about it just because the person is talking about the BioNTech vaccine rather than about the 5G brain control microchips that the government is supposedly forcing people to inject. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by fred6666 ( 4718031 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:58PM (#61848235) Why should YouTube ignore the distinction that the drug regulatory agency itself makes? Because the distinction is futile when it comes to deciding wether to allow or deny misinformation. Anyways, if you think the distinction is important, how do you suggest Youtube behave differently? Are you suggesting they allow misinformation against vaccines under EUA but not fully approved ones? Because you really, really want them to allow misinformation about colloidal silver or St John's Wort or whatever other snake oil isn't approved by the FDA? I'd prefer if there were no disinformation at all. However I understand YouTube can't get rid of all of it, and anyways is not in a position to determine what is the truth. But in some cases, the disinformation is so blatantly obvious that it can be safely taken out, especially when it's doing a lot of harm. Flat earthers are just funny, I don't think it's worth it to try to remove them from YouTube. Anti-vax, however, are a concern. So I understand YouTube wants to do something about it. I wouldn't want to be the platform of choice of anti-vax either. So given that YouTube can't fight all the misinformation, they should start with what is worth it. Approved vaccines is a good start, and it doesn't matter if it's EUA or not. And yes, misinformation on snake oil does less harm, because I can just say look: this thing doesn't work, otherwise they'd get it approved by the FDA. So again, if YouTube wants to start with something, vaccine is a good topic. It would be stupid to ban only misinformation on COVID-19 vaccines (and would only fuel conspiracy theories) so all vaccines is a good idea. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:03PM (#61844387) We will all rue the day when Big Tech gets to decide which subjective opinions are "misinformation" or not. It's baffling to me how many bootlickers there are on this site cheering them on. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:33PM (#61844553) Journal We will all rue the day when Big Tech gets to decide which subjective opinions are "misinformation" or not. It's baffling to me how many bootlickers there are on this site cheering them on. Just wait until they start taking down those who tell people they can use arsenic as a way to mitigate covid symptoms. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:18PM (#61844811) Just wait until they start taking down those who tell people they can use arsenic as a way to mitigate covid symptoms. Shhh, Big Pharma and George Soros don't want people to know that! Didn't you get the memo? Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by nicolaiplum ( 169077 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:48AM (#61844291) You are part of the problem. Please get off the Internet. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2, Interesting) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:54AM (#61844333) You are in the wrong. "Approval" has very specific meaning including monitoring of clinical trial participants for six months or more. It includes manufacturer submittnig detailed plans and procedures that were not required for EUA. It includes high level of oversight during manufacturing that wasn't present for EUA. Only one vaccine has had all that and been granted "approval" Stop spreading misinformation and misconceptions. Educate yourself, learn why only one vaccine approved thus far. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by bws111 ( 1216812 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:03PM (#61844385) No, FDA Approved means that. The article does not say FDA Approved, it just says 'approved'. The second paragraph further clarifies it as 'any vaccine health authorities consider effective. The EUAs were given precisely because they were considered effective. For YouTubes purposes, FDA Approved and EUA are the same thing. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:00PM (#61844713) That's where you are wrong, the vaccines in question have zero approval of any kind in the USA. The differences between EUA and "approval" are massive. Seeming effective only based on half the clinical subjects, only watching for two months, isn't normally the proper criteria for a vaccine, only an EUA one get that very low bar. A vaccine could be proved to be very dangerous after half a year monitoring that "approved" ones get, just as example. "Approved" implies a massive amount of additional things and much lower risk, and it is very bad to claim EUA things have anything of the sort, they do not. The other vaccines might be found too dangerous to administer and even EUA revoked, that's what the real process has in scope. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:02PM (#61845063) I don't know if you keep up with current events, but the Pfizer vaccine got full approval several weeks ago. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by faraway ( 174370 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:54PM (#61846229) Maybe that's the problem you keep up with current events by reading propaganda. The Pfizer vaccine has not been approved. Comirnity has been approved; unfortunately no one can get Comirnity as it is not available anywhere. https://www.fda.gov/media/1503... [fda.gov] ---- All descriptive printed matter, advertising, and promotional material relating to the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously shall state that: This product has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA, under an EUA to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 12 years of age and older; and ---- The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness. ---- One comes with liability from the manufacturer. One does not. It's just a label change... but they keep selling us the old un-approved crap. I refuse to take any experimental gene therapy the manufacturer refuses to take responsibility for until the experimental group has had a few years to fester. Especially any gene therapy that has not been evaluated for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or infertility. -- I'll take my chances with COVID, thanks! Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:25PM (#61846831) You're confused, I explicitly said one vaccine was approved in USA. I was pointing out the rest were not and that there is HUGE difference in criteria between EUA and approval. Hopefully more get approved, but facts are our friends. Sad so many here think they are being some kind of defender of righteousness and then dispute facts conflictling with made up nonsense, feel good vibes and propaganda they wish were true. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by ArmoredDragon ( 3450605 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:40PM (#61849945) I was pointing out the rest were not and that there is HUGE difference in criteria between EUA and approval. Hopefully more get approved, but facts are our friends. So what point are you trying to make? That everything is bad until some specific criteria is met? Sorry, but that's just not how it works. The vaccine that existed before approval is the same one that exists after. After the initial clinical data was in, there really wasn't any good reason not to go with emergency use authorization. It was that good. defender of righteousness and then dispute facts conflictling with made up nonsense, feel good vibes and propaganda they wish were true. It is righteous, and it's not propaganda. It's hard data. Because I work for the health care sector, I'm actually privy to a bit of data that the general public may not be (at least, the presentation I was shown was marked for internal use only, so I can't share specifics.) What I can tell you (or rather, confirm) is that, despite the majority of the population being vaccinated, the majority of patients in the ICU's do not have the vaccine. In fact it's in the single digits of numbers that are vaccinated that are in a given ICU for COVID-19, compared to the other several hundred that are not vaccinated. You're probably going to argue at this point that the vaccine is unsafe just because it doesn't have the stamp of approval. Well, let's put it this way: Serious side effects of any kind from the vaccines (as opposed to say, just a sore arm or mild nausea) are so rare that most hospitals haven't ever encountered even one patient with them. That is the truth of it all. What's "sad" here is what you're doing. By pretending to be an expert at the subject (you're not) and telling people to avoid the vaccines based on anecdotes (not data) that you've no doubt cherry picked from facebook and twitter, you're actually killing them. It has also probably caused permanent harm to several others who survive serious reactions to the virus. While it may not be the case that somebody who listened directly to you has died, it's very likely that you've contributed to somebody else telling somebody else to avoid the vaccines, who have died, which basically makes you an accessory to their suicide. If it's any consolation though, you're only killing your own. That is, the people dying from your advice are more likely to be people who think like you and agree with you on a range of topics. Which, thankfully, puts your viewpoint and your advice on a self-correcting path. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:49PM (#61844657) Educate yourself LOL, from the fuckwit who can't read a fucking dictionary Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:48PM (#61844985) Journal One has full FDA Approval, the others have been approved for emergency use. You want people to think that the other vaccines are completely untested and therefore unsafe. You're the one spreading misinformation and misconceptions. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:19PM (#61845651) "Approval" has very specific meaning including monitoring of clinical trial participants for six months or more. Indeed. And it is the *first* phase trials which needed to go through those six months. Which was done. Completely. Emergency authorisation sets exactly the same bar for testing as full approval, it merely allows all steps to happen in parallel rather than sequentially. Stop spreading misinformation you dangerous moron. Flag as Inappropriate Re: do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by Linux Torvalds ( 647197 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:30PM (#61845715) "Educate yourself." The amateur doctor who does his own medical research has a fool for a patient. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:56AM (#61844337) Homepage Journal True, and if the higher bar of FDA approval is important to you then you should have scheduled your first Pfizer jab (Comirnaty) at the end of August. There is no need to wait any longer. Most of the population was satisfied with the lower bar of an emergency authorization, because well it was an emergency. Having some unknown consequences in the future, as rare as they seemed from the testing done over the last 18 months, was a risk people were willing to take to avoid putting family members or themselves at risk of hospitalization or long COVID. So far vaccination with an authorized by unapproved vaccine was a personal choice. Now we will shift in the phase where a vaccine is a requirement for participation in certain social activities. Expect by next year that if you want to board a plane you'll need a REAL ID and a vaccine card. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:18PM (#61844463) " Now we will shift in the phase where a vaccine is a requirement for participation in certain social activities." We'll see how that works out as the effectiveness of the vaccine continues to fade. They're already banning any discussion of that so we know it's real. That's the problem with propaganda, it doesn't take long for people to just assume the opposite of what you say is true and then nobody will ever believe anything you ever say again. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:43PM (#61844605) Journal We'll see how that works out as the effectiveness of the vaccine continues to fade. They're already banning any discussion of that so we know it's real. The reason we know effectiveness fades with these current vacciens is precisely because it's being discussed. No one is banning anything or else you wouldn't have heard about this. That's the problem with propaganda, it doesn't take long for people to just assume the opposite of what you say is true and then nobody will ever believe anything you ever say again. Says the person spouting propaganda. Congratulations to you, the con artist, and the Republican party for putting the American people on par with the morons in Russia who believe the same shit. "The media can't be trusted" (because they expose the truth and crimes). "There are countless people who question the election results" (no, there isn't because all they're doing is repeating the propaganda). "There were millions of illegals voting (and yet, not one case has been shown). "Vote fraud was rampant in this election (16 cases out of millions of votes, and almost all were from Republicans). Now, I could go on, but I'm sure you'll come up with some excuse how everything I said, all of which is factual in nature, isn't true and how I''m just a "sheep" for believing it. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:03PM (#61844743) You mean it WAS being discussed, at least until all traces of those discussion are deleted and further discussion is prohibited by people like you because facts are inconvenient. That's what the topic of this post is about. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:-1, Flamebait) by Chas ( 5144 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:13PM (#61844791) Homepage Journal No. The media can't be trusted because they lie. "Mostly peaceful protests" while buildings burn and people are being beaten to death in the background. How, depending on who is sitting in the oval office, the vaccine cannot be trusted. Then, with that one small change, YOU CANNOT QUESTION THIS! Major news networks casually ignoring the authoritarian takeover in Australia. Pushing Trump-Russia for years when they knew it wasn't true. If it makes you happy to believe the pablum they're puking out...fine. Go ahead. Everyone else is just going to sit back and laugh at you. Especially the people benefitting from your useful idiocy. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:51PM (#61845009) Journal Always with the unspecified "they". You're probably one of those anti-vaxxers that belive that the Clintons were executed by the military and that the deep state has replaced them with body doubles. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by Train0987 ( 1059246 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:02PM (#61845061) And there it is everybody! You are smarter than everyone and even when you get tripped up it must because 'You probably voted for Trump!" Narcissist segregationists are too predictable. PSSST: I participated in the original Moderna trial. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by narcc ( 412956 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:00PM (#61845333) Journal I participated in the original Moderna trial. You're lying. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:29PM (#61846843) The people you think are snobby because they act like they're smarter than you act that way because they're smarter than you and you're so dense that you're not worth reasoning with. The one time Clinton was truly honest was when she called you POSes "a basket of deplorables." Your inner troll has consumed you and you've become such an argumentative jackass that you can't distinguish between reality and fiction. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:17PM (#61845635) Most of the population was satisfied with the lower bar of an emergency authorization Emergency authorization did *NOT* set a lower bar. Not at all. 100% of the testing that went through for normal approval still had to be done for emergency authorization. The only thing the emergency approval allowed was for the tests to be done in parallel and for manufacture to begin before testing was concluded. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:38PM (#61846657) Vaccines have to go through ~10 years of testing before approval (and no 9 women can't make a baby in 1 month before you even go there). So unless the Chinese are correct and the US made covid-19 in a lab in 2011 and has been testing the vaccines in secret since then the vaccines are not properly tested :p. That said a lethal common cold (covid-19) is not the same thing as the flu. Unlike the flu it causes internal organ damage via blood clotting and you don't even have to show symptoms for that happen (You know that whole long covid thing). Covid-19 is a lot more dangerous than the vaccines, both in the short and long term. But claiming the vaccines are safe is a massive distortion of the truth. They aren't safe it's just that covid-19 is 100x times worse in every way imaginable. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:19PM (#61845655) So far vaccination with an authorized by unapproved vaccine was a personal choice This isn't actually true. The case where the SCOTUS ruled vaccine mandates are legal happened before the FDA existed. So obviously, the vaccines in question were not FDA approved. Also, the plaintiff and his family had suffered severe side-effects, so they had actual harm from the vaccine in question. They still lost the case. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:1) by faraway ( 174370 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:59PM (#61846247) The Pfizer jab is not approved. https://www.fda.gov/media/1503... [fda.gov] All descriptive printed matter, advertising, and promotional material relating to the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously shall state that: This product has not been approved or licensed by FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA, under an EUA to prevent Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) for use in individuals 12 years of age and older; and Comirnaty is approved. One comes may come manufacturer liability; one does not. Can't find this "Comirnaty" anywhere.. wonder why. I refuse to take any experimental gene therapy the manufacturer refuses to take responsibility for until the experimental group has had a few years to fester. Especially any gene therapy that has not been evaluated for carcinogenicity, genotoxicity or infertility. -- I'll take my chances with COVID, thanks! Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:25AM (#61847885) Homepage Journal The reason I mentioned Comirnaty in parenthesis is because of that difference. The ingredients are the same, the process is different. For the tiny fraction of Americans where process is important, they now have a vaccine option available to them. experimental gene therapy I don't blame you. I wouldn't take experimental gene therapy. I'd hesitate to take any sort of "gene therapy". Thankfully an mRNA vaccine is not gene therapy. - I'll take my chances with COVID, thanks! Society may have to put restrictions on you for your personal choice. You may not be able to roam as freely as you once were. The story of Typhoid Mary has repeated itself thousands of times during the pandemic. Eventually people are going to put their own safety at a higher priority than your perceived freedom. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:34AM (#61847925) I don't blame you. I wouldn't take experimental gene therapy. I'd hesitate to take any sort of "gene therapy". Thankfully an mRNA vaccine is not gene therapy. You are almost right, this was previously experimented on advanced cancerous patient, and the result was not really successful. Anyway, this is good to have these products to fight a virus as harmful as influenza (or as harmless...). If you look at Australia, this how the fighting against covid is really done: https://twitter.com/MichaelPSe... [twitter.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:39AM (#61847951) Homepage Journal as harmful as influenza (or as harmless...). Agreed, COVID-19 has been less harmful than the 1918 flu over a similar period. Although more harmful over the longer period it has endured. this was previously experimented on advanced cancerous patient, and the result was not really successful. what? did you slip off topic or is this some kind of submarine strawman. honestly, I've changed my mind. I don't want to hear it. I'm sure it's insane. Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @11:55AM (#61848009) Agreed, COVID-19 has been less harmful than the 1918 flu over a similar period. Although more harmful over the longer period it has endured. The 1918 flu was really deadly. COVID-19 is less harmful than common flu for people of working age. For people at risk, early treatments are very effective: https://twitter.com/MichaelRoe... [twitter.com] Here is the official COVID survival rate from the CDC: https://twitter.com/MdTeryn/st... [twitter.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:2) by OrangeTide ( 124937 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:07PM (#61848053) Homepage Journal 1918 Flu was also less harmful to working age people. It killed the very young and very old at a much higher rate. In total killing about 50 million out of 1.7 billion people. Or around 3% of total population, and around 10% of those infected. Easily the leading cause of death during 1918-1918. While COVID-19 is merely the third leading cause of death in 2020-2021. (seriously, you're insane) Flag as Inappropriate Re:do they even know what "approved" means? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:32PM (#61848145) If you open your eyes, you would find, it is almost impossible to find one covid related death happening in Hollywood and the medias combined. COVID is not the 1918 flu, COVID is the common flu. Flag as Inappropriate It's really hard to say.... (Score:-1, Troll) by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:42AM (#61844259) Homepage Journal 2 weeks ago Veritas released a video taken by a nurse who works for HHS showing a doctor slamming the vaccines for side effects. https://riotimesonline.com/bra... [riotimesonline.com] Even the CDC's own VAERS site has data to support what's being claimed in the video. We've also heard that Ivermectin is effective in treating COVID from Japanese studies. https://trialsitenews.com/kita... [trialsitenews.com] As a normal nerd on the news for nerds site, I've always learned look at the source, that security through obscurity is bad. That being a "nerd" means to look at problems from all facets and not just "Do what Micro$oft tells you" and for the record I've had 2 shots of Pfizer. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:00PM (#61844357) 2 weeks ago Veritas released a video taken by a nurse who works for HHS showing a doctor slamming the vaccines for side effects., No one has ever said that vaccines have zero side effects. There are side effects to every medication. These videos start with the outrage that there are side effects "they do not tell you about." When I got my vaccine, I got a multiple page pamphlet about the possible side effects of my vaccine. The two side effects that affected me: my arm hurt and I was sleepy for about a day. We've also heard that Ivermectin is effective in treating COVID from Japanese studies. And that study would be? Most of the studies done on Ivermectin has shown little benefit. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:24PM (#61844501) Homepage Journal UnknowingFool on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:00AM (#61844357) And that study would be? Most of the studies done on Ivermectin has shown little benefit. If you had read the link I included, but since you're too lazy to click a link, I'll copypasta here. Morimasa Yagisawa, visiting professor at Kitasato University, Omura Satoshi Memorial Institute in Tokyo, went on the record that the World Health Organization, drug regulators, and health policy makers shouldn’t ignore anymore the growing data that ivermectin can be an effective and safe adjuvant treatment for COVID-19. Citing accumulating clinical trials data, including many doctor-initiated studies, the professor cited in a virtual interview that 105 studies of ivermectin associated with the coronavirus across 32 nations have been registered, of which 24 have been completed and published. The professor declared that “ivermectin is almighty for prophylaxis, for treatment of early and late stage, and also for long COVID-19 (or) post-acute sequelae (of SARS-CoV-2).” Yagisawa is one of four authors that produced a report titled “Global trends in clinical studies of ivermectin in COVID-19” published in March in the “Japanese Journal of Antibiotics.” He was joined in that report by Satoshi Omura, the biochemist, along with William Campbell who was awarded the 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine associated with the discovery of avermectin, the derivative of which ivermectin ... Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:27PM (#61844877) You do realize that ivermectin also has side effects, right? Some of them can be quite severe. Some studies have shown that ivermectin can help. Most have not. The professor declared that “ivermectin is almighty for prophylaxis, for treatment of early and late stage, and also for long COVID-19 (or) post-acute sequelae (of SARS-CoV-2).” Yeah, when something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. This sentence is exactly the thing which will make be want a lot more proof. "It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping!" Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:49PM (#61844991) Homepage Journal It's more than just some studies, a lot of studies. India has done a lot of studies, as has africa. Both countries have high populations of poor people. >Ivermectin can make up for the low use of vaccination. However, vaccination cannot make up for the low use of Ivermectin. https://www.thedesertreview.co... [thedesertreview.com] Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by kqs ( 1038910 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:50PM (#61845289) I see your "Desert Review" and raise you "my cousin's girlfriend heard this from a friend who is a real good doctor"... I mean, you can believe poitically biased big media, or you can believe the consensus of virologists. Ivermectin may have some use in areas where parasites are a semi-common covid complication (like India and Africa). But that's not the case in the USA. I suppose you could look at the covid deaths in states where people use ivermectin (via a doctor or self-dose) vs the covid deaths in areas where ivermectin is rarely used. But, um, that doesn't look good at all for ivermectin. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:0) by AndThenThereIsThis ( 7314166 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:15PM (#61845395) Actual study citations available? I've seen several studies were they used parasite protocol rather than virus/bacteria/fungus protocol and, unsurprisingly, showed low effectivity. Other studies waited too long before administering treatment. If you wait till the person is in ICU on a ventilator it will only have slight effect on inflammation issues; other treatments need to be used at that point. If you administer in the first few days of infection then its virus/bacteria/fungus life cycle interference, much like monoclonal antibodies and the medicine that shall not be named, will have a far more pronounced impact on assisting the immune system and keeping the immune system from getting so angry it puts its host in the ICU... Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:06PM (#61845071) If you had read the link I included, but since you're too lazy to click a link, I'll copypasta here. You do know I asked for the study that proves you claim, right? Your claim: "We've also heard that Ivermectin is effective in treating COVID from Japanese studies." Your link does not 1) link the study at all because there is no study. It is an article. 2) at best in your article, there are lots of ongoing studies on the use of Ivermectin for treating COVID. 3) the article from March, the Japanese doctors argues in an article that Ivermectin should be studied based on the number of global studies Since March numerous studies have concluded that there is little effect. That is a long way from our claim that Ivermectin is effective in treating COVID. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:22PM (#61844493) Even the CDC's own VAERS site has data to support what's being claimed in the video. Here's a problem with policies like Youtube.. Ultimately the expected result is videos get taken down and possibly channels may be even blocked or banned based on categorical assumptions that anything which says there may be concerns with X vaccines - Must be misinformation. But there's no way to separate from this a newsworthy video somebody might post some day based on actual evidence - that say something bad that's Not misinformation, If today or tomorrow, or some time down the road legitimate compelling evidence of a problem with an approved vaccine actually materializes and does not get noticed or paid attention to timely by the authorities. There's no algorithm Youtube is going to be able to create that can realize it's not misinformation and exclude it from the censor. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:31PM (#61844543) Homepage Journal You make an excellent point, and here's a correlation that supports what you're saying. I forgot her name, but there was a virologist from China that was the first to speak out that this was a lab leak based on genetic signatures CRISPR editing leaves behind. It wasn't long before facebook memory holed all videos related to her, then a few months later we found it was a lab leak. Even when there's some fairly substantiated evidence from an SME the way the digital censoring is going about it is all wrong, there will be some babies thrown out with the bathwater. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:3) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:41PM (#61844591) Homepage Even the manufacturer of ivermectin says it doesn't work on covid. https://www.merck.com/news/mer... [merck.com] I think they should know the capabilities of their product. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:07PM (#61844763) Homepage Journal That was released February 4, 2021, and their statement wasn't based on clinical studies. >No scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies; Notice the use of "Pre-clinical" yet they don't mention clinical. Odd choice of words. At least one of the Japanese clinical studies was in progress when this was announced. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2... [clinicaltrials.gov] And this is a summary of all the worldwide clinical studies the Japanese looked at. http://jja-contents.wdc-jp.com... [wdc-jp.com] One excerpt in the above comes from here. https://covid19criticalcare.co... [covid19criticalcare.com] Controlled trials studying the prevention of COVID-19 (8 trials completed) 3 RCT’s with large statistically significant reductions in transmission rates, a total of 774 patients 5 OCT’s with large statistically significant reductions in transmission rates, a total of 2,052 patients Controlled trials in the treatment of both early and hospitalized COVID-19 patients (19 trials completed) 5 RCT’s with large, significant reductions in time to recovery or hospital length of stay, a total of 774 patients 1 RCT with a large, statistically significant reduction in rate of deterioration/hospitalization, total of 363 patients 2 RCT’s with significant decreases in viral load, days of anosmia, cough, or time to recovery, a total of 85 patients 3 RCT’s with large, significant reductions in mortality, a total of 695 patients 3 OCT’s with large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, a total of 1,688 patients Number of Studies and Patients Among the Existing Clinical Trials of Ivermectin in COVID-19 27 controlled trials, including a total of 6,612 patients have been completed using well-matched control groups 16 trials, including over 2,500 patients, are prospective, randomized, controlled studies 11 of the 27 trials have been published in peer-reviewed journals, 3,900 patients, remainder are in pre-print Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:35PM (#61844911) Homepage From your Japan study... The effective concentration of ivermectin against SARS-CoV-2 in an in vitro experiment72) by Caly et al. is as high as 2 M; in clinical practice, it is necessary to administer tens of times the normal dose in order to obtain such a blood concentration. Therefore, there are opinions from the IDSA98) and others that the therapeutic effect of COVID-19 cannot be expected by the administration of the normal dose of ivermectin. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:41PM (#61844943) Homepage Journal Plenty of medicines work differently based on dosage. Take aspirin for example. Low doses daily are good for cardiac health. High dosages it's a pain killer. High enough dosage, in soviet russia aspirin kills you! (couldn't help myself, been too long since we had soviet russia jokes on slash) Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by djinn6 ( 1868030 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:15PM (#61845391) 3 RCT’s with large statistically significant reductions in transmission rates, a total of 774 patients 5 OCT’s with large statistically significant reductions in transmission rates, a total of 2,052 patients Controlled trials in the treatment of both early and hospitalized COVID-19 patients (19 trials completed) 5 RCT’s with large, significant reductions in time to recovery or hospital length of stay, a total of 774 patients Oh good. Can you link us to some of those studies? Your article seems to have forgotten to do that. P.S. I have 200 RCTs that says you're full of shit. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:4, Informative) by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:02PM (#61844741) VAERS is not what you think/claim that it is. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:08PM (#61844779) Homepage Journal It's where health care systems are supposed to report adverse reactions to vaccines, am I mistaken? Please elaborate. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:5, Informative) by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:21PM (#61844829) No, its a register where every one, including joe public, can report anything that happens post vaccinations without any regard to if it's connected to the vaccine or not so that scientists later can see if there are trends in the data. That is why you e.g can find children in VAERS that have died in a car accident one week after getting the MMR. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by t0qer ( 230538 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:45PM (#61844969) Homepage Journal There's also been plenty of evidence that people have died from things other than covid, but were labeled as covid. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:54PM (#61845023) Not in any significant numbers no and the number of excess deaths for 2019-2021 for the US shows that if anything the covid deaths are far far under-counted. Over here in my country where death registrations are done much more thoroughly the number matches the excess deaths. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:22PM (#61845665) There's also been plenty of evidence that people have died from things other than covid, but were labeled as covid. And yet the actual statistics of excess mortality show that even when covid deaths are counted that there's still a huge number of deaths unaccounted for. Two scenarios: Magical pixies decided to whisk away the souls of people while we were in a pandemic, or more people are dying due to covid than are being reported. Hint: epidemiologists have concluded it was the latter and have yet to prove the magical pixie theory. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:26PM (#61845681) [Citation Required] Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:2) by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:48PM (#61845277) Yep. You can get the vaccine, walk out and get hit by a bus. If the coroner finds your vax card they can report it to VAERS. VAERS exists to allow public health researchers spot anomalies and investigate if there is a cause relationship to the vaccine. 20% more people vaccinated than non-vaccinated got hit on the head with anvils in the past 6 months? Need to check to see if there is a reason or just bad luck. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It's really hard to say.... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:34PM (#61846157) Veritas ? Really ? The only thing you should do when seeing the their name is laugh and move on. They should really change their name, maybe Pravda ? Pravdas ? Flag as Inappropriate "Truth" (Score:-1, Troll) by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:01PM (#61844365) I can think of eight things we now think are true which previously the government and officials previously said were conspiracy theories and misinformation. Here's a list of these contradictions: 1. "You can't make vaccines for coronaviruses, they mutate too quickly" vs. "you can make vaccines for coronaviruses, you have protection even if they mutate" 2. "There is no novel coronavirus in China. It's nothing. It'll never spread here. They're not welding people into homes. Go out and hug a person in Chinatown like me and other politicians." 3. "The government should absolutely not close the borders with these countries. To do so is racist and xenophobic. There's no indication of a threat from them." 4. "Get a grippe, America. nCov-2019 is just a flu." 5. "Masks do nothing to stop respiratory illnesses and you absolutely shouldn't buy any. Do not use them. They're dangerous." vs. "You all need to start wearing masks yesterday. We could've beat this if you all worse masks." 6. "We need two weeks of altered behavior to flatten the curve." 7. "Large public gatherings are killing people" vs. "it turns out the massive public gatherings for this specific political cause actually reduced COVID-19 transmission" 8. "A vaccine is something that gives you immunity to a disease" vs. "A vaccine is something that helps you fight a disease" etc. etc. So am I to take it that YouTube will constantly be analyzing how much the chocolate ration increased and punishing anyone who dared to say it only increased by 3g yesterday when it was 5g tomorrow? Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:3, Insightful) by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:04PM (#61844389) Gosh, how could I have forgotten the biggest one, which I was leaving for the end? 9. "A lab-leak hypothesis is absolute insanity and a conspiracy theory. SARS-CoV-2 could only have mutated in the wild. Trust Peter Daszak and other experts in the Lancent. Over 100 of us signed this paper saying so!" vs. "Peter Daszak from EcoHealth Alliance and others shopped a grant proposal around to DARPA and other places that sought to modify the cleavage site of SARS-CoVr in bats in China and fuse it with proteins that can bind to human ACE2 receptors. They then wanted to spray this virus into caves in China, collect samples, and send them to labs in Wuhan to study them. It was rejected on safety and ethics grounds and said they had no information on its dangerous to the local population or the ability for new viruses to spread." Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:2) by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:59PM (#61845047) Journal They then wanted to spray this virus into caves in China What? Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:2) by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:49PM (#61845281) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... [telegraph.co.uk] (archive: https://archive.is/Hc2q8 [archive.is]) >Wuhan scientists planned to release coronavirus particles into cave bats, leaked papers reveal ... >New documents show that just 18 months before the first Covid-19 cases appeared, researchers had submitted plans to release skin-penetrating nanoparticles and aerosols containing “novel chimeric spike proteins” of bat coronaviruses into cave bats in Yunnan, China. Peter Daszak of EcoHealth Alliance, Dr. Shi Zghengli (the "bat coronavirus queen" of China) and others Flag as Inappropriate The difference is that after the corrections (Score:2) by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:29PM (#61844525) channels that don't traffic in misinformation stopped reporting those things as correct. The Anti-vaxxers repeat the same baseless lies ad nauseum. Flag as Inappropriate Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:3, Insightful) by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:40PM (#61844589) You seem to not understand the point that there were people who *were* correct, but who under these rules would've been censored and banned for stating their case. Do you think truth comes down from on High like manna from heaven? It's insanely dangerous to only allow the official narrative to ever be shared or discussed. And I've provided you with examples showing the official narrative being wrong and misleading in ways that *killed people*. In all those cases there were voices of reason that saw through the lies, and who now would be punished for daring to try and help people. Flag as Inappropriate Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:2) by Omega Hacker ( 6676 ) <omega@nosPAM.omegacs.net> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:53PM (#61844673) You're equating statements that were made primarily by politicians with those made later by scientists with significant research, deliberation, and peer review. Sorry, the two are not the same, and nobody's ever claimed that YouTube would be removing false content because the *politicians* said so (though there's debate on that regarding other topics). YouTube is removing false content because decades of science (no, the COVID vaccines didn't just magically appear from nowhere in the last year, they built on literally multiple decades of research) have proven that the content is false, not because the government said so. Flag as Inappropriate Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:2) by Alypius ( 3606369 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:25PM (#61845433) The politicians have literally admitted that they do this. [msn.com] Flag as Inappropriate It generally takes repeat offenses to get banned (Score:2) by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:04PM (#61845345) and while there have been instances of individual videos getting demonetized or taken down the appeals process, while slow, does work. This isn't to say that those instances aren't an issue (when a vids taken down or demonetized and put back up a week later the damage is already done from a monetization standpoint), but they're isolated enough that it's not a major issue, and better algorithms exist now. e.g. I no longer hear my YouTubers avoiding the "v" and "c" words (except Beau of The Fifth Column, but he does it for completely different reasons that he explained in a recent video). But if your videos keep getting flagged, well, YouTube will ban you for repeat violations. That's fine. a) it's their platform and b) misinformation and lies are killing people. Meanwhile there's no issue with reporting on what the CDC says so long as if when the science changes you don't keep pushing old, now debunked data. And if you're doing that you need to stop playing science communicator on YouTube. You're either dangerously bad at it or you're actively spreading lies. Flag as Inappropriate Re:It generally takes repeat offenses to get banne (Score:2) by systemd-anonymousd ( 6652324 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:10PM (#61845375) But you yourself are playing science communicator right now. Your opinion is that the CDC conveys truth. This is false. They MAY convey truth, but they have and do convey falsehoods. E.g., they literally told people to not wear masks for COVID-19. Fauci then admitted that this was a lie intended to help mask availability for HCWs. Truth is determined by a mediation between competing points of view and numerous people who are all vying to present the best possible evidence to support their side. This mediation is impossible without open discussion. Your argument is essentially an appeal to authority. The CDC and other US institutions don't have a monopoly on the truth and it's sort of mind-blowing that people would argue that literal censorship is desirable to open discussion and people being allowed to choose for themselves what to think about. Flag as Inappropriate Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:4, Informative) by Shadow of Eternity ( 795165 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:48PM (#61844643) Making a lie frontpage headline news for months and then silently issuing a retraction on the back of a bubblegum wrapper in the bottom of a dumpster IS trafficking disinformation. It's just a different tactic. Flag as Inappropriate Re:The difference is that after the corrections (Score:2) by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:01PM (#61846425) Of course the anti-vaxxers repeat the same baseless lies endlessly. They have no facts in their side and o understanding of science. Hence everything they could add or change would be obviously ridiculous. So what they do is they stick to the same crap and hope repetition will somehow make it true. Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:5, Insightful) by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:44PM (#61844619) Homepage The problem is none of that is facts, it is things people have said. And even then, the list itself is not correct. For example, no one ever said "Masks do nothing to stop respiratory illnesses and you absolutely shouldn't buy any.". At the beginning when Covid was thought to spread mainly through contact, people were told not to use masks. This was both because of the belief that contact was the main spread and to avoid people hording masks so that medical workers could get some (which was still an issue). You seem to have confused things people have said and things we have evidence to back up. Misinformation is where people say things with no evidence to back it up or the evidence says it isn't true, such as vaccines cause autism, Covid vaccine will make you magnetic, Covid is just the flu, people are not dying from Covid those numbers are fake, etc. The fact that this is modded as insightful is really sad, since it is basically misinformation as well. Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:23PM (#61846325) "Masks do something": misinformation. "N95 masks do something and cloth masks basically don't do anything": backed by all available peer reviewed scientific studies. Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:2) by mobby_6kl ( 668092 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:04PM (#61844747) How about "Vaccines cause autism and inject microchips into you" vs "fuck off the autism study was a fraud, get your shots you idiot". Like this nonsense is literally killing hundreds of thousands of people. There are things that aren't a weird grey area and youtube has no reasons to host or promote. Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:1) by faraway ( 174370 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:06PM (#61846267) How about this from today's news: New clues hint that young boys who get serious viral infections might be more likely to develop autism [yahoo.com] Scientists may be a step closer to understanding what causes autism and how to treat it. A study released this month offers evidence that severe infections in childhood might make a future diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder more likely in men who are genetically predisposed to the condition. Scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles performed the study on mice, so it's too early to say what its implications are for humans. But other research hints at a similar association: Data collected by researchers at the University of Chicago and used in the same new study found that boys diagnosed with autism were more commonly hospitalized with infections between the ages of 1.5 and 4 than boys who didn't have autism. (That dataset included more than 3.6 million children with a host of different infections, though the UCLA study didn't explore whether any particular virus was associated with autism.) The only thing missing from the article is pointing out to people of your level of intelligence that children's vaccines work by priming the immune system by.. get this - exposing them to viral infections. Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:2) by ljw1004 ( 764174 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:44PM (#61844961) I can think of eight things we now think are true which previously the government and officials previously said were conspiracy theories and misinformation.... Here's a list of these contradictions: ... "The government should absolutely not close the borders with these countries. To do so is racist and xenophobic. There's no indication of a threat from them." I think you're failing to distinguish "it's a conspiracy and misinformation" from "I have a different political opinion on this". So I'll ask you very specifically: what was the predominant government/official message that there was a CONSPIRACY around the idea of closing borders? (I'm asking you for a *predominant* government/official message because everyone can and will come up with isolated examples, but those are worthless; for the sake of this discussion, about censorship or blocking videos, only mainstream opinions have weight. I'm asking you for *conspiracy* because you specifically said conspiracy.) I think you have an underlying true point, and once you make it more rigorously then (1) it will be considerably toned down and (2) most everyone will agree with it. Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:2) by mark-t ( 151149 ) <{moc.talfdren} {ta} {tkram}> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:46PM (#61844979) Journal A vaccine *IS* something that gives you immunity to a disease, to the limit that the vaccine is effective. With diseases for which we have had vaccines for a long time, there is also level of herd immunity that picks up the slack, and helps keep the virus from propagating through a population even for the occasional person for whom the vaccine did not take. The thing with covid19 is that it's novel, so there's a large number of people out there without any prior exposure or immunity to it whatoever, so if the vaccine didn't take for someone (roughly 10% of the time) and they contract covid19, it can look like the vaccine didn't help reduce its spread. When 40% or perhaps even more of the population has no immunity to the disease whatsoever, it is going to run rampant, and the severity with which it affects one person is not reflective of the severity of the illness in someone that they pass it on to. Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:2) by suss ( 158993 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:58PM (#61845041) Have fun with the up-and downvotes on this one. Reminding people of stuff they would rather not remember, even if this info was from official sources, who now say something different, makes them anxious/upset/angry. Flag as Inappropriate Re:"Truth" (Score:2) by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:33PM (#61845209) Journal You're mistaken; Youtube insists that we are at war with Eurasia. We've ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia, Mr Smith. Flag as Inappropriate Pure Evil (Score:0) by itiswhatitiwijgalt ( 6848512 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:19PM (#61844471) When you look through history, has the side threatening the masses livelihood to do something against their will ever been on the good side? When in history have those restricting free speech and censoring the masses have been the good guys? This never ends well for those who do and for those who support it. WHAT SIDE OF HISTORY WILL YOU BE A PART OF??? Will you be able to live with yourself once you WAKE UP after the fact(hindsight) and find you sided with the Nazis of today? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Pure Evil (Score:2) by BAReFO0t ( 6240524 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:40PM (#61844585) Yes, that's precisely the problem: It's done against their will. Instead of just not being a dick, and making sure everyone is allowed to actually understand the world and come to his own conclusions, namely that those vaccines are a pretty good idea. (Note: I understand enough of how they work, to know they are. And in the case of Biontech, I also know the creators are good people.) Not being a dick also solves the trust issue. Also, ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY complete and utter UNPEOPLE morons on a level that is worse than mental disability, EVER even consider even PONDERING the concept of "SIDES" in this context of meaning. I'm not "siding" with anyone. Nor against anyone. Because both mean harm. And I'm not harming. Period. I'm just not allowing anything to harm me or my friends or my world. That's where the freedom of others ends. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Pure Evil (Score:1) by itiswhatitiwijgalt ( 6848512 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:17PM (#61844809) This was never about covid or the vaccines. If it wasn't covid, it would be climate change or something else. Just wait for it and remember this in the future. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Pure Evil (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:27PM (#61845691) When you look through history, has the side threatening the masses livelihood to do something against their will ever been on the good side? Yes. Smallpox is gone and polio is almost gone. Flag as Inappropriate Censorship strikes again (Score:1, Insightful) by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:13PM (#61844447) Homepage I detest people who spout nonsense as much as anyone. I like science. The mRNA vaccines are genius, and I was vaccinated as soon as it was possible. However. I do not want YouTube, or any other public platform, censoring people. Who are they to determine the truth? There have been many, many times in human history when conventional wisdom, and even scientific thought, turned out to be wrong. Further, it's not like YouTube is going to have qualified people evaluating what correct, what is valid questioning, and what is nonsense. No, they're going to hand a checklist to a bunch of underpaid, utterly unqualified, massively overworked peons. If a video contains a bad word, it will be censored. For example, put up a video about vaccinating autistic children - odds are the combination of "vaccination" and "autism" will cause the video to be removed. There will be little or no recourse. I don't want to hear people claiming "oh, they're a private organization, they can do what they want.". No, they cannot. YouTube, FaceBook, and others are far too big. They have become the de facto public forums. It's time and past time for governments to recognize this and regulate them accordingly. In the meantime, we - as their audience - must apply what pressure we can to prevent censorship. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2) by jm007 ( 746228 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:41PM (#61844593) good points, good post do you think gov't intervention is the answer, though? it's just another organization, with similar failings as YT, in which we're to entrust personal health decisions? I can see gov't regulating transparency around any censorship, but not much more what kind of gov't intervention are you thinking? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:-1) by Aisha.Washington ( 4531453 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:13PM (#61846453) do you think gov't intervention is the answer, though? it's just another organization, with similar failings as YT, in which we're to entrust personal health decisions? Good point, plus government was responsible for the whole Civil Rights thing, and the last thing we need is them telling YouTube that they are free to ban black people from the channe. Not directly, of course, they just ban people who cannot conjugate the verb "be" correctly, but we know what they mean, wink wink. Similarity, if we can ban all the anti-vaxxers, we can finally have the affluent, white community we always wanted. I mean, it's the poor white trash, beaners, and nignogs that don't get vaccinated, but we'll just call it a "pro-science" bias to avoid the negative PR. I'm with you! Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:3) by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:24PM (#61845431) I don't want to hear people claiming "oh, they're a private organization, they can do what they want.". It isn't 'people' claiming that. It's the Supreme Court of the United States ruling that. And it's not going to change in your lifetime. The Trump Supreme Court adores private property rights, especially the private property rights of giant corporations. YouTube will do exactly as they like, and when they get sued for it in Federal court they will cite their private property rights and win, then do it again before the appeals court, and the Supreme Court will never hear about it. And if Congress somehow swings radically to one party or the other by +10% and they pass a law saying YouTube and Facebook have to publish everything given to them, both YouTube and Facebook will get injunctions so fast it'll make your head spin, and then get the law thrown out as unconstitutional 5 years later. And no, you're not censored when you can't post on YouTube. You can still put whatever you want up on the Internet. Conservepedia exists and they publish all sorts of batshit crazy nonsense and no one makes them stop. Otis Eugene Ray published his literally crazy paranoid schizophrenic rants on the Internet for 20 years. That only thing that stopped him was his death in 2015, at the age of 87. The Western Internet is almost totally uncensored, with only a handful of exceptions. You just don't get to use other people's property to post whatever you want. Use your own property and you're fine. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2) by avandesande ( 143899 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:17PM (#61845637) Journal And why would the Supreme Court take the case.? It's Congress job to update Section 230 that would give web companies common sense protection while protecting free speech. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2) by sinij ( 911942 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:55PM (#61845031) Further, it's not like YouTube is going to have qualified people evaluating what correct, what is valid questioning, and what is nonsense. No, they're going to hand a checklist to a bunch of underpaid, utterly unqualified, massively overworked peons. More so, as YouTube offices are predominantly in deep blue areas, even randomly selected job candidates will be heavily skewed left. This means that moderation will be not just uninformed, but heavily biased in one political direction. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2) by Areyoukiddingme ( 1289470 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:54PM (#61845313) More so, as YouTube offices are predominantly in deep blue areas, even randomly selected job candidates will be heavily skewed left. This means that moderation will be not just uninformed, but heavily biased in one political direction. Apropos of nothing. The peons the OP was referring to are not Americans. Most of them come from Third World countries, get paid pennies per hour, and have a poor grasp of the English language. When the removal isn't just done by machine, which is the most common case on YouTube today. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:1) by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:09PM (#61845083) Journal mRNA vaccines do have some unknown future risk, but so does the virus itself. Those who scare people by saying vaxxers are "mRNA guinea pigs" because it hasn't been tested long term on large populations should also point out that getting infected with Coronavirus itself has unknown long-term risks. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:1) by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:24PM (#61845139) The mRNA vaccines are genius The mRNA vaccines don't work. I had it in April/May (two doses of Pfizer) and I caught COVID last week; took nearly 5 days to get over the fever. So if you think you're immunized think again. There are new 'breakthrough' variants all the time and your mRMA vaccine is already obsolete. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:09PM (#61845605) Tell me you don't understand statistics without telling me you don't understand statistics. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:1) by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @02:06PM (#61848487) The statistics show the vaccines don't work. Peak vaccine in the US was in April. Right now 13K a week a dying due to variants that appeared after most people (over 50%) got vaccinated. That's as bad as it was in past peaks such as in April, 2020 and about 65% of the mortality rate that happened at the highest rate in Jan, 2021. They don't work. I know what you're been trained to believe. But the data shows it's false. New variants blow right past these useless vaccines. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship strikes again (Score:2) by TheNameOfNick ( 7286618 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:28PM (#61845175) Not erasing factually wrong "information" is like not picking up trash. Removing factually wrong videos is basic hygiene and good citizenship. If you want to collect and host that garbage, you can do so, but don't be surprised if the stink rubs off on you. People forget that having a different opinion and being wrong are not synonymous. If you say something that is demonstrably false, you will not be treated the same as a person who has a different opinion on something that intelligent people can disagree about. That stuff is toxic. It rots people's brains. We're in an information war and that is their weapon. Flag as Inappropriate Who watches the watchers? (Score:0, Troll) by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:46AM (#61844279) Are cases of viral vector vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia misinformation? My wife had the good luck to have one of these people end up as one of her patients. It scared the shit out of her to the point where she didn't get vaxxed until after she gave birth. Are cases of myocarditis from mrna vaccines misinformation? My mother in law went to the hospital with heart problems a month or so after getting vaxxed, and at first they thought it was some medicine she was taking but she started it again without ill effects so now they think it might have been the vaccine. Yes it's better to have a mild case of myocarditis than a bad case of covid, but if you treat the real side effects as misinformation you're just going to fuel underground conspiracy theories. Is the fact that smaller children may have a higher risk of myocarditis than ill effects from covid misinformation or is it an honest accounting of the present state of medical knowledge? Is the fact that natural immunity to covid, and chickenpox, and rsv comparable in effectiveness to vaccine induced immunity a medical fact or misinformation? Is the fact that getting vaxxed is better than getting infected *if you have not yet been infected* misinformation or a serious point of uncertainty or debate? Is the fact that no federal law or constitutional article or amendment empowers the federal government to mandate vaccination of private citizens misinformation or a serious legal opinion? Y'all do this once with the best of intentions and watch how in ten or twenty years the "misinformation" problem blows up by 20 or 30 dB once people get the idea that establishment media will suppress scientific and medical information, not just opinions they don't like. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who watches the watchers? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:47PM (#61844641) Cool story bro. You have some more anecdotes? Flag as Inappropriate Re: Who watches the watchers? (Score:2) by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:49PM (#61844653) My arm hurt when I got my flu shot last week. Clearly it was giving me misinformation. Gotta hop on the next flight to Kabul for a punitive amputation so it won't tell me nonsense about flu shots again. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Who watches the watchers? (Score:2) by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:55PM (#61845555) Are cases of viral vector vaccine-induced thrombocytopenia misinformation? [...] Are cases of myocarditis from mrna vaccines misinformation? Is anyone claiming either one is? 'Cause claiming the vaccines are "safe" is not the same as claiming the vaccines have never recorded any side effect. In fact, the two conditions you're citing are treatable, and we have yet to actually kill anyone with a vaccine after about 6 billion doses. (Any death in the US shortly after a vaccine has to be reported to VERS, even if it's obvious the vaccine didn't cause the death. If you die from getting hit by a bus, that wasn't caused by the vaccine but it goes to VERS. So there's deaths in VERS, but so far there's only one that is being investigated as possibly connected to a vaccine, but the investigation isn't done yet) So, it seems to me the misinformation here is your claims about other people. Flag as Inappropriate Re: Who watches the watchers? (Score:2) by RightwingNutjob ( 1302813 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:30PM (#61845721) In fact, the two conditions you're citing are treatable, and we have yet to actually kill anyone with a vaccine after about 6 billion doses. This is inaccurate. Several dozen people in the US and Europe have died from VITT. I have no data for myocarditis. First link that comes up for "vitt deaths" on duckduckgo: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/1... [cnbc.com] I think there may have been a few deaths from J&J in the US. Pro tip: don't tell lies ("no deaths") in the service of truth. Flag as Inappropriate The Sad Part About Misinformation (Score:0, Offtopic) by Eldaar ( 5056619 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:38AM (#61844239) The sad part about misinformation about vaccines causing autism is that it hides the true causes. From everything I've read and watched, one of the most meaningful connections scientists have made with autism is the gut microbiome. Which is to say, it seems very possible that the cause of autism is a lack of good gut bacteria allowing bad bacteria to flourish. Some bad bacteria seem to produce toxins, which then make their way to the brain and damage it/alter the way it functions. I believe it's something like 80-90% of people who are autistic also suffer from gastro-intestinal issues. With a steady increase in c-sections, many babies never pass through the birth canal. Passage through this canal exposes babies to many beneficial strains of bacteria, colonating their body with these strains. Failure to pass through this canal means these babies may lack many of these beneficial strains. Furthermore, antibiotic usage in the US has steadily increased, and antibiotics are often prescribed in cases where they're really not necessary. This may contribute to kids not having the good bacteria that humans have traditionally had. All of which is to say that if the public understood this connection, there would be more impetus to fund further research into the connection. Perhaps if we start giving all kids probiotics from birth through the first few years of their lives, we can ensure their guts are colonized with beneficial bacteria, and avoid setting up their body to be host to bad bacteria which might be contributing to or causing conditions like autism. Flag as Inappropriate Re:The Sad Part About Misinformation (Score:3) by F.Ultra ( 1673484 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:01PM (#61844727) Don't fall for that kind of hype and misinformation. The changes to the brain in people with Autism happens when they are still in their mothers womb, which is also one of the main reasons why the whole vaccine debate where so stupid. Flag as Inappropriate Misinformation (Score:0) by hallkbrdz ( 896248 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:48AM (#61844289) Google along with most big tech and media has been bought off by the government. Only the official stance is approved, anything that questions that no matter how much data there is to back it up is immediately labeled misinformation. No healthy discussion of ideas is to permitted. We are now China Flag as Inappropriate I, for one... (Score:1) by Fworg64 ( 6172828 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:54AM (#61844325) "We can imagine viewers then potentially extrapolating to Covid-19," Halprin said in an interview. "We wanted to make sure that we're covering the whole gamut." Google forbid people reach their own conclusions. Too bad there is no way for people to consider and evaluate sources and facts on their own. (Sarcasm aside, it seems that many crowds have proven this to be actually true). All I can really hope is that there is a slow revolution of critical thought development and that I find some spare time to make a better YouTube.. Flag as Inappropriate Re:I, for one... (Score:2) by PPH ( 736903 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:17PM (#61844807) Google forbid people reach their own conclusions. Many (not all) of the anti-vaxers base their decisions on faith. "God will protect me."* Critical thinking doesn't enter into the decision because that's anathema to systems of belief. The harder you push your point of view, the more they think it's an attack on their faith. It never gets to the point of discussing the facts. *Story: There's a guy living in a town that is suffering a major flood. Pretty soon, his house is surrounded by water and he can't leave. After a time, the sheriff's department comes up to his front door in a boat, offering rescue. He says, "No thanks. God will save me." As the water level rises, he climbs onto his roof. Soon, a coast guard helicopter arrives and drops a basket. "No thanks. God will save me." Next thing he knows, he's standing at the gates to Heaven. He calls in, "God, why didn't you save me?" God replies, "I sent a boat and a helicopter. What more did you want?" The believers will have to convince me that vaccines are not a gift from God. And that the occasional case of myocarditis is not just a test of faith. Those that think God works by reaching down and touching them individually are suffering from the sin of pride and are destined to burn in hell for it. Flag as Inappropriate Re:I, for one... (Score:2) by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:55PM (#61845319) Most people are not qualified to draw their own conclusions on something like the safety of a vaccine. They lack education in the sciences involved to understand the subject deeply enough, and to know how to interpret the literature on it. So, reasonably, they rely on others to inform them. If those they rely on are feeding them garbage, it can in this case cause actual harm. But hey, I'm all for these prayer warriors going on to join the thousands of others who have won Herman Cain awards and removed themselves from social media and the voting pool, so I say have at it. Flag as Inappropriate ^F 5G (Score:0, Troll) by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @11:59AM (#61844353) Well at least the mind control/infections from 5G cellular service hasn't appeared in the comments (yet) If you don't want to be vaccinated, perhaps you should use the Trump approved bleach treatment. I'd recommend drinking a gallon or so to minimize chances of infection. (Yes I'm talking about you, every idiot in Florida and Texas)I returned a few moments later with a plastic bottle that bore the likene Flag as Inappropriate Re:^F 5G (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:22PM (#61844841) Here, have a conspiracy theory: that bullshit was spread by telecom corps as a distraction from ACTUAL issues with 5G. Flag as Inappropriate Cry havoc and loose the censors (Score:1) by zkiwi34 ( 974563 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:04PM (#61844391) What an epic waste of time. Flag as Inappropriate It's About Time... (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:12PM (#61844427) How nice of them to jump on this important topic... a year after letting the damage accumulate uncontrolled. Flag as Inappropriate Long Term (Score:0) by NobodyGood ( 5481616 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:18PM (#61844469) No one knows anything about any possible long term issues, if any with the vaccines as there hasn't been enough time for any long term studies to have been completed and no amount of money or expertise can predict speed that up. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Long Term (Score:2) by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:27PM (#61845167) Homepage Short term, 700,000 people have died from Covid. Your chance of dying when you catch covid unvaccinated is greater than 1 in 100. How much time do you need, when 180,000,000 people have already safely taken a vaccine? Flag as Inappropriate Re:Long Term (Score:2) by iamnotx0r ( 7683968 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @04:32PM (#61849015) 1 in 5000. Flag as Inappropriate If only (Score:2) by bferrell ( 253291 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @12:55PM (#61844685) Homepage Journal we could get linkedin to do this It's become a hotbed of anti-covid vax posts Flag as Inappropriate Meanwhile... (Score:2) by DrXym ( 126579 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @01:19PM (#61844817) ... Twitter, Facebook and other social media allows COVID misinformation to run rampant despite policies that supposedly ban it. Twitter doesn't even offer a way to report it which is probably why there are very prominent antivaxxers spouting misinfo day in day out. YouTube seems to be one of the few social media sites making any effort to clean this shit up. Flag as Inappropriate They will get their anti vax propaganda elseware (Score:1) by Malays2 bowman ( 6656916 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:01PM (#61845053) At most, this might stop some wayward kid from stumbling on an anti vax piece, and keep Google/Youtube's hands clean of it. But it won't stop the torrent of anti vax propaganda that has already saturated the public. Flag as Inappropriate Misinformation is murder (Score:1) by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:19PM (#61845115) Homepage Over 180,000,000 Americans have safely taken the vaccines. They're statistically proven to greatly reduce hospitalization and death and recommended by every reasonable medical professional. If you encourage people to avoid or delay vaccination, some of them will die. It's a moral duty to get vaccinated and make the social environment safer for everyone. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Misinformation is murder (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:32PM (#61845207) Statistics are not proof. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Misinformation is murder (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:06PM (#61845357) Of course you can prove things with statistical data, empiricism wouldn't work otherwise. What a solipsist nonsense statement. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Misinformation is murder (Score:2) by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:46PM (#61845779) Homepage Epidemiology isn't a yes/no mathematical certainty. But the statistics are very powerful if you can see them. Get vaccinated and expect to be 100% immune? Never, with no disease, ever. Get vaccinated and expect your chances of contracting this deadly disease will go down by *a lot* ? Absolutely. Statistically, by about 1,000 now. Expect your chances of dying of it to go down, statistically by 100,000. Unless you're severely immunocompromised, then you're dependent on those around you getting vaccinated to keep the virus from getting to you. Get vaccinated and expect to spread the disease a lot less around your community, among your friends and coworkers and any elderly people or from any kids you know. Get your geographical area mostly vaccinated and expect the prevalence of this deadly disease to nearly (but not entirely) disappear? Absolutely, Encouraging enough people to not get vaccinated will kill some of them. Of Covid. Flag as Inappropriate Who gets to decide what "misinformation" is? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:31PM (#61845195) Okay, fine... but who gets to decide what "misinformation" is? are they going to remove videos that talk about the documented deaths that are associated with the vaccine? How about videos that talk about heart damage the vaccines can cause in teenagers? Or the ones that talk about the documented cases of blood clotting and strokes? Just curious if these are going to be labeled "misinformation" and removed. Flag as Inappropriate Time to move to BitChute? (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @02:50PM (#61845293) I'm already seeing all the anti-vaxxers high-tail it to BitChute and other video sites. If they head there, great... less crap to wade through that isn't worth watching. Flag as Inappropriate Ok, and to get around this ban (Score:1) by fustakrakich ( 1673220 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:28PM (#61845443) Journal A new code word will be invented to replace "vaccine". Whatever, let's hope that more alternatives to youtube pop up. Censorship for any reason is always evil, it won't be an issue if there are enough channels to tune in. Flag as Inappropriate Questioning authority != misinformation (Score:1) by K. S. Van Horn ( 1355653 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @03:55PM (#61845547) Homepage Whoever wrote that headline has a warped epistemology and does not understand how science works. What brought about the scientific revolution? It wasn't the creation of authoritative bodies charged with deciding The Truth on certain topics. Those had existed for millennia. It was the scientific method and, crucially, the open interchange of information. Without the freedom to openly challenge any scientific claim made by anyone, science cannot advance. It can take a long time for the science to be truly settled, and official bodies, influenced by politics and personal biases of the top leadership, can easily get it wrong. For decades the FDA wrongly promoted low-fat diets that ended up increasing obesity and heart disease, because of the views of one influential person, despite a lack of quality evidence for those views. Government officials wrongly told Americans that masks were of no use in preventing the spread of Covid, and insinuated they were even harmful. We were told that it was absolutely impossible that the Covid pandemic could have originated in a lab leak, and now that is a leading hypothesis for its origin. Worse yet, officialdom often peddles indisputable misinformation itself. Consider this article on the CDC website: New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection [cdc.gov]. The headline is a lie. The study does not compare the protection provided by natural immunity from previous infection to the protection provided by vaccination. It only evaluates the additional protection vaccination may provide to those who already have natural immunity. Both groups of subjects in the study are people who had previously recovered from Covid. In contradiction of the CDC's misinformation, there are several studies that show natural immunity to be at least as good as vaccine-induced immunity, maybe better: Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity [medrxiv.org] "This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity.” Reinfection Rates Among Patients Who Previously Tested Positive for Coronavirus Disease 2019 [oup.com] "Prior infection in patients with COVID-19 was highly protective against reinfection and symptomatic disease. This protection increased over time" Protection of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection is similar to that of BNT162b2 vaccine protection [medrxiv.org] "Similarly, the overall estimated level of protection from prior SARS-CoV-2 infection for documented infection is 948% (CI:[944, 951]); hospitalization 941% (CI:[919, 957]); and severe illness 964% (CI:[925, 983]). Our results question the need to vaccinate previously-infected individuals.” Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals [medrxiv.org] "Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination” Flag as Inappropriate Verified licenses for professional YT channels (Score:1) by Derelict65 ( 8781359 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:18PM (#61845639) If you want to post videos of cats, music, entertainment: go for it. If you want to talk about medicine, health, or other professional advice, verify your credentials. You wouldn't go to a car repair shop to find out how to treat gout. Why give the car technician a How To Cure Gout YT channel that could influence millions? He'll still have the freedom of speech to preach from his car shop and on street corners. If he wants, he can make a gout website and upload and host his own videos. But fuck giving worldwide amplification to those who only have charisma and conspiracy to drive views. Their aims are not to help, but usually to promote their own ad revenue since lies are being monetized currently. Flag as Inappropriate Guess what people (Score:1) by danda ( 11343 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @04:48PM (#61845785) Not everyone agrees about any given topic. Your *misinformation* is my truth. And vice-versa. Intelligent people can agree to disagree. What everyone thinks they know today can and usually does change tomorrow. Censors have pretty much never been on the right side of history. I don't see that changing now. Those armed with truth and correctness never need to censor others because eventually people recognize truth and correctness. Youtube, and any apologists here on slashdot, should be ashamed of themselves and go sit in a corner to think about their mis-deeds for a while. The main information I get out of this article is not support YouTube in any fashion and to support their competitors instead. Flag as Inappropriate I bet this will work. (Score:1) by EmoryM ( 2726097 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:04PM (#61845853) Problem: people are more willing to believe what you have classified as lies than what you have classified as truth. Solution: remove their ability to express what you classify as lies. Flag as Inappropriate YouTube is the new Catholic Church (Score:2) by srichard25 ( 221590 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:21PM (#61845909) In 1633 the Catholic Church put Galileo under house arrest because he wouldn't recant the belief that the earth revolved around the sun. They called it "heresy" at the time to justify arresting him. It wasn't until 1758 that the Catholic Church finally admitted that it wasn't heretical to say the earth revolves around the sun. Newton's theory of gravity was considered valid until Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity better described gravity over 200 years later. Note that even after all this time, it's still considered a "theory" that could be overridden by a better theory in the future. Anyone who says something is "settled science" doesn't understand how science works. We're always striving to better understand the world around us, and that process often takes decades (or even centuries). We've been dealing with COVID-19 and the COVID-19 Vaccines for less than 2 years. There's still a ton that we don't know about them and it will take some serious time and research to sort it all out. Stifling any ideas that go against the conventional wisdom will only slow scientific discovery and result in more human pain. Like the Catholic Church, YouTube should not be an arbiter of truth or science. Flag as Inappropriate If you don't believe in vaccines (Score:2) by Kernel Kurtz ( 182424 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:21PM (#61845911) you should not believe in ventilators either, so stay the fuck out of our hospitals. Thanks in advance. Flag as Inappropriate The Testimonies Project (Score:0) by ackerrj ( 1136479 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:24PM (#61845925) Tell the people, who's lives are ruined, that their experience is disinformation. Israel: The Testimonies Project: https://rumble.com/vmpbh3-3813... [rumble.com] Flag as Inappropriate Censorship (Score:2) by imcdona ( 806563 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @05:56PM (#61846031) I miss the old days when everyone on Slashdot agreed censorship was a bad thing. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Censorship (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:48PM (#61846397) agreed. I actually blocked slashdot (at home), as it was a bad habit and has slashdot has changed principals over the years. Not just slashdot. I blocked most all news sources. As unfortunately independent reporting no longer exists. And blocked most all social media for the same reason. Try it, you will not miss it. I blocked slashdot on my router, but somehow I still go there when connected to work vpn... But I did quit, mostly, I swear. Flag as Inappropriate what is mis-information (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @06:44PM (#61846193) Without guidelines defining what mis-information is, this is likely to be abused for politics and profit. Is misleading information about other things considered mis-information? foreign policy: Though I am sure all that we are told about Afghanistan is true. domestic policy: We should trust a congress member whenever they state that a bill "pays for itself" Flag as Inappropriate Question Everything (Score:1) by XArtur0 ( 5079833 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:01PM (#61846253) I support their right as a private company to only host the content they want. But don't tell me that the moderators on a user video streaming site are experts on every field. You could argue they base decisions on official advice from expert sources... But how do they deem something as misinformation given the official advice from those experts? And, more controversially, that the experts are right? If I say, "the vaxxine is a self-destruct device they can trigger with 5G magnetz!!!" Obviously is misinformation, but what rules do they use to deem it misinformation? If I say "you can still get blood clots 6 months after being vaccinated" (I'm not claiming its true, its just an example). Is that misinformation? Do they know? Do their expert sources know? Besides, there is deeper issue with what they are doing. The truth is that the internet is quickly becoming a dystopian authoritarian platform. The next big leak will all be deemed a conspiracy and misinformation and removed from everywhere. I believe they are pushing stupid conspiracy theories (such as flat earth, 5G) in order to condition people to label conspiracy theorists loonies. Its just the elite protecting themselves. I' myself, I tough with Big Tech, and Big Media. Whatever happened to QUESTION EVERYTHING? Flag as Inappropriate Any criticism of big pharma will be deleted (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @07:49PM (#61846401) Protecting you from misinformation is the calling card of Facism. Do not believe me, read your history books. You are educated, remember? You know that history repeats, remember? You just always figured that it would arrive with blood dripping from it fangs. You figured you would know when it happened l You did not know it would arrive providing salvation, and protection from the terrible, awful others. No itâ(TM)s okay, you are in the good group. You are a hall monitor. You are righteous. A good one. They are not coming for you. No, you are safe. They are coming for the others. YOU KNOW WHO THEY ARE! You know that they deserve to die, and if they do, you will not feel bad for them. No, they deserved it. What sane rational person would oppose the party? Who, I ask you, would be so insane? The THEMs, that os who, and we will soon have them silenced so your ears no longer needs to bear the indignity of their shrill ignorant voices. We love you, and are doing this for you. You, oh precious one. You who went to college, not the military, not to Walmart, you are good, affluent, and white. One of US, not one of them. Your opinions are correct, while thems are INCORRECT! WRONG! They drink horse urine and think it will help them! The inject alligator semen and think itâ(TM)s a cure! Heretics! Ignorami! The THEMs must be brought to heel! They must be brought under our control! Our god Big Pharma who knows the truth shall be the ruler undisputed and we shall singeth with glee from the highest mountain! Trolls! They are TROLLS! Mod them as such wherever you see them as a declaration of subservience and obedience to our true masters, they of truth and benevolence to whom we swear our allegiance! Go forth and mod them in the name of the divine experts, the martyrs of wholesome truth! If you have nothing to hide, if you believe what your told and encourage others to do the same, then you have nothing to worry about. We will always work in your interests. You can trust us. CONFORM! CONFORM! CONFORM! Flag as Inappropriate I hope Matt Halprin & GOOG get the settings ri (Score:2) by sonamchauhan ( 587356 ) <`sonamc' `at' `gmail.com'> on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @08:30PM (#61846501) Journal The ban will include any media that claims vaccines are dangerous or lead to chronic health outcomes ... Vaccines _are_ dangerous to a _small_ proportion of people. From 'De Novo and Relapsing Glomerular Diseases After COVID-19 Vaccination: What Do We Know So Far?' [nih.gov]: "nephrologists are faced with a small but growing literature of case reports linking COVID-19 vaccines with heightened off-target immune responses leading to the sudden development of de novo or relapsing glomerular diseases" I hope Google apply their brains when banning and don't ban videos that accurately portray the situation and allow people to estimate risk themselves without undue pressure. More links: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.go... [nih.gov] Flag as Inappropriate Finally, tech censorship does some good (Score:2) by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Wednesday September 29, 2021 @09:15PM (#61846613) I don't like the idea of corporations censoring political speeech "because they can," but at the same time nobody should get away with lying about known scientific facts, especially where human lives are being lost because of their outpourings. I would like to see Joe Mercola and that Kennedy grandson sent to PMITA prison for negligent homicide. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Finally, tech censorship does some good (Score:1) by nessman ( 1163349 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @06:13PM (#61849357) Show up to work some day and try some of that "political speech". Let us know how quickly you're escorted out the door by security. Flag as Inappropriate YouMad? (Score:1) by space_spaghetti ( 8158346 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @12:49AM (#61846945) YouTube used to block some cannabis videos because of the drug war. It was their right, it was not cool, but it was their right. So now people are gonna get super mad and try to debate if YouTube can further "censor" their own website RE vaccinations? Get a grip and check out that 'bit' place to realize a lack of censorship is a garbage dump. Flag as Inappropriate Meanwhile... (Score:2) by MysteriousPreacher ( 702266 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @02:30AM (#61847035) Journal YouTube continues to run adverts for medical scams. Did you know that declining eye sight has nothing to do with your eyes? Apparently that's the case according to an advert I saw yesterday. And then there is the current crop of get rich with Amazon scans. Whether it's spending just $250 on stock for a passive income of thousands per month or some more esoteric free course in getting rich, this is what YouTube peddles. Flag as Inappropriate Vaccine Safety Record (Score:0) by sarku ( 2047704 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @10:52AM (#61847777) https://www.facebook.com/80221... [facebook.com] Flag as Inappropriate Corporate monopoly censorship and propaganda (Score:0) by ToddInSF ( 765534 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @03:26PM (#61848779) Journal The USA is really a shit hole nation. Flag as Inappropriate Banning misinformation is misguided (Score:1) by iamamish ( 1308725 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @04:04PM (#61848923) A few points in response: 1. I think the typical model is of misinformation driving vaccine hesitancy, but I think a large part the causality runs in the order direction. People who are nervous about vaccines search out information to make them feel better about the decision. I doubt whether restricting misinformation is going to help with these folks. 2. The folks who share made-up concerns about vaccines often promote conspiracy theories. These types of blanket video bans feed directly into those conspiracies. The people who share them will simply switch channels. I strongly support vaccines and I understand the desire to restrict misinformation. I also am not questioning YouTube's *right* to do this, I simply think it is a bad idea. Flag as Inappropriate Re:Banning misinformation is misguided (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @05:07PM (#61849133) 1. Using the word "vaccines" for products which are in a phase 3 experimental trials is already misinformation. 2. Are you implying that making a video about "vaxxs" injuries, which is censored by MSM and bigtech, is misinformation? https://rumble.com/vmpbh3-3813... [rumble.com] Flag as Inappropriate iVErMeCtIN!!! Derp derp!! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @06:11PM (#61849349) To all the anti-vaxxers out there, you deserve whatever comes your way. 700,000 dead Americans, 2,000 dying daily, and you're holding up progress towards eradicating the virus (or at least getting us to herd immunity). Why? Because you're stupid, ignorant, gullible and brainwashed. Fuck all of you!! Compare that to 405,000 dead US soldiers in all of World War II. More mandates are coming and expect penalties to come along with it. Flag as Inappropriate Dumbness tested by your TV! (Score:0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 30, 2021 @08:01PM (#61849571) To the scum dumb enough to believe every word your TV says; Here is the result for a virus as harmful as the common flu: https://rumble.com/vmpbh3-3813... [rumble.com] Flag as Inappropriate YouTube execs are as foolish as Farcebook ones! (Score:1) by iq145 ( 2720165 ) on Thursday September 30, 2021 @09:36PM (#61849747) Exactly WHO is to decide what is information and what is misinformation? That's headed toward fascism! Flag as Inappropriate
"You"Tube has nothing to do with, and gives zero shits about, you, its sole purpose is to control you and your mind, to spy, rat, and monetize you, to propagandize for [left-] Gov.
Sundar Pichai's Google YouTube Announces Full Censorship Programmes Covering Health, Earth, Inconvenient Dissent, Protest Orgs, Etc... https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/7/22715102/google-youtube-climate-change-de... https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/11221321 Google will no longer allow advertisers, publishers, and YouTube creators to monetize content that denies the existence of climate change. The Verge reports: The company detailed the changes in a support document on Thursday. "Today, we're announcing a new monetization policy for Google advertisers, publishers and YouTube creators that will prohibit ads for, and monetization of, content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change," the Google Ads team said in the document. "This includes content referring to climate change as a hoax or a scam, claims denying that long-term trends show the global climate is warming, and claims denying that greenhouse gas emissions or human activity contribute to climate change." Google says it will use a mix of automated tools and human reviews to enforce the policy. "When evaluating content against this new policy, we'll look carefully at the context in which claims are made, differentiating between content that states a false claim as fact, versus content that reports on or discusses that claim," Google said. Ads will still be allowed on climate topics like public debates on climate policy, research, and more, according to Google.
Facebook censorship regime... https://theintercept.com/2021/10/12/facebook-secret-blacklist-dangerous/ https://theintercept.com/document/2021/10/12/facebook-dangerous-individuals- and-organizations-list-reproduced-snapshot https://theintercept.com/document/2021/10/12/facebook-praise-support-and-rep... https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/double-standards-soc... https://www.unodc.org/documents/frontpage/Use_of_Internet_for_Terrorist_Purp... https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/ https://thehill.com/policy/international/269141-gaza-violence-leads-lawmaker... To ward off accusations that it helps terrorists spread propaganda, Facebook has for many years barred users from speaking freely about people and groups it says promote violence. The restrictions appear to trace back to 2012, when in the face of growing alarm in Congress and the United Nations (PDF) about online terrorist recruiting, Facebook added to its Community Standards a ban on "organizations with a record of terrorist or violent criminal activity." This modest rule has since ballooned into what's known as the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, a sweeping set of restrictions on what Facebook's nearly 3 billion users can say about an enormous and ever-growing roster of entities deemed beyond the pale. [...] The Intercept has reviewed a snapshot of the full DIO list and is today publishing a reproduction of the material in its entirety, with only minor redactions and edits to improve clarity. It is also publishing an associated policy document, created to help moderators decide what posts to delete and what users to punish. The list and associated rules appear to be a clear embodiment of American anxieties, political concerns, and foreign policy values since 9/11, experts said, even though the DIO policy is meant to protect all Facebook users and applies to those who reside outside of the United States (the vast majority). Nearly everyone and everything on the list is considered a foe or threat by America or its allies: Over half of it consists of alleged foreign terrorists, free discussion of which is subject to Facebook's harshest censorship. The DIO policy and blacklist also place far looser prohibitions on commentary about predominately white anti-government militias than on groups and individuals listed as terrorists, who are predominately Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Muslim, or those said to be part of violent criminal enterprises, who are predominantly Black and Latino, the experts said. The materials show Facebook offers "an iron fist for some communities and more of a measured hand for others," said Angel Diaz, a lecturer at the UCLA School of Law who has researched and written on the impact of Facebook's moderation policies on marginalized communities. Facebook's policy director for counterterrorism and dangerous organizations, Brian Fishman, said in a written statement that the company keeps the list secret because "[t]his is an adversarial space, so we try to be as transparent as possible, while also prioritizing security, limiting legal risks and preventing opportunities for groups to get around our rules." He added, "We don't want terrorists, hate groups or criminal organizations on our platform, which is why we ban them and remove content that praises, represents or supports them. A team of more than 350 specialists at Facebook is focused on stopping these organizations and assessing emerging threats. We currently ban thousands of organizations, including over 250 white supremacist groups at the highest tiers of our policies, and we regularly update our policies and organizations who qualify to be banned." Revealed: Facebook’s Secret Blacklist of “Dangerous Individuals and Organizations” Experts say the public deserves to see the list, a clear embodiment of U.S. foreign policy priorities that could disproportionately censor marginalized groups. Sam Biddle Sam Biddle October 12 2021, 5:16 p.m. Leia em português To ward off accusations that it helps terrorists spread propaganda, Facebook has for many years barred users from speaking freely about people and groups it says promote violence. The restrictions appear to trace back to 2012, when in the face of growing alarm in Congress and the United Nations about online terrorist recruiting, Facebook added to its Community Standards a ban on “organizations with a record of terrorist or violent criminal activity.” This modest rule has since ballooned into what’s known as the Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, a sweeping set of restrictions on what Facebook’s nearly 3 billion users can say about an enormous and ever-growing roster of entities deemed beyond the pale. In recent years, the policy has been used at a more rapid clip, including against the president of the United States, and taken on almost totemic power at the social network, trotted out to reassure the public whenever paroxysms of violence, from genocide in Myanmar to riots on Capitol Hill, are linked to Facebook. Most recently, following a damning series of Wall Street Journal articles showing the company knew it facilitated myriad offline harms, a Facebook vice president cited the policy as evidence of the company’s diligence in an internal memo obtained by the New York Times. Facebook’s DIO policy has become an unaccountable system that disproportionately punishes certain communities. But as with other attempts to limit personal freedoms in the name of counterterrorism, Facebook’s DIO policy has become an unaccountable system that disproportionately punishes certain communities, critics say. It is built atop a blacklist of over 4,000 people and groups, including politicians, writers, charities, hospitals, hundreds of music acts, and long-dead historical figures. A range of legal scholars and civil libertarians have called on the company to publish the list so that users know when they are in danger of having a post deleted or their account suspended for praising someone on it. The company has repeatedly refused to do so, claiming it would endanger employees and permit banned entities to circumvent the policy. Facebook did not provide The Intercept with information about any specific threat to its staff. Despite Facebook’s claims that disclosing the list would endanger its employees, the company’s hand-picked Oversight Board has formally recommended publishing all of it on multiple occasions, as recently as August, because the information is in the public interest. The Intercept has reviewed a snapshot of the full DIO list and is today publishing a reproduction of the material in its entirety, with only minor redactions and edits to improve clarity. It is also publishing an associated policy document, created to help moderators decide what posts to delete and what users to punish. “Facebook puts users in a near-impossible position by telling them they can’t post about dangerous groups and individuals, but then refusing to publicly identify who it considers dangerous,” said Faiza Patel, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program, who reviewed the material. The list and associated rules appear to be a clear embodiment of American anxieties, political concerns, and foreign policy values since 9/11, experts said, even though the DIO policy is meant to protect all Facebook users and applies to those who reside outside of the United States (the vast majority). Nearly everyone and everything on the list is considered a foe or threat by America or its allies: Over half of it consists of alleged foreign terrorists, free discussion of which is subject to Facebook’s harshest censorship. The DIO policy and blacklist also place far looser prohibitions on commentary about predominately white anti-government militias than on groups and individuals listed as terrorists, who are predominately Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Muslim, or those said to be part of violent criminal enterprises, who are predominantly Black and Latino, the experts said. The materials show Facebook offers “an iron fist for some communities and more of a measured hand for others,” said Ángel Díaz, a lecturer at the UCLA School of Law who has researched and written on the impact of Facebook’s moderation policies on marginalized communities. Facebook’s policy director for counterterrorism and dangerous organizations, Brian Fishman, said in a written statement that the company keeps the list secret because “[t]his is an adversarial space, so we try to be as transparent as possible, while also prioritizing security, limiting legal risks and preventing opportunities for groups to get around our rules.” He added, “We don’t want terrorists, hate groups or criminal organizations on our platform, which is why we ban them and remove content that praises, represents or supports them. A team of more than 350 specialists at Facebook is focused on stopping these organizations and assessing emerging threats. We currently ban thousands of organizations, including over 250 white supremacist groups at the highest tiers of our policies, and we regularly update our policies and organizations who qualify to be banned.” Though the experts who reviewed the material say Facebook’s policy is unduly obscured from and punitive toward users, it is nonetheless a reflection of a genuine dilemma facing the company. After the Myanmar genocide, the company recognized it had become perhaps the most powerful system ever assembled for the global algorithmic distribution of violent incitement. To do nothing in the face of this reality would be viewed as grossly negligent by vast portions of the public — even as Facebook’s attempts to control the speech of billions of internet users around the world is widely seen as the stuff of autocracy. The DIO list represents an attempt by a company with a historically unprecedented concentration of power over global speech to thread this needle. ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄No pages Harsher Restrictions for Marginalized and Vulnerable Populations The list, the foundation of Facebook’s Dangerous Individuals and Organizations policy, is in many ways what the company has described in the past: a collection of groups and leaders who have threatened or engaged in bloodshed. The snapshot reviewed by The Intercept is separated into the categories Hate, Crime, Terrorism, Militarized Social Movements, and Violent Non-State Actors. These categories were organized into a system of three tiers under rules rolled out by Facebook in late June, with each tier corresponding to speech restrictions of varying severity. But while labels like “terrorist” and “criminal” are conceptually broad, they look more like narrow racial and religious proxies once you see how they are applied to people and groups in the list, experts said, raising the likelihood that Facebook is placing discriminatory limitations on speech. The tiers determine what other Facebook users are allowed to say about the banned entities. Regardless of tier, no one on the DIO list is allowed to maintain a presence on Facebook platforms, nor are users allowed to represent themselves as members of any listed groups. The tiers determine instead what other Facebook users are allowed to say about the banned entities. Tier 1 is the most strictly limited; users may not express anything deemed to be praise or support about groups and people in this tier, even for nonviolent activities (as determined by Facebook). Tier 1 includes alleged terror, hate, and criminal groups and alleged members, with terror defined as “organizing or advocating for violence against civilians” and hate as “repeatedly dehumanizing or advocating for harm against” people with protected characteristics. Tier 1’s criminal category is almost entirely American street gangs and Latin American drug cartels, predominantly Black and Latino. Facebook’s terrorist category, which is 70 percent of Tier 1, overwhelmingly consists of Middle Eastern and South Asian organizations and individuals — who are disproportionately represented throughout the DIO list, across all tiers, where close to 80 percent of individuals listed are labeled terrorists. fb-chart-1-01-01 Chart: Soohee Cho/The Intercept Facebook takes most of the names in the terrorism category directly from the U.S. government: Nearly 1,000 of the entries in the dangerous terrorism list note a “designation source” of “SDGT,” or Specially Designated Global Terrorists, a sanctions list maintained by the Treasury Department and created by George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks. In many instances, names on Facebook’s list include passport and phone numbers found on the official SDGT list, suggesting entries are directly copied over. Other sources cited include the Terrorism Research & Analysis Consortium, a private subscription-based database of purported violent extremists, and SITE, a private terror-tracking operation with a long, controversial history. “An Arabic word can have four or five different meanings in translation,” Michael Scheuer, the former head of the CIA’s Osama bin Laden unit, told the New Yorker in 2006, noting that he thinks SITE typically chooses the “most warlike translation.” It appears Facebook has worked with its tech giant competitors to compile the DIO list; one entry carried a note that it had been “escalated by” a high-ranking staffer at Google who previously worked in the executive branch on issues related to terrorism. (Facebook said it does not collaborate with other tech companies on its lists.) There are close to 500 hate groups in Tier 1, including the more than 250 white supremacist organizations Fishman referenced, but Faiza Patel, of the Brennan Center, noted that hundreds of predominantly white right-wing militia groups that seem similar to the hate groups are “treated with a light touch” and placed in Tier 3. Tier 2, “Violent Non-State Actors,” consists mostly of groups like armed rebels who engage in violence targeting governments rather than civilians, and includes many factions fighting in the Syrian civil war. Users can praise groups in this tier for their nonviolent actions but may not express any “substantive support” for the groups themselves. Tier 3 is for groups that are not violent but repeatedly engage in hate speech, seem poised to become violent soon, or repeatedly violate the DIO policies themselves. Facebook users are free to discuss Tier 3 listees as they please. Tier 3 includes Militarized Social Movements, which, judging from its DIO entries, is mostly right-wing American anti-government militias, which are virtually entirely white. “The lists seem to create two disparate systems, with the heaviest penalties applied to heavily Muslim regions and communities.” “The lists seem to create two disparate systems, with the heaviest penalties applied to heavily Muslim regions and communities,” Patel wrote in an email to The Intercept. The differences in demographic composition between Tiers 1 and 3 “suggests that Facebook — like the U.S. government — considers Muslims to be the most dangerous.” By contrast, Patel pointed out, “Hate groups designated as Anti-Muslim hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center are overwhelmingly absent from Facebook’s lists.” Anti-government militias, among those receiving more measured interventions from Facebook, “present the most lethal [domestic violent extremist] threat” to the U.S., intelligence officials concluded earlier this year, a view shared by many nongovernmental researchers. A crucial difference between alleged foreign terror groups and say, the Oath Keepers, is that domestic militia groups have considerable political capital and support on the American right. The Militarized Social Movement entries “do seem to be created in response to more powerful organizations and ethnic groups breaking the rules pretty regularly,” said Ángel Díaz, of UCLA School of Law, “and [Facebook] feeling that there needs to be a response, but they didn’t want the response to be as broad as it was for the terrorism portion, so they created a subcategory to limit the impact on discourse from politically powerful groups.” For example, the extreme-right movement known as “boogaloo,” which advocates for a second Civil War, is considered a Militarized Social Movement, which would make it subject to the relatively lenient Tier 3 rules. Facebook has only classified as Tier 1 a subset of boogaloo, which it made clear was “distinct from the broader and loosely-affiliated boogaloo movement.” Do you have additional information about how moderation works inside Facebook or other platforms? Contact Sam Biddle over Signal at +1 978 261 7389. A Facebook spokesperson categorically denied that Facebook gives extremist right-wing groups in the U.S. special treatment due to their association with mainstream conservative politics. They added that the company tiers groups based on their behavior, stating, “Where American groups satisfy our definition of a terrorist group, they are designated as terrorist organizations (E.g. The Base, Atomwaffen Division, National Socialist Order). Where they satisfy our definition of hate groups, they are designated as hate organizations (For example, Proud Boys, Rise Above Movement, Patriot Front).” The spokesperson framed the company’s treatment of militias as one of aggressive regulation rather than looseness, saying Facebook’s list of 900 such groups “is among the the most robust” in the world: “The Militarized Social Movement category was developed in 2020 explicitly to expand the range of organizations subject to our DOI policies precisely because of the changing threat environment. Our policy regarding militias is the strongest in the industry.” On the issue of how Facebook’s tiers often seem to sort along racial and religious lines, the spokesperson cited the presence of the white supremacists and hate groups in Tier 1 and said “focusing solely on” terrorist groups in Tier 1 “is misleading.” They added: “It’s worth noting that our approach to white supremacist hate groups and terrorist organization is far more aggressive than any government’s. All told, the United Nations, European Union, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and France only designate thirteen distinct white supremacist organizations. Our definition of terrorism is public, detailed and was developed with significant input from outside experts and academics. Unlike some other definitions of terrorism, our definition is agnostic to religion, region, political outlook, or ideology. We have designated many organizations based outside the Middle Eastern and South Asian markets as terrorism, including orgs based in North America and Western Europe (including the National Socialist Order, the Feurerkrieg Division, the Irish Republican Army, and the National Action Group).” On Facebook’s list, however, the number of listed terrorist groups based in North American or Western Europe amounts to only a few dozen out of over a thousand. Though the list includes a litany of ISIS commanders and Al Qaeda militants whose danger to others is uncontroversial, it would be difficult to argue that some entries constitute much of a threat to anyone at all. Due to the company’s mimicry of federal terror sanctions, which are meant to punish international adversaries rather than determine “dangerousness,” it is Facebook policy that the likes of the Iran Tractor Manufacturing Company and the Palestinian Relief and Development Fund, a U.K.-based aid organization, are both deemed too much of a real-world danger for free discussion on Facebook and are filed among Tier 1 terrorist organizations like al-Shabab. “When a major, global platform chooses to align its policies with the United States — a country that has long exercised hegemony over much of the world (and particularly, over the past twenty years, over many predominantly Muslim countries), it is simply recreating those same power differentials and taking away the agency of already-vulnerable groups and individuals,” said Jillian York, director for international freedom of expression at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who also reviewed the reproduced Facebook documents. Facebook’s list represents an expansive definition of “dangerous” throughout. It includes the deceased 14-year-old Kashmiri child soldier Mudassir Rashid Parray, over 200 musical acts, television stations, a video game studio, airlines, the medical university working on Iran’s homegrown Covid-19 vaccine, and many long-deceased historical figures like Joseph Goebbels and Benito Mussolini. Including such figures is “fraught with problems,” a group of University of Utah social media researchers recently told Facebook’s Oversight Board. Troubling Guidelines for Enforcement Internal Facebook materials walk moderators through the process of censoring speech about the blacklisted people and groups. The materials, portions of which were previously reported by The Guardian and Vice, attempt to define what it means for a user to “praise,” “support,” or “represent” a DIO listee and detail how to identify prohibited comments. Although Facebook provides a public set of such guidelines, it publishes only limited examples of what these terms mean, rather than definitions. Internally, it offers not only the definitions, but also much more detailed examples, including a dizzying list of hypotheticals and edge cases to help determine what to do with a flagged piece of content. “It leaves the real hard work of trying to make Facebook safe to outsourced, underpaid and overworked content moderators who are forced to pick up the pieces and do their best.” Facebook’s global content moderation workforce, an outsourced army of hourly contractors frequently traumatized by the graphic nature of their work, are expected to use these definitions and examples to figure out if a given post constitutes forbidden “praise” or meets the threshold of “support,” among other criteria, shoehorning the speech of billions of people from hundreds of countries and countless cultures into a tidy framework decreed from Silicon Valley. Though these workers operate in tandem with automated software systems, determining what’s “praise” and what isn’t frequently comes down to personal judgment calls, assessing posters’ intent. “Once again, it leaves the real hard work of trying to make Facebook safe to outsourced, underpaid and overworked content moderators who are forced to pick up the pieces and do their best to make it work in their specific geographic location, language and context,” said Martha Dark, the director of Foxglove, a legal aid group that works with moderators. ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄No pages In the internal materials, Facebook essentially says that users are allowed to speak of Tier 1 entities so long as this speech is neutral or critical, as any commentary considered positive could be construed as “praise.” Facebook users are barred from doing anything that “seeks to make others think more positively” or “legitimize” a Tier 1 dangerous person or group or to “align oneself” with their cause — all forms of speech considered “praise.” The materials say, “Statements presented in the form of a fact about the entity’s motives” are acceptable, but anything that “glorifies the entity through the use of approving adjectives, phrases, imagery, etc” is not. Users are allowed to say that a person Facebook considers dangerous “is not a threat, relevant, or worthy of attention,” but they may not say they “stand behind” a person on the list they believe was wrongly included — that’s considered aligning themselves with the listee. Facebook’s moderators are similarly left to decide for themselves what constitutes dangerous “glorification” versus permitted “neutral speech,” or what counts as “academic debate” and “informative, educational discourse” for billions of people. Determining what content meets Facebook’s definitions of banned speech under the policy is a “struggle,” according to a Facebook moderator working outside of the U.S. who responded to questions from The Intercept on the condition of anonymity. This person said analysts “typically struggle to recognize political speech and condemnation, which are permissible context for DOI.” They also noted the policy’s tendency to misfire: “[T]he fictional representations of [dangerous individuals] are not allowed unless shared in a condemning or informational context, which means that sharing a Taika Waititi photo from [the film] Jojo Rabbit will get you banned, as well as a meme with the actor playing Pablo Escobar (the one in the empty swimming pool).” These challenges are compounded because a moderator must try to gauge how their fellow moderators would assess the post, since their decisions are compared. “An analyst must try to predict what decision would a quality reviewer or a majority of moderators take, which is often not that easy,” the moderator said. The rules are “a serious risk to political debate and free expression,” Patel said, particularly in the Muslim world, where DIO-listed groups exist not simply as military foes but part of the sociopolitical fabric. What looks like glorification from a desk in the U.S. “in a certain context, could be seen [as] simple statements of facts,” EFF’s York agreed. “People living in locales where so-called terrorist groups play a role in governance need to be able to discuss those groups with nuance, and Facebook’s policy doesn’t allow for that.” As Patel put it, “A commentator on television could praise the Taliban’s promise of an inclusive government in Afghanistan, but not on Facebook.” The moderator working outside of the U.S. agreed that the list reflects an Americanized conception of danger: “The designations seem to be based on American interests,” which “does not represent the political reality in those countries” elsewhere in the world, the person said. Particularly confusing and censorious is Facebook’s definition of a “Group Supporting Violent Acts Amid Protests,” a subcategory of Militarized Social Movements barred from using the company’s platforms. Facebook describes such a group as “a non-state actor” that engages in “representing [or] depicting … acts of street violence against civilians or law enforcement,” as well as “arson, looting, or other destruction of private or public property.” As written, this policy would appear to give Facebook license to apply this label to virtually any news organization covering — that is to say, depicting — a street protest that results in property damage, or to punish any participant uploading pictures of these acts by others. Given the praise piled onto Facebook a decade ago for the belief it had helped drive the Arab Spring uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East, it’s notable that, say, an Egyptian organization documenting violence amid the protests in Tahrir Square in 2011 could be deemed a dangerous Militarized Social Movement under 2021’s rulebook. Díaz, of UCLA, told The Intercept that Facebook should disclose far more about how it applies these protest-related rules. Will the company immediately shut down protest organizing pages the second any fires or other property damage occurs? “The standards that they’re articulating here suggest that [the DIO list] could swallow up a lot of active protesters,” Díaz said. Related ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ It’s possible protest coverage was linked to the DIO listing of two anti-capitalist media organizations: Crimethinc and It’s Going Down. Facebook banned both publications in 2020, citing DIO policy, and both are indeed found on the list, designated as Militarized Social Movements and further tagged as “armed militias.” A representative for It’s Going Down, who requested anonymity on the basis of their safety, told The Intercept that “outlets across the political spectrum report on street clashes, strikes, riots, and property destruction, but here Facebook seems to be imply if they don’t like what analysis … or opinion one writes about why millions of people took to the streets last summer during the pandemic in the largest outpouring in U.S. history, then they will simply remove you from the conversation.” They specifically denied that the group is an armed militia, or even activist or a social movement, explaining that it is instead a media platform “featuring news, opinion, analysis and podcasts from an anarchist perspective.” A representative of Crimethinc likewise denied that the group is armed or “‘militarized’ in any sense. It is a news outlet and book publisher, like Verso or Jacobin.” The representative requested anonymity citing right-wing threats to the organization. Facebook did not address questions about why these media organizations had been internally designated “armed militias” but instead, when asked about them, reiterated its prohibition on such groups and on Groups Supporting Violent Acts Amid Protests. Facebook’s internal moderation guidelines also leave some puzzling loopholes. After the platform played a role in facilitating a genocide in Myanmar, company executive Alex Warofka wrote, “We agree that we can and should do more” to “prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence.” But Facebook’s ban against violent incitement is relative, expressly permitting, in the policy materials obtained by The Intercept, calls for violence against “locations no smaller than a village.” For example, cited as fair game in the rules is the statement “We should invade Libya.” The Facebook spokesperson, said, “The purpose of this provision is to allow debate about military strategy and war, which is a reality of the world we live in,” and acknowledged that it would allow for calls of violence against a country, city, or terrorist group, giving as an example of a permitted post under the last category a statement targeting an individual: “We should kill Osama bin Laden.” The Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, California, U.S., on Monday, May 10, 2021. Facebook Inc. reopens its Menlo Park offices at 10% capacity starting today. Photographer: Nina Riggio/Bloomberg via Getty Images Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., on May 10, 2021. Photo: Nina Riggio/Bloomberg via Getty Images Harsh Suppression of Speech About the Middle East Enforcing the DIO rules leads to some surprising outcomes for a company that claims “free expression” as a core principle. In 2019, citing the DIO policy, Facebook blocked an online university symposium featuring Leila Khaled, who participated in two plane hijackings in the 1960s in which no passengers were hurt. Khaled, now 77, is still present in the version of Facebook’s terrorism list obtained by The Intercept. In February, Facebook’s internal Oversight Board moved to reverse a decision to delete a post questioning the imprisonment of leftist Kurdish revolutionary Abdullah Öcalan, a DIO listee whom the U.S. helped Turkish intelligence forces abduct in 1999. In July, journalist Rania Khalek posted a photo to Instagram of a billboard outside Baghdad International Airport depicting Iranian general Qassim Suleimani and Iraqi military commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, both assassinated by the United States and both on the DIO list. Khalek’s Instagram upload was quickly deleted for violating what a notification called the “violence or dangerous organizations” policy. In an email, Khalek told The Intercept, “My intent when I posted the photo was to show my surroundings,” and “the fact that [the billboard is] so prominently displayed at the airport where they were murdered shows how they are perceived even by Iraqi officialdom.” More recently, Facebook’s DIO policy collided with the Taliban’s toppling of the U.S.-backed government in Afghanistan. After the Taliban assumed control of the country, Facebook announced the group was banned from having a presence on its apps. Facebook now finds itself in the position of not just censoring an entire country’s political leadership but placing serious constraints on the public’s ability to discuss or even merely depict it. Other incidents indicate that the DIO list may be too blunt an instrument to be used effectively by Facebook moderators. In May, Facebook deleted a variety of posts by Palestinians attempting to document Israeli state violence at Al Aqsa Mosque, the third holiest site in Islam, because company staff mistook it for an unrelated organization on the DIO list with “Al-Aqsa” in its name (of which there are several), judging from an internal memo obtained by BuzzFeed News. Last month, Facebook censored an Egyptian user who posted an Al Jazeera article about the Al-Qassam Brigades, a group active in neighboring Palestine, along with a caption that read simply “Ooh” in Arabic. Al-Qassam does not appear on the DIO list, and Facebook’s Oversight Board wrote that “Facebook was unable to explain why two human reviewers originally judged the content to violate this policy.” While the past two decades have inured many the world over to secret ledgers and laws like watchlists and no-fly bans, Facebook’s privatized version indicates to York that “we’ve reached a point where Facebook isn’t just abiding by or replicating U.S. policies, but going well beyond them.” “We should never forget that nobody elected Mark Zuckerberg, a man who has never held a job other than CEO of Facebook.”
The Censored have been taking a huge first mover adoption advantage, rapidly routing around the Censorship that was first applied to them, ditching fake sponsors, spinning up their own independent services platforms and partnerships, and utilizing decentralized platforms as well, and crypto donations are starting to roll in as the global crypto economy grows. The Censors thought they would win against the Censored, but the world is now digital and increasingly uncensorable, they thought wrong. “Cancelling Works Both Ways:” Dan Bongino Goes OFF; Ends Relationship With Huge Sponsor For Caving to Antifa Boycott https://rumble.com/embed/vl6prj On Friday, former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino took a stand against the unhinged leftist mob and the weak-kneed advertisers who have repeatedly caved to their every whim. During his show, Bongino announced that he has severed all ties with one of his largest advertisers – SimpliSafe Security – because the company had shamelessly cancelled their advertising with the Post Millennial after two Antifa hacks had sent a couple of tweets. He also ended his personal subscription with SimpliSafe. “Cancelling works both ways, and to those companies that would bow down to the left-wing extremist activists who complain on Twitter: If you don’t support free speech – get out. I’m not interested at all.” The Post Millennial has been a frequent target of left-wing cancel campaigns, especially ones that are organized by Antifa, partly because their editor-in-chief – Andy Ngo – has been on the forefront of exposing the militant black-bloc group’s actions. The outlet is one of the only to report on Antifa honestly which subjects them to constant defamation online by radical activists. The outlet, like most other conservative platforms, relies heavily on advertiser funding to be able to create content. Bongino rightfully understands that these politically-driven boycotts do real damage to smaller outlets and content creators that do not have the institutional backing of a place like Fox News or even his own show. The stand he is making is on behalf of the up-and-comers and the smaller conservative platforms. But, according to him, it will pay off for those who stand together against the radical mob in the long run. “Post Millennial may not have the assets I do – or the resources, or the time or the ‘go f*ck yourself attitude’ I have. I’m sure they do — but they don’t have the assets to fight back that I do, which are substantial thanks to people like Nandini. Now, to be candid, if you don’t have a lot of money and you’re not financially secure, I guess, it can be pretty painful right? They could probably take a few of your sponsors away. But what they don’t realize is they’ve actually created a parallel economy. These are ‘short term victories’ for leftist extremists, because as they fire little shots at conservative media, they are pushing that media, along with cultural content creators, into a parallel economy where they can’t be cancelled by activist shaming.” In Bongino’s mind, the companies who fold to the online activist mobs don’t deserve to have any of their products advertised anyway. They are weak and shouldn’t be supported if they shun half of the population for their political beliefs. As he also points out, the people who drive these cancelled campaigns are paid political activists who lay around in their mommies basement all day, combing through conservative content to look for something to stir up a bogus ‘nontroversy’ over. “Here’s a group of leftist nuts – there’s very few of them – again, they’re all basement dwellers, they don’t have a lot of money or lives or anything and they’re not particularly bright. They’re paid by people like Media Matters and others – and they sit around and they watch conservative content, and they just look for any reason to try to promote a boycott against your show. That’s legitimately what they do.” Bongino vowed to not let this end with SimpliSafe. He is completely fed up with the “communist totalitarians” who have gained such a foothold of power in today’s world and will “dedicate” the rest of his life to fighting against their anti-American tyranny. “If you have weak companies that don’t want to work with people who are politically conservative, please do us a favor, get rid of them for us. You’re doing us a huge public service. You’re playing with the wrong people. So I’m gonna warn these companies out there to do business with Nandini – just like I cost Warby Parker, the eyeglass company who deals with Nandini, a whole lot of business. Don’t doubt me folks, my audiences, thousands of times larger than the cat lady’s. This is asymmetric warfare. I am a war of attrition guy, and I don’t stop, ever. I have a really bad temper, a really horrible attitude. And one thing I genuinely dislike are communist totalitarians. I have amassed enough of a fortune saving over my entire life to dedicate the rest of my life to combating liberal communist buffoons like Nandini Jemima and I Chad whatever his-face-is… …I just want to say the other sites that aren’t jumping in to help out The Gateway Pundit and Post Millennial and others have been attacked by this crazy cat person. Why are you sitting on the sidelines cashing a check. ‘Oh, I don’t want to upse the sponsor.’ You don’t want to upset the sponsor? and watch the world get flushed down the drain. It’s time for everyone to stand up here. Seriously“ Dan Bongino took a massive stand for all conservatives this weekend and deserves to be commended. More influential conservatives should do the same and back the smaller creators and platforms when advertisers inexcusably cave to the left – they don’t deserve our business anyway.
Fox News anchor John Roberts panicked and deleted a tweet suggesting Colin Powell’s death ‘raises new concerns’ about Covid vaccine efficacy. General Colin Powell, former secretary of state and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, died Monday from coronavirus. Powell, 84, was fully vaccinated. John Roberts fired off a tweet Monday that prompted immediate backlash from the Covidian cult. “The fact that Colin Powell died from a breakthrough COVID infection raises new concerns about how effective vaccines are long-term.” – Roberts tweeted Monday morning before deleting the post. Perhaps Roberts’ handlers at Fox weren’t too happy he questioned Big Pharma.
He also had blood cancer, which significantly weakens the immune system, you reactionary coin-hoarding incel On 10/19/21 03:51, grarpamp wrote:
Fox News anchor John Roberts panicked and deleted a tweet suggesting Colin Powell’s death ‘raises new concerns’ about Covid vaccine efficacy.
General Colin Powell, former secretary of state and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, died Monday from coronavirus.
Powell, 84, was fully vaccinated.
John Roberts fired off a tweet Monday that prompted immediate backlash from the Covidian cult.
“The fact that Colin Powell died from a breakthrough COVID infection raises new concerns about how effective vaccines are long-term.” – Roberts tweeted Monday morning before deleting the post.
Perhaps Roberts’ handlers at Fox weren’t too happy he questioned Big Pharma.
The Censored have been taking a huge first mover adoption advantage, rapidly routing around the Censorship
Gettr, Rumble, Bitchute... Just three of many new Free Speech platforms, obviously centralized not bulletproof yet fast functional easy and more Free Speech than Legacy Big Tech. Most of the new platforms are and must compete on Free Speech, otherwise the censored creators who are all now continually seeking out the better new platforms will take their viewers and ditch them. https://gettr.com/ https://rumble.com/ https://bitchute.com/ Free Speech: Dresden Germany chants "Let's Go Brandon"... https://rumble.com/embed/vl8uql Dresden Brandon https://rumble.com/embed/vl96wd Dresden Hosts Free Speech https://gettr.com/user/tommyrobinson1 https://www.bitchute.com/search/?sort=new&query=irfan+peci https://www.bitchute.com/search/?query=tommy+robinson https://www.bitchute.com/search/?query=lutz+bachmann https://www.bitchute.com/search/?query=siegfried+daebritz "Big things are coming", Tommy Robinson announced to his 130.000 fans on Telegram, which has been his only public platform after being thoroughly banned on Facebook, YouTube and Twitter after exposing the Fake News of the BBC in his documentary "Panodrama". Now Tommy is on GETTR, where he already has 35.000 followers. "Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West (PEGIDA)" in Dresden for seven years now, and will mark the rally's anniversary on Sunday, Oct. 17, with guest speakers including Tommy, former Austrian vice-chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache and former Al-Qaida operative turned Islam critic Irfan Peci.
Titleist censorbans string "Let's go Brandon" off it's automated custom print-to-order golf ball personalization service, but allows limitless other strings such as "Kill <name>" "ACAB" "Kill Cops" "Antifa", etc... https://redstate.com/streiff/2021/12/11/titleist-bans-lets-go-brandon-from-c... BringAmmo.com says fuck that, prints 260000sqft of custom LGB FreeSpeech giftwrap paper for sale... https://bringammo.com/collections/new/products/lets-go-brandon-wrapping-pape... https://twitter.com/sethweathers/status/1471130066667069440 100 years from now, one sealed roll of this will be worth more than one Bitcoin... invest today!
https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1471121387981086731 Facebook says its Fact-Checks are nothing more than opinion, but Facebook still censors you based its opinions anyway. https://nypost.com/2021/12/14/hypocrisy-of-media-censors-claim-to-be-against... Inside the hypocrisy of media manipulators, censors who claim to fight misinformation The Aspen Institute’s Commission on Information Disorder is just another liberal elite think tank ready to silence right-wing truthful media as “misinformation”, Christine Rosen writes.
Greenwald's profile banner says it all... https://twitter.com/pic/profile_banners/16076032/1631885895/1500x500 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald Twitter new policy from Top-Political-Censor-In-Charge CEO Agrawal, censorbans accounts of those who do nothing but repeat the truth spoken by both Govt and Science, that vaxed can and do transmit virus... https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1471146823410757633 https://twitter.com/redsteeze/status/1471134898039701510
https://www.politico.com/news/agenda/2021/11/02/facebook-europe-privacy-cont... The EU plans on enacting the Digital Services Act by 2022, which would require tech companies to immediately remove ... content from their platforms, or pay significant fines.
Twitter Leaps into Action – Blocks and Censors #LetsGoBrandon from Trending on Platform after 69,000 retweets https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/12/twitter-leaps-action-blocks-censors... Earlier today a clearly confused Joe Biden was trolled into saying, “Let’s Go Brandon!” during a call with an American dad on Christmas Eve. “Let’s go Brandon!” is a phrase that has become a euphemism for the profane protest chant “F*** Joe Biden.” Immediately following his latest gaffe #LetsGoBrandon began trending on Twitter. It was repeated over 69,000 times. But Twitter leaped into action and deleted the term from its trending list. The tech leftists have to help Old Joe no matter what. Everybody knows @Twitter changed #LetsGoBrandon to #Brandon on their hell hole trending page. And if you don’t… you have #mentalillness. pic.twitter.com/3yNco9K2q1 — Scott Helmer (@RealScottHelmer) December 24, 2021 In fact, if you type in LetsGoB the term LetsGoBrandon will not pop up. These untrustworthy tech people are something else. Look: Twitter is trying to pretend LetsGoBrandon isn’t trending like CNN tried to pretend John Griffin wasn’t a depraved pedophile. #LetsGoBrandon pic.twitter.com/040iPDhp7s — Low Rider (@low_riding) December 16, 2021
Still no paid "social" nets, no behaviour deposits, etc. And still too many laws that force sites to censor, instead of letting sites freely compete for users within entire spectrum from free to fully censored. Much variety of solutions and competition must prevail. TikTok Moderators Sue After Being "Traumatized" By Content https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/24/22852817/tiktok-content-moderation-lawsu... Back in July, a band of former Facebook content moderators rebelled against Zuck & Co., proclaiming that they would seek to invalidate NDAs that Facebook forces all its content moderators to sign so they don't squeal to the press about the freakshow of mayhem and debauchery that they're subjected to every day while reviewing flagged content that can include depictions of sexual abuse, violence, murder torture and mayhem (remember the Christchurch video?) and - of course - politically incorrect content and news stories, often with a conservative slant. "No NDA can lawfully prevent us from speaking out about our working conditions," the FB workers said at the time. While TikTok has become most closely associated with teenage wannabe prostitutes shaking their assets for views, there are other indications that the Chinese-designed app might be intentionally working to corrupt the youth of America. The app has already been slammed for feeding depictions of drug use, sex, porn, kinks and other topics that might unsettle parents to children as young as 13. All the while, Beijing has limited use of the Chinese version of the app to just 40 minutes a week for the youth of China. Now, fresh off TikTok being named the most dominant social media platform of the year, it appears their content moderators have learned from their comrades at Facebook - comrades, who, lets remember, technically worked for third-party contractors whom FB hires to handle the content moderation - that they might be able to make a quick buck by suing the social media giants for psychic damage accrued while performing content moderation duties, often while working as contractors with little job security and few benefits. To wit, the Verge reported that a TikTok content mod named Candie Frazier has filed a class-action lawsuit in the California Central District Court alleging that TikTok-owner ByteDance and its contractors "failed to meet industry standards intended to mitigate the harms of content moderation. These include offering moderators more frequent breaks, psychological support, and technical safeguards like blurring or reducing the resolution of videos. TikTok and its contractors closely monitor the time moderators spend moderating videos, effectively forcing workers to keep their eyes on an overwhelming orgy of debauchery for long hours with few breaks. This has led to workers being "traumatized" by the content they're supposed to be moderating, according to the lawsuit. In a proposed class-action lawsuit filed in the California Central District Court, Candie Frazier says she spent 12 hours a day moderating videos uploaded to TikTok for a third-party contracting firm named Telus International. In that time, Frazier says she witnessed “thousands of acts of extreme and graphic violence,” including mass shootings, child rape, animal mutilation, cannibalism, gang murder, and genocide. Frazier says that in order to deal with the huge volume of content uploaded to TikTok daily, she and her fellow moderators had to watch between three and ten videos simultaneously, with new videos loaded in at least every 25 seconds. Moderators are only allowed to take one 15 minute break in the first four hours of their shift, and then additional 15 minute breaks every two hours afterwards. The lawsuit says ByteDance monitors performance closely and “heavily punishes any time taken away from watching graphic videos.” As a result of her work, Frazier says she has suffered “severe psychological trauma including depression and symptoms associated with anxiety and PTSD.” The lawsuit says Frazier has “trouble sleeping and when she does sleep, she has horrific nightmares. She often lays awake at night trying to go to sleep, replaying videos that she has seen in her mind. She has severe and debilitating panic attacks.” Content moderators are critical to helping some of the world's most profitable companies continue to stay in business. Frazier's lawsuit was filed by the Cali-based Joseph Saveri Law Firm, which previously filed a similar lawsuit back in 2018 against Facebook on behalf of moderators. That case resulted in a $52M settlement paid by the social media giant. So, it looks like Frazier has picked well.
Vatican's censorship and wokesterism regime, and the prophecies of one brave Cardinal... Pope Demands Silicon Valley "In The Name Of God" Censor "Hate Speech", "Conspiracy Theories" https://summit.news/2021/10/19/pope-demands-silicon-valley-in-the-name-of-go... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30835625 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=si0CL8ewQhs Pope hypocritical globalist fraudulent lying asshole and Islam apologist Pope Francis invoked God in an effort to pressure Silicon Valley giants into censoring more content, including “hate speech” and “conspiracy theories.” Yes, really. The Pope made the remarks during a World Meeting of Popular Movements, a shadowy organization created to promote “social justice” and fight racism with the help of religious leaders. “In the name of God, I ask the technology giants to stop exploiting human weakness, people’s vulnerability, for the sake of profits without caring about the spread of hate speech, grooming, fake news, conspiracy theories, and political manipulation,” he stated. Pope Francis also invoked the term “post-truth,” which was invented by establishment media organs after they began to lose their monopoly on controlling the narrative following the election of Donald Trump. The Catholic leader apparently believes it’s Christian and Godly to empower giant corporations to shut down free speech. This is no surprise given his previous stance on free speech in response to the slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, when he rhetorically sided with the terrorists who murdered them in cold blood. As we document in the video below, which Pope Francis would surely love to see banned, the Supreme Pontiff smears his critics as performing “the work of the devil.” In reality, his every action and position has served to further the anti-Christ globalist beast system for which he is a willing puppet. No doubt the Pope would respond to such claims by characterizing them as “conspiracy theories” and “hate speech.” Beginning to see how this works?
Memes, Censorship, Truth, and Words... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1jeXMF25eM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMqlfwV4BA8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7t4J-q09ik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OTPQ_Lzn9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk8ee2F9iAc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8Gqjs9UqGk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0aienuCBdg Wake up. Fight back.
On 10/21/21, professor rat <pro2rat@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
" . . . the age we're living in as a kind of digital colonialism. The likes of Facebook are essentially the imperialists of our age
https://decrypt.co/84043/facebook-tencent-threat-open-metaverse-animoca-bran...
The sooner Fedbook and Gaggle go the way of AOL and GeoCities, the better.
DWAC juggernaut to buyout and shut FB TWTR GOOGL. Distributed networks to then defeat imperial muzzlers. Revenge for censorship served cold upon all censoring forms.
Indoctrination words programmed into children in one form, exact same words and existance of program forbidden to be exposed by FreeSpeech speakers in another form... such hilarious hypocrisy. https://www.bitchute.com/video/mM1CIyLz51bK Florida School Board Hypocrites Call Cops on their own supposed Literary FreeSpeech
One Glenn Greenwald channel, on one of the many newer media distribution platforms competing against the legacy big censored platforms... https://www.bitchute.com/channel/glenngreenwald/
Taibbi: The "Let's Go, Brandon!" Freakout Goes Next-Level Authored by Matt Taibbi via TK News, FBI Special Agent-turned-CNN Political Analyst Asha Rangappa — gosh that resume sounds unsurprising, doesn’t it? — tweeted this yesterday night: As an experiment, I’d love for an @SouthwestAir pilot to say “Long live ISIS” before taking off. My guess is that 1) the plane would be immediately grounded; 2) the pilot fired; and 3) a statement issued by the airline within a matter of hours — Asha Rangappa (@AshaRangappa_) October 31, 2021 Put on your irony helmet, this is going to be a long ride. Rangappa was referencing a story involving a Southwest Air pilot who became a headline news story by saying, “Let’s Go, Brandon!” during a flight from Houston to Albuquerque. Sitting on that flight, incredibly, was an AP reporter named Colleen Long who was writing a piece entitled, “How ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ became code for insulting Joe Biden.” How did it happen? On October 2nd, at a NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama, a crowd broke into a chant of “Fuck Joe Biden!” after 28-year-old Brandon Brown won a race. NBC reporter Kelli Stavast was interviewing Brown during the chants, and quickly spoke over them, saying, “You can hear the chants from the crowd. Let’s go Brandon!” The phrase has since become a war cry for people all over the country, being at once a burn on Biden, the anxious, airbrushing press, and the corporate conglomerates who are taking pre-emptive action to try to prevent such outbursts from ever again darkening America’s door (“NASCAR and NBC have since taken steps to limit ‘ambient crowd noise’ during interviews,” as the AP put it). Now WFBI agent Rangappa has essentially declared “Let’s Go, Brandon!” the equivalent of an ISIS war cry. Supportive hand-wringing from press/natsec colleagues (is there a difference?) was instantaneous. “Donald Trump tried to overthrow American democracy and at least one Southwest Airlines pilot thinks that’s just fine,” cried HuffPo’s S.V. Date. “Come fly the extremist skies,” chimed in official #Resistance mascot Aaron Rupar. Then there was Rangappa’s fellow spook-to-CNN pipeliner, former Homeland Security official Juliette Kayyem: If @SouthwestAir doesn’t do anything, every passenger on that flight has standing to file a complaint with the @FAANews and they should do so. Southwest will then be compelled to investigate or defend him. Have fun with that. No messing around in the air. Bright line rule. https://t.co/L7VlZWJ0SU — Juliette Kayyem (@juliettekayyem) October 30, 2021 Is it really possible that these people don’t get they’re being trolled? Part of the joke of “Let’s Go Brandon,” of course, is that you couldn’t go five minutes during the last administration without hearing someone in pearls or a bowtie screaming “Fuck Trump!” I don’t remember Rangappa pumping out “Osama de Niro” tweets after this celebrated Tony Awards appearance: The bigger part of the “Let’s Go Brandon!” gag is that such outbursts during the Trump years were not only not condemned, they were celebrated, as pundits and reporters for the first time told us directly profane insults of presidents were okay. “Robert de Niro’s Comments at the Tony Awards Go Viral,” was CNN’s bemused take, in a story quoting artist Ferrari Shepard saying, “Robert de Niro is my favorite rapper.”
Chris Sky: The Power of United Non-Compliance & Monero https://realchrissky.com/ https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqanq/a-rich-anti-masker-chris-saccoccia-is... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Sky Watch Here (YT): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ej5oVNEtvo Watch Here (Odysee): https://odysee.com/@MoneroTalk:8 Listen Here: https://www.monerotalk.live/chris-sky-the-power-of-united-non-compliance-and... " My reasoning for having Chris Sky speak was to hear from someone that faced censorship first-hand in pursuit of his cause and to hear his reasoning for why the world needs digital cash to support minority groups / opinions in the face of growing tyranny. That is why I thought he would be interesting to have. Plus he has a large following. I thought having a speaker outside the Monero community, that has a use-case for it, would help grow Monero. I was very clear about my reasoning for having Chris speak -- Douglas Tuman MoneroTopia.com " Chris also accurately predicted creeping featurism of Corona lockdowns etc. Fuck the Censor and Canceler ErCiccione. Those who censor and cancel will never know the truth, get on the distributed social, chat, and video nets and discover it.
Data sovereignty, privacy, 230, common carrier, election manipulation... GOP Senatorial Candidate Blake Masters Nails It on The War Room – How to Save America from Big Tech https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/11/gop-senatorial-candidate-blake-mast... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yxTYEJ2lBQ blakemasters.com https://rumble.com/embed/vmcjnf war room big tech sequoia with blake masters https://blakemasters.com/ https://twitter.com/bgmasters https://gettr.com/bgmasters On Tuesday morning Arizona Senate candidate Blake Masters joined Steve Bannon on The War Room to discuss the existential threat of Big Tech on America’s future. Blake Masters, a 34-year-old chief operating officer at investment firm Thiel Capital and native Arizonan, launched his campaign for US Senator from Arizona in July. Since his launch, Blake has appeared on several media hits including The Gateway Pundit and The War Room. For years Blake worked running Peter Thiel’s venture capital fund in Silicon Valley. The fund today is worth upwards of $45 billion. On Tuesday on The War Room Blake and Steve discussed the growing threat of the tech giant authoritarians. Blake listed off five common-sense ideas on how to save America from these online tyrants. 1.) Take away the Section 230 immunity that is corporate welfare for Big Tech 2.) Make Facebook and Twitter common carriers – The phone company can’t kick you or me off for having a conservative conversation 3.) Google and Facebook should be broken up. No reason that they should have Facebook, What’s App, and Instagram so they can suck up your data 4.) We need comprehensive data privacy legislation – You own your data not giant international corporations 5.) Google can change elections via their search engine – is enemy number one when it comes to election integrity These are excellent points that just make sense. By the way— When you search BlakeMasters.com on Bing or DuckDuckGo the first search item that pops up is on car “brakes.” And the BlakeMasters.com website is not even listed on the front page. This is how the Tech Giants discriminate against conservatives. (Google was actually better which was a surprise!) ** You can donate to Blake Masters here. Blake Masters went on to say we have 10-20 years to deal with the Tech Giants before we lose our country. The Gateway Pundit believes we have less time than that. This was an excellent segment on The War Room.
Facebook Users Unable To Find Results When Searching For "Kyle Rittenhouse" Amid Teen's Homicide Trial https://www.theepochtimes.com/facebook-users-unable-to-find-results-when-sea... https://dailycaller.com/2021/11/09/facebook-kyle-rittenhouse-kenosha-search-... https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/03/facebook-labels-rittenhouse-mass-murder-p... https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/27/21404518/facebook-search-kyle-rittenhouse... Facebook users are unable to find anything when searching for the name “Kyle Rittenhouse” in the social media platform’s search bar as the 18-year-old appears in court at his homicide trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin. But while his trial takes place, a Facebook search for Rittenhouse turns up no results, even when using both the mobile and desktop version of the platform. A screenshot posted by Daily Caller shows no results when “Kyle Rittenhouse” is typed into the Facebook search bar and Fox News found the same result. The Epoch Times also found the same result. Facebook search for Kyle Rittenhouse on Nov. 11, 2021. (The Epoch Times) It is unclear why search results are not appearing. The Epoch Times has contacted Facebook for comment. Bizarrely, searches with the misspelled name “Kyle Rittenhouses” showed results as did “Rittenhouse Kyle” and just the last name “Rittenhouse.” Last year, Facebook admitted to blocking search results for “Kyle Rittenhouse” immediately following the Kenosha shooting. “It’s not actually new,” a Facebook representative told The Verge at the time. “We block searches for a ton of stuff..." The social media giant also said it was taking proactive measures to limit information in the wake of the incident, and a spokesperson told The Verge Facebook had, “designated this shooting as a mass murder and [had] removed the shooter’s accounts from Facebook and Instagram.” Facebook confirmed to the Daily Caller in September that it had banned all content in praise of Rittenhouse, including posts from users who argue he acted in self-defense, and had placed him on a list of “dangerous individuals and organizations.” Vice President of Counterterrorism and Dangerous Organizations Brian Fishman also told the outlet it had removed Rittenhouse’s Facebook and Instagram accounts.
Now users speech is even banned off stupid insanely expensive products, only by Leftist Corp's of course, those valuing free speech should sell PTON ... Peloton Blocks Users From Using #LetsGoBrandon Hashtag https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/11/10/peloton-block... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/peloton-blocks-lets-go-brandon-hasht... "Let's Go Brandon!" has become a political rallying cry among conservative-Trump-loving Americans to show their defiance against President Biden. The phrase has gone viral since Oct. 2's NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama, after a reporter interviewing racecar driver Brandon Brown quickly spoke over the crowd who was chanting "F@ck Joe Biden!" She said, "You can hear the chants from the crowd. Let's go Brandon!" The "Let's Go, Brandon" movement is a unique public response that shows their discontent for the Biden administration. Billboards, bumper stickers, yard signs, rap songs, guns, memes, and trending hashtags continue to go viral. But one place that has banned the phrase is fitness equipment company Peloton. According to PJ Media, Peloton members used the tag "#LetsGoBrandon" in their profile to connect with other like-minded users. Not too long after they tagged their profiles, Peloton immediately banned the use of it. One user shared a screenshot of an alert from the fitness equipment company that said, "this tag does not meet our guidelines. Please contact Support if you believe this is an error." Peloton also banned the #StopTheSteal and #TrumpWon hashtags. The company did allow #ImpeachBiden, #WomenForTrump, and others. However, #BlackLivesMatter has almost 270,000 members, while #AllLivesMatter has been banned. Peloton added profile tags during the virus pandemic to "provide a more robust way for our Members to connect through shared interests or identity," according to Peloton, adding that tags will make "the in and out of class experience feel more personal and relevant. Peloton told the Washington Examiner that it has "a zero-tolerance policy against divisive, explicit, or other content that violates our policies." "We welcome Members from all walks of life to represent themselves through their Tags or by having thoughtful conversations in our groups." Users of the fitness bike told PJ Media they are tired of liberal left-wing propaganda being forced down their throats. "We can't have a 'Let's Go Brandon'?" said one user. "For a company who claims to be so inclusive, they sure do alienate a big portion of its members," another user said. "Attempting to silence our voices will not silence us. It will only grow our will to speak louder."
How about "Letz goe Braandun" ?You read it here FiRST! Jim Bell On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 1:42 AM, grarpamp<grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: Now users speech is even banned off stupid insanely expensive products, only by Leftist Corp's of course, those valuing free speech should sell PTON ... Peloton Blocks Users From Using #LetsGoBrandon Hashtag https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/11/10/peloton-block... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/peloton-blocks-lets-go-brandon-hasht... "Let's Go Brandon!" has become a political rallying cry among conservative-Trump-loving Americans to show their defiance against President Biden. The phrase has gone viral since Oct. 2's NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama, after a reporter interviewing racecar driver Brandon Brown quickly spoke over the crowd who was chanting "F@ck Joe Biden!" She said, "You can hear the chants from the crowd. Let's go Brandon!" The "Let's Go, Brandon" movement is a unique public response that shows their discontent for the Biden administration. Billboards, bumper stickers, yard signs, rap songs, guns, memes, and trending hashtags continue to go viral. But one place that has banned the phrase is fitness equipment company Peloton. According to PJ Media, Peloton members used the tag "#LetsGoBrandon" in their profile to connect with other like-minded users. Not too long after they tagged their profiles, Peloton immediately banned the use of it. One user shared a screenshot of an alert from the fitness equipment company that said, "this tag does not meet our guidelines. Please contact Support if you believe this is an error." Peloton also banned the #StopTheSteal and #TrumpWon hashtags. The company did allow #ImpeachBiden, #WomenForTrump, and others. However, #BlackLivesMatter has almost 270,000 members, while #AllLivesMatter has been banned. Peloton added profile tags during the virus pandemic to "provide a more robust way for our Members to connect through shared interests or identity," according to Peloton, adding that tags will make "the in and out of class experience feel more personal and relevant. Peloton told the Washington Examiner that it has "a zero-tolerance policy against divisive, explicit, or other content that violates our policies." "We welcome Members from all walks of life to represent themselves through their Tags or by having thoughtful conversations in our groups." Users of the fitness bike told PJ Media they are tired of liberal left-wing propaganda being forced down their throats. "We can't have a 'Let's Go Brandon'?" said one user. "For a company who claims to be so inclusive, they sure do alienate a big portion of its members," another user said. "Attempting to silence our voices will not silence us. It will only grow our will to speak louder."
;-) ------- Original Message ------- On Monday, November 15th, 2021 at 1:46 AM, jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
How about "Letz goe Braandun" ? You read it here FiRST! Jim Bell
On Mon, Nov 15, 2021 at 1:42 AM, grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote: Now users speech is even banned off stupid insanely expensive products, only by Leftist Corp's of course, those valuing free speech should sell PTON ...
Peloton Blocks Users From Using #LetsGoBrandon Hashtag
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2021/11/10/peloton-block... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/peloton-blocks-lets-go-brandon-hasht...
"Let's Go Brandon!" has become a political rallying cry among conservative-Trump-loving Americans to show their defiance against President Biden. The phrase has gone viral since Oct. 2's NASCAR race at the Talladega Superspeedway in Alabama, after a reporter interviewing racecar driver Brandon Brown quickly spoke over the crowd who was chanting "F@ck Joe Biden!" She said, "You can hear the chants from the crowd. Let's go Brandon!"
The "Let's Go, Brandon" movement is a unique public response that shows their discontent for the Biden administration. Billboards, bumper stickers, yard signs, rap songs, guns, memes, and trending hashtags continue to go viral. But one place that has banned the phrase is fitness equipment company Peloton.
According to PJ Media, Peloton members used the tag "#LetsGoBrandon" in their profile to connect with other like-minded users. Not too long after they tagged their profiles, Peloton immediately banned the use of it.
One user shared a screenshot of an alert from the fitness equipment company that said, "this tag does not meet our guidelines. Please contact Support if you believe this is an error."
Peloton also banned the #StopTheSteal and #TrumpWon hashtags. The company did allow #ImpeachBiden, #WomenForTrump, and others. However, #BlackLivesMatter has almost 270,000 members, while #AllLivesMatter has been banned.
Peloton added profile tags during the virus pandemic to "provide a more robust way for our Members to connect through shared interests or identity," according to Peloton, adding that tags will make "the in and out of class experience feel more personal and relevant.
Peloton told the Washington Examiner that it has "a zero-tolerance policy against divisive, explicit, or other content that violates our policies."
"We welcome Members from all walks of life to represent themselves through their Tags or by having thoughtful conversations in our groups."
Users of the fitness bike told PJ Media they are tired of liberal left-wing propaganda being forced down their throats. "We can't have a 'Let's Go Brandon'?" said one user.
"For a company who claims to be so inclusive, they sure do alienate a big portion of its members," another user said. "Attempting to silence our voices will not silence us. It will only grow our will to speak louder."
Now users speech is even banned off stupid insanely expensive products, only by Leftist Corp's of course, those valuing free speech should sell PTON ...
PTON just raised $1B today to engage in more censorship. Whether by paying Corporations or Governments to do it, apparently people love to fund their own opression. Stop doing that.
Zuckerberg, Biden, and the rest of Big Tech Social and the Fake News all since day one deleted canceled and slandered Rittenhouse who was seen by many as not guilty from even the first on scene videos... https://twitter.com/MediaRightNews1/status/1461776166432301059 https://twitter.com/MediaRightNews1/status/1461775165931589642 Now lets see just how long (aka: forever) they let this actual certified mass murderer's pages all stay up, and praise heaps of worship and apologist on him, buy him free lawyers, devote shrines to whatever his lefty cause, play his music all over the media, proclaim his victimhood, order all statues of Malcolm X to be moved to highly visible public prominence, etc... watch the Media-Politician hypocrisy unfold, lol... Darrell Brooks https://loomered.com/2021/11/21/exclusive-wi-police-scanner-identifies-id-in... https://twitter.com/MediaRightNews1/status/1462636218198282242 https://twitter.com/CBS58/status/1462576129299128327 https://twitter.com/TaylorLumpkinTV/status/1462575035042910212 https://wcca.wicourts.gov/ https://twitter.com/flyfrmthemob https://twitter.com/flytalk1oo https://twitter.com/mathboifly https://soundcloud.com/mathboi-fly https://instagram.com/mathboifly https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUI_NnHGW518kRgeDOTgH3Q https://www.datpiff.com/profile/JayFly7 https://www.datpiff.com/profile/MathBoiFly flyshtonly7@gmail.com young_blas21@yahoo.com
Airwaves filling with more stupid manufactured woke shit, just as expected... https://summit.news/2021/11/25/blm-supporter-starts-gofundme-page-for-christ...
Censored Speech, Internet, News, Finance, etc, and Censored Travel... it's all coming for you too... https://www.bitchute.com/video/5VyaKxaBzwKA/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/2ZfxAJBDA8qX/
As for Dorsey's decision to black out news of his plans on the platform he co-created and led, some accounts are pointing to comments from Agarwal made during a November 2020 interview, where he hinted that Twitter's shift toward blacking out conservative voices - which has elicited a personal lawsuit against Dorsey filed by former President Donald Trump - might be permanent. Agrawal said "our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment...focus[ing] less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed." That doesn't sound good.
It sounds great to me! The further commercial social media platforms diverge from free speech the more many will leave for less- or un-moderated platforms and attract funding. Those who stay will just find themselves in ebbing echo chambers. On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, 11:02 AM grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
As for Dorsey's decision to black out news of his plans on the platform he co-created and led, some accounts are pointing to comments from Agarwal made during a November 2020 interview, where he hinted that Twitter's shift toward blacking out conservative voices - which has elicited a personal lawsuit against Dorsey filed by former President Donald Trump - might be permanent. Agrawal said "our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment...focus[ing] less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed." That doesn't sound good.
Sundar Pichai's Google YouTube shitcorp (the CIA's and NSA's TS BFF's) yet again proves that his shareholders need to liquidate GOOG ASAP before the uncensorable global encrypted p2p nets take over... https://www.bitchute.com/video/TvJXtHqxCAEg/ Rammat censored pt1 https://www.bitchute.com/video/gmWRmw3uV3fo/ Rammat censored pt2
https://wirepoints.org/money-talks-donors-show-the-path-to-restoring-freedom... Money Talks: Donors Show The Way To Restoring Freedom Of Thought And Speech In Higher Education A welcome trend is unfolding in higher education. Wealthy donors are using their clout to fight the cancel mobs and woke radicals now dominating most colleges and universities. No freedom of speech or thought? Then no money for you, they are saying.
Twitter's new scumbag CEO Agrawal, first week on the job, goes on censorship rampage killing hundreds of accounts, including censoring trial to protect human scumbags... https://nypost.com/2021/12/04/new-twitter-ceo-parag-agrawal-raises-free-spee... https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/show-notes-twitter-ceo-anti https://www.politico.com/news/2021/11/29/twitter-dorsey-agrawal-ceo-523492 During the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell, a few Twitter accounts have been providing extremely detailed information - Adam Klasfeld, Inner City Press, and the 'Maxwell Trial Tracker.' On Wednesday, Twitter nuked the latter. Maxwell trial tracker did not kill itself pic.twitter.com/lHj5e4jALU — Greg Capital (@phoenixvalue) December 8, 2021 The owner of the account reported the following on the Free Press Report: I woke up this morning and the @TrackerTrial account on Twitter was suspended. All the other accounts that I have made in the past were also suspended. This was the only note that I received. The @TrackerTrial account was the largest account on Twitter that specifically tracked the Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein trial. According to Twitter’s rules, apparently the account was “artificially” amplifying information. I am not sure what I was “amplifying” and how I was doing that. The account got insane engagement, which by the way, was all organic. There was not outside amplification. The people wanted to hear the truth about the Ghislaine Maxwell, and Jeffrey Epstein trial and the engagement numbers showed that. There were hundreds of millions in impressions and an account that went from zero to over 525,000 followers in a couple of weeks. All we did was report information from the trial that the mainstream media was failing to do. Going forward we will continue to report on the trial and all forms of big government and corporate corruption. This is just the beginning. We have appealed to Twitter for a possible lift of the suspension, but it is likely we will never hear from them. Big tech has gotten too powerful, and they can silence us anytime they want. As we wrote earlier in the week in an article titled, The Global Media Industrial Complex: Local blogs and websites are suppressed by big tech algorithms. If you write one thing out of line Google can institute a site wide ban, making sure you never show up in search algorithms again. Facebook restricts what is posted on their website. Twitter suppresses any outside links, to keep users on their own site. The year is 2021 and big brother is watching. The only thing I am asking is for everyone to share this article to get the word out. All information pertaining to this trial will be exclusively written here. I also have a Gab account if anyone is interested in a more informal route of communication. Finally, if you want to support the freedom of speech and press, consider becoming a paid member of The Free Press Report. The only way for us to stay independent and provide coverage of corruption indefinitely is to be a reader supported publication. We need to go back to the old school days where the PEOPLE supported and funded the free press. The Founding Fathers believed in the freedom of press. The right to report on news and circulate opinion without censorship from the government. Today this censorship is from big tech, another powerful arm of a tyrannical government. You can help support the freedom of the press by becoming a paid subscriber to The Free Press Report. For the cost of only one coffee per month, you can help liberate knowledge and support the right to a free press. You can help keep The Free Press Report internally funded by the people, for the people. * * * Meanwhile, Twitter also suspended the Pelosi Portfolio Tracker - which kept track of the Speaker's stock trades. Along with the Maxwell Trial Tracker account, Twitter also banned the Nancy Pelosi Portfolio Tracker page that did an amazing job at shining a light on her corrupt dealings and her uncanny return rate on her investments that couldn't have been done without insider trading. pic.twitter.com/wbvgh1WGv4 — 𝕴𝖆𝖓 𝕭𝖔𝖞𝖑𝖊 (@TheGeekHoard) December 8, 2021 As Roger L. Simon writes in the Epoch Times, "Now More Than Ever Conservatives Must Get Off Twitter": I have written before urging conservatives to get off Twitter. By remaining on the social media (what a weird name, when you think about it) site they are, in essence, sleeping with the enemy, cooperating with a company that is as deeply mired in cancel culture as any. I need not remind readers of how Twitter, under its then CEO Jack Dorsey, played a pivotal role weeks before election 2020 by blocking the New York Post’s accurate coverage of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal. This same portable computer—we have just learned via the Post’s Miranda Devine through her new book “Laptop from Hell”—contained yet more appalling information linking the Biden family to Xi Jinping’s China to the tune of millions. Polls tell us that had more of the public been informed about the laptop before the election, the result would likely have been different. (Or may have been accurate, if you prefer.) And yet, despite my importuning (which I readily admit doesn’t count for much), not to mention the freedom of speech principles they claim to believe in, few well-known conservatives, politicians or media, have left Twitter to this date. Sadly, they seem addicted to it. Or perhaps they are afraid of being left out. Whatever the case, it’s an unattractive mix of cowardice and hypocrisy. Now, however, Jack Dorsey has resigned and a new CEO installed, the company’s former CTO, Parag Agrawal. After only one day of the new regime—what breitibart.com aptly calls “Gulag Parag”—Twitter has actually made a turn to the worse, taking it further toward the fascistic. The platform has issued new rules banning the sharing of images or videos without, in most cases, the explicit consent of those being photographed. In other words, good-bye the victims of Waukesha because there was no time to ask people questions, let alone get the consent of the mass murderer. Good-bye, Antifa burning buildings. (Can you imagine getting their permission? You’d probably get bashed over the head with a skateboard, if you were lucky.). Good-bye, virtually anything that reflects poorly on the left or their ideologies. BLM riots and similar are unlikely to appear again. What was most interesting about Twitter was its immediacy. No more. We are now in the era of “selective immediacy.” Twitter will only show what the new regime wants it to. How neo-Stalinist. No wonder Dorsey wanted to beat it and turn over the reins before the inevitable pushback. Speaking of which, who is Parag Agrawal? He has been accused of racism for, you guessed it, an ancient Tweet. I’ll give him a pass on that, largely because Twitter itself, through its telegraphic form that rewards the clever put-down over the substantive, consistently brings out the worst in people. Social media, as I implied above, is misnomered. It should be called anti-social media. I won’t, however, give Agrawal a pass on his new regulations. He comes from the tech world and it seems increasing numbers of techs are skeptical of free speech, perhaps because they study technology, not history. Technology has the illusion of being definitive when it’s not. (Remember “garbage in, garbage out.”) This is a moment of change toward the further totalitarian at Twitter and, as is written in the I-Ching, “Change… Opportunity.” The opportunity here is for conservatives to finally get off. Agrawal and company have provided an excuse for those who need it. To remain on a platform that has ramped up its already significant censorship capabilities to such a degree would be a new level of hypocrisy. And toward what end? Is anybody really listening, anybody who might be convinced of something? Will the gang at CNN finally admit their constant prevarications? Hardly. Reforming Twitter is impossible. You don’t own it. Better to do the right thing—leave and in so doing destroy it. The stock is already headed down. Keep it that way. You’ll be doing everybody a favor, including liberals and progressives, although most of them may be too clueless to realize social media is polluting everyone’s brains. But do it most of all to feel better about yourself. Trust me—you will.
Always funny when the political censors, who swear they aren't censoring you, censor themselves... Watch: Bizarre Moment White House Cut Taiwanese Official's Video Feed Over Map https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/curious-case-map-disappearing-tai... https://thehill.com/policy/international/585493-white-house-cut-taiwanese-of... https://twitter.com/PezntJournalist/status/1470478201243766797 https://nypost.com/2021/12/13/wh-cut-video-feed-of-taiwanese-minister-at-bid... It's been revealed that at last week's Summit for Democracy the Biden administration was so afraid of offending China that it temporarily shut off the video feed of a Taiwanese minister at the moment a map was featured on the screen depicting Taiwan as independent of China. Reuters first reported that in this "curious" case - which the White House is now disputing that it had awareness of - the video of Taiwanese Digital Minister Audrey Tang was abruptly pulled after the official showed the controversial map for about a minute on Friday. Map presented in the feed before the video was abruptly cut off. Source: The Summit for Democracy In place of the cut video, there appeared words on the screen that said: "Any opinions expressed by individuals on this panel are those of the individual, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States government." The intervention came despite that China wasn't even invited to the democracy summit in the first place, and was not represented at the virtual forum. Beijing was further angered that Taiwan was invited, despite not being a globally recognized country, as China claims it as its own. The Hill summarized specifics of the map as follows: The video was replaced with an audio-only feed at the White House's request, the news wire reported. The presentation showed a color-coded map that ranked global openness to civil rights. Taiwan was labeled as green, or "open," while other countries in Asia were marked as "closed," "repressed," "obstructed" or "narrowed. The Reuters report, based on its sources, indicated the video feed was cut was on deliberate orders from the White House given Tang's presentation and map were in direct contradiction of the US official "one China" policy, further coming at a sensitive moment for US-China relations, which remain at a historic low point. Watch what every nation's officials logged into the summit saw, as the moderator quickly clamped down on Tang's presentation, trying to explain it away as part of the summit's "diversity" of opinions: Irony @ The Summit for Democracy 12/10 1. Taiwan minister's map shows Taiwan separate from China 2. Video feed is cut when it comes back to her 3. "Any opinions expressed by individuals on this panel are those of the individual, and do not necessarily reflect the views US gov't" pic.twitter.com/WYwSGhzFQ4 — Peznt Journalist (@PezntJournalist) December 13, 2021 The State Department, however, is claiming it was an "honest mistake" due to "confusion" and that the video feed was not supposed to have been cut off for any length of time. However, emails also seen by Reuters directly contradict the administration's rebuttal, as NY Post summarizes: According to Reuters, Tang’s map sparked a flurry of emails between US officials, and the National Security Council reached out to the State Department to complain that the slide had not been included in "dry-run" versions of the presentation before the summit. "They choked," one source told Reuters of the White House reaction. “It was clearly policy concerns,” a second source told Reuters, adding: "This was completely an internal overreaction." Ironically this act of "internal overreaction" which literally led to aggressive on-the-spot censorship of the Taiwan official's speech, was done at Biden's democracy summit which has been billed as an attempt to "tackle the greatest threats faced by democracies today through collective action." Though clearly Taiwan's delegation experienced something very different.
Epstein affiliates and Democrats Plaskett and Buckney-Small try to censorban their own sexually deviant sextapes... https://viconsortium.com/VIC/?p=42397 http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/news/v-i-delegate-other-high-ranking-v... Bizarre Video Of Stacey Plaskett And Naked Husband And Nude Photos Leaked Online; Plaskett Issues Statement - V.I. Consortium ST. CROIX -- Bizarre video showing husband of Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett, Jonathan Buckney-Small, who was being recorded by the congresswoman https://www.thedailybeast.com › dem-lawmaker-stacey-plasketts-sex-tape-leaks-online Dem Lawmaker Stacey Plaskett's Sex Tape Leaks Online - The Daily Beast A freshman Democratic lawmaker said Thursday that her sex tape was stolen and leaked online. Stacey Plaskett, the Virgin Islands' non-voting representative in Congress, blamed the incident on... https://www.politico.com › story › 2016 › 07 › stacey-plaskett-sex-tape-225951 'Private' video of Virgin Islands Democratic delegate posted online A "private" videotape of the Virgin Islands' delegate to Congress, Democratic Rep. Stacey Plaskett, which showed her husband naked and wearing makeup, was posted online Wednesday night but... https://www.nydailynews.com › news › national › sex-tape-virgin-islands-delegate-appears-online-article-1.2720556 Sex tape of Virgin Islands delegate Democratic Rep. Stacey Plaskett ... A sex tape featuring the Virgin Islands' delegate to Congress and her husband was briefly posted online by hackers before being removed, the lawmaker said Thursday. A topless photo of Democratic... https://brobible.com › life › article › congressional-delegate-stacey-plaskett-tape Democratic Congressional Delegate Stacey Plaskett's Sex Tape Leaked ... Stacey Plaskett, a delegate to Congress, had her computer hacked and an apparent sex tape was leaked. Politico reported that a "sex tape " and a "topless selfie" featuring Stacey Plaskett was revealed on a Facebook page and other social media platforms on Wednesday night. Plaskett, 52, is the Virgin Islands' delegate to Congress. https://www.dailymail.co.uk › news › article-3702307 › Hackers-steal-sex-tape-Virgin-Islands-Congressional-delegate-post-online-two-weeks-runs-election.html Hackers steal sex tape from Virgin Islands Congressional delegate and ... Hackers steal sex tape from Virgin Islands Congressional delegate and post it online two weeks before she runs for re-election Democratic Rep. Stacey Plaskett, 52, said it's a 'shockingly... https://viconsortium.com › VIC › ?p=42397 Bizarre Video Of Stacey Plaskett And Naked Husband And Nude Photos ... ST. CROIX — A bizarre video showing the husband of Delegate to Congress Stacey Plaskett, Jonathan Buckney-Small, who was being recorded by the congresswoman, naked, wearing eye shadow and ... https://www.thecut.com › 2016 › 07 › democratic-delegates-sex-tape-posted-online.html Hacker Steals Democratic Delegate's Sex Tape and Personal Photos and ... A sex tape of Stacey Plaskett, the Virgin Islands' congressional representative, was posted online (and later removed) Wednesday night, according to Politico. Photos of Plaskett were also circulated online, as well as a family video that included one of her children. https://thehill.com › blogs › blog-briefing-room › news › 288712-sex-tape-of-democratic-delegate-posted-online-report Sex tape of Virgin Islands Dem delegate posted online | The Hill A sex tape involving the Virgin Islands' Democratic delegate to Congress was posted online Wednesday after her computer was hacked. {mosads} Del. Stacey Plaskett said in a statement Thursday... https://www.dailymail.co.uk › news › article-4695292 › Staffers-indicted-leaking-nude-images-online-delegate.html Staffers indicted for nude images leak of Stacey Plaskett Juan McCullum (pictured) former general counsel for Delegate Stacey Plaskett, was indicted for cyber stalking after stealing personal images of hers and disseminating them online Browne-Louis,... https://www.usnews.com › news › national-news › articles › 2017-07-13 › nude-images-videos-of-congresswoman-and-husband-shared-by-former-staffer-indictment-says Nude Images, Videos of Congresswoman and Husband Shared By Former ... Two former Capitol Hill staffers were indicted this week in connection with the alleged sharing of "private, nude images and videos" swiped from a congresswoman's cellphone. The footage depicts...
They censored Tom too, among millions of other voices censorbanned, downranked, buried, paused, etc... https://twitter.com/IAMTOMMACDONALD/status/1633904995740581889
https://twitter.com/UngaTheGreat/status/1640513388076752898 .@ggreenwald Warns Against US Government’s Efforts to Ban TikTok “The government is now about to embrace powers that the Chinese government itself has long wielded to control the flow of information in their countries… I think we ought to think about why this is happening.”
https://twitter.com/UngaTheGreat/status/1640513388076752898 .@ggreenwald Warns Against US Government’s Efforts to Ban TikTok “The government is now about to embrace powers that the Chinese government itself has long wielded to control the flow of information in their countries… I think we ought to think about why this is happening.”
Greg Price @greg_price11 The bill to ban TikTok is absolutely terrifying. It gives the government the ability to go after anyone they deem as a national security risk at which point they can access everything from their computer to video games to their ring light. This is a Patriot Act for the internet. Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand Under the new Restrict Act ("ban TikTok act") VPN users face 20 years in jail and a $1mio fine if they evade US internet censorship. Compared to this, the great firewall of china looks like a picket fence 😨 E.g. VPN are largely tolerated (used one for 7 years with no issue). Lolo @LolOverruled Senate Bill 686, The Restrict Act, wants to put you in jail for 20 years for using a VPN for using a website or app is operated by a “foreign adversaries.” These are the foreign adversaries btw
Deep State canceling many this week, 1984 shuts down Tucker Carlson and a bunch of others including Andrew Anglin of Daily Stormer... Andrew Anglin April 24, 2023 https://twitter.com/WorldWarWang https://gab.ai/AndrewAnglin https://vk.com/dailystormer14 Wtf is This Shit Tucker Carlson apparently just either got fired or quit Fox News. And my Twitter account, several hours after the 12-hour suspension ended and I was allowed to use the account again, is now showing like it’s totally locked. Also, Twitter seems broken. I don’t have time for this right now. Andrew Anglin April 24, 2023 It’s Just One of Those Days It’s not really one of those days where there’s some kind of problem or whatever. But real life stuff happens, and I can’t write anything good or go through and finish my meme collection. You people know I’ve worked 365 days a year for 10 years straight now, right? And still you get all of your daily news items, of course, which is the only thing anyone was ever promised. I’ll be back tomorrow with the full memes, a very funny article about my recent 12-hour Twitter ban, and many more great things. Until then, enjoy the news. And also send crypto. http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/ Featured Stories World US Society Insight Daily Stormer Featured Stories World US Society Insight Featured Stories Wtf is This Shit Andrew Anglin I don't have time for this right now. It’s Just One of Those Days Andrew Anglin EPA Ignores Court Order Banning Terribly Toxic Herbicides, Lawsuit Claims Elvis Dunderhoff Russian Company Releases GigaChat AI to Rival ChatGPT Elvis Dunderhoff South Koreans Completing Tasks from Cash-Giving Apps for Cents Because of Economic Crisis Elvis Dunderhoff Man in Custody Battle with Ex-Girlfriend to Stop Her from Trannifying His 3-Year-Old Son Snake Baker Chicago: Yoofs Who Stole Car, Caused Crash That Killed 6-Month-Old Get Charged with Misdemeanors Snake Baker US San Francisco Target Locks Down Entire Inventory Because of Shoplifting Crisis Elvis Dunderhoff What a racist thing to do. Pilot Who Offered Affordable Flights to Women Looking for Abortions Gets Fired Elvis Dunderhoff EPA Ignores Court Order Banning Terribly Toxic Herbicides, Lawsuit Claims Elvis Dunderhoff Chicago: Yoofs Who Stole Car, Caused Crash That Killed 6-Month-Old Get Charged with Misdemeanors Snake Baker Faggot “Throuple” Adopt Girl, Plan for More Children Snake Baker World Experts Announce It’s Time to be Afraid Again as New Coronavirus Variant “Arcturus” Spreads Elvis Dunderhoff Your rights are making people sick. Russia to Ban Changing Gender on Passports, Other ID Documents Elvis Dunderhoff Russian Company Releases GigaChat AI to Rival ChatGPT Elvis Dunderhoff South Koreans Completing Tasks from Cash-Giving Apps for Cents Because of Economic Crisis Elvis Dunderhoff New Migrant Caravan Coming to America Elvis Dunderhoff Society Man in Custody Battle with Ex-Girlfriend to Stop Her from Trannifying His 3-Year-Old Son Snake Baker She also wants to get him vaxed against Covid. Red Cross Campaign Urges Gamers to Stop Committing War Crimes, Attacking NPCs Elvis Dunderhoff Boston: Climate Terrorists Deflate Tires on 43 SUVs Elvis Dunderhoff Pope Francis, Bill Gates, And Others Lose Twitter Blue Checkmark Elvis Dunderhoff Florida Restaurant Allegedly Throws Out Faggot Beer Cans, Tells Customers They Don’t Sell Faggot Beer Elvis Dunderhoff The Science Using Gene Therapy to Make Men Infertile Elvis Dunderhoff Chorus of Screeching Fat Sluts Attack Blue Cartoon Dog for “Fat-Shaming” Them Snake Baker Elon Says Larry Page (Google Jew) is Planning to Create AI God Andrew Anglin Insight Saturday Swine Pearls: “Drug Addiction” is a Dumb Hoax Andrew Anglin We're doing quickies now. Breaking the conditioning. German Peasants Protesting the Total Breakdown of National Functionality – No Leader Andrew Anglin Leftists Do Not Understand Rightist Beliefs and Do Not Appear to Even Understand Their Own Beliefs Andrew Anglin Memetic Monday: These Memes Just Keep Getting Better, I’m Telling You What Andrew Anglin Eat, Drink, And be Merry. It’s All You Have. Andrew Anglin How in the Heck was I Not Aware of This 2021 Modest Mouse Album??? Andrew Anglin Memetic Monday: The Best Memes Ever? Andrew Anglin Happy Easter, Everyone. Christ is Risen. Andrew Anglin Recent Posts California: Politician Wants to Make Criticizing Teachers Who Trannify Kids a Crime Snake Baker Up to a year in prison if it passes. Italy: Jews Whine After Minister Says Italians Shouldn’t be Ethnically Replaced Snake Baker Oh noes! Leftists Do Not Understand Rightist Beliefs and Do Not Appear to Even Understand Their Own Beliefs Andrew Anglin I am in touch with humanity. Japan: Court Gives Ugandan Dyke Refugee Status Snake Baker The government tried to deport her. Secret CCP (Communist Regime) Police Station in NYC Busted by Feds was Renewing Drivers’ Licenses of Pure Evil Andrew Anglin If none of this seems to make sense, it's because it does not make sense. El Salvador: Journo Scum Move to Costa Rica to Escape Based Leader Snake Baker Good. 69% of Americans Pessimistic About Economy, 49% Tapping Into Savings to Cover Expenses Elvis Dunderhoff Gay anal is expensive. The Science to Release Genetically Engineered Bacteria to Eat Carbon Dioxide from Air Elvis Dunderhoff It's like the plot of a budget horror movie. Washington: Middle School Staff and Students Participate in Creepy Licking Game Snake Baker Get the Dalai Lama out of our schools! The Science Using Gene Therapy to Make Men Infertile Elvis Dunderhoff Gene editing should be banned. Young Australians Experiencing “High Psychological Distress” Because of Global Warming Hoax Elvis Dunderhoff Climate Change is a PSYOP. Germany: Tiny Village in Saxony Becomes Latest Target for Government-Run Colonization Snake Baker It's not Ukrainians they're getting. Australia: Fascist Basketball Association Bans Tranny from Women’s League Snake Baker Bitches can't handle the competition. Boomer Kills 20-Year-Old Woman After She Pulls Into Wrong Driveway Elvis Dunderhoff This could have been prevented if women were banned from leaving the house. Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Tries to Hide Child Trannification Procedures Snake Baker What a fitting acronym. #FreeRicky Demographic Countdown shekels plz goyim This reader-funded site is the most censored publication in history. Send Monero today! . Disclaimer We here at the Daily Stormer are opposed to violence. We seek revolution through the education of the masses. When the information is available to the people, systemic change will be inevitable and unavoidable. Anyone suggesting or promoting violence in the comments section will be immediately banned, permanently. © Copyright Daily Stormer 2023, All Rights Reserved -- Join the Daily Stormer site chat for future updates in case of further domain seizure.
@ggreenwald: The people who endlessly and shrilly insist they are fighting fascism constantly advocate: * A union of public power (CIA/FBI/DHS) and corporate power (Big Tech) to censor the internet; * The president ignore court orders; * Adversary media be banned. Very odd anti-fascism. End Wokeness @EndWokeness AOC calls on the government to ban Tucker Carlson and other Fox hosts Jen Psaki nods along
Where The Internet Has Been Restricted https://www.statista.com/chart/29962/where-the-internet-has-been-restricted-... https://surfshark.com/research/internet-censorship The arrest of former prime minister Imran Khan in Pakistan yesterday has led to nationwide uproar and protests. In the city of Peshawar, a local hospital has reported three people being shot dead and a further 27 suffering injuries. In the state of Punjab, where the army was deployed, officials said that 945 arrests had been made and 130 police officers injured. In addition to the government's response on the ground, there have also been restrictions put in place on access to internet services such as mobile connections and social media sites. As Statista's Martin Armstrong shows in the infographic below, Pakistan is one of many countries around the world whose government has taken the step to disrupt internet services in response to some kind of civil unrest or political event. Infographic: Where the Internet Has Been Restricted | Statista You will find more infographics at Statista Before the latest disruption, a database by Surfshark had recorded 12 cases in Pakistan - five due to protests, one an election and 6 connected to general political turmoil. India has the highest number of internet restrictions, with 108, the majority of which (83) were connected to protests. Interestingly, USA did not make the list - but we assume that 'restricting' the 'wrong' websites is the 'right' thing to do for 'democracy'.
The Extinction Event Hitting Corporate Media... Authored by Mark Jeftovic via BombThrower.com, MSM went “all-in” on a discredited COVID narrative. Since the pandemic I’ve been saying that confidence in the mainstream, corporate press has been irreparably damaged. After four years of non-stop Trump Derangement Syndrome so intense that even some liberals were wondering if the press had gone overboard on editorializing – Covid hit, and a lot of normies now see the MSM for what it really is: agitprop and brainwashing. Cancel culture and censorship reached such absurd levels that we started to see an exodus of high profile reporters (Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, et al) exiting corporate news outlets and setting up on their own, after they committed the sin of colouring outside the lines of establishment precepts. The MSM went all-in in Covid, but every core tenet of the Covid narrative has since fallen apart: This thing came out of a lab Ecohealth and Fauci are up to their asses in it The lockdowns did more damage than anything else, and Everybody was forced to take a vaccine that not only doesn’t work but also seems to be the common denominator in an excess fatality rate that exceeds the pandemic itself. Not good. With the tempo being set by numerous media collapses, especially by overtly “woke” ones: Buzzfeed’s bankruptcy, Vice circling the drain – and television viewership plummeting, the stage was set for a few key moments that will be remembered as defining the extinction level event rolling through corporate media: #1) The Rise of Dark Carlson After Fox News fired Tucker Carlson, the number 1 pundit on television with the highest viewership today, he didn’t go to a rival network (Newsmax offered him $25 million), he decided to take his own show out on Twitter. This is a defining moment in the extinction event hitting the corporate media these days. https://t.co/jyly9WROKp — Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) May 9, 2023 Apparently, on his own, not part of any deal with Elon Musk, Carlson is just letting it all hang out. In one of his first installments, he called into question the 9/11 narrative (Why did Building 7 just fall into its own footprint for no reason?). It prompted one observer to coin the term “Dark Carlson” for what is transpiring via this channel. #2) The Schism of RFK Jr. coverage RFK Jr, having thrown his hat into the ring to challenge Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination, immediately drew fire from the MSM, having unilaterally decided that anything RFK says is automatically “misinformation” (see the closing remarks on “rhetorical circularity”, below). RFK Jr, for his part, created an account on Nostr. Nothing epitomizes the Industrial Age vs Network Era like these two images - screen capped back to back… pic.twitter.com/7q10zEST7z — Mark Jeftovic, The ₿itcoin Capitalist (@StuntPope) May 11, 2023 Nostr is a fast growing decentralized social media network, contrast with Twitter – which is governed by the vagaries and whims of whomever owns it – Nostr is decentralized at the server level to relays (which anybody can run) at the the account level to individual users. This protocol is spreading like wildfire and it’s beyond censorship. The juxtoposition between a sclerotic, industrial era, mediocre network clutching their pearls over RFK’s “misinformation” and RFK showing up on Nostr tells us a lot. While this is not seen as much of a big deal yet, this is a signal worth paying attention to. #3) CNN’s disastrous town-hall with Trump I didn’t watch it, and when you look at the reporting on it, both left and right traditional outlets are declaring victory – but the reality is that CNN pulled the plug on it 20 minutes earlier than scheduled (ten key moments here). Love him or hate him, Trump draws attention and viewers unlike any other personality – and the fact that CNN drew the curtain early signals one thing: it was a disaster for the network and probably didn’t hurt Trump. After deftly manipulating a hostile media and leveraging social media cunning to win the presidency in 2016, it doesn’t look like the MSM has learned much. When the media falls, so does the system it supports When the Soviet Empire fell in 1989 – 1990, anybody predicting it even months earlier would have been ridiculed. When it happened it took everybody by surprise (even the CIA) and unfolded at astonishing speed (Victor Sebestyen’s Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire covers it brilliantly). Things move even quicker today – where we are in the early innings of what will possibly be the final financial crisis of the fiat money system. In another great book about Late Stage Communism, “Everything Was Forever, Until It Was No More“, Alexey Yurchak chronicles the hyper-normality that saturated the zeitgeist during “the last Soviet Generation”. The “Dead Irony” chapter outlines the ingenious forms of unauthorized humour. A contemporary parallel is when you come across a Twitter account that exhibits such over-the-top support for All The Latest Things™ that you can’t tell if its satire or not. That is a type of performative dissidence called “Stiob” (unless it’s real). (It’s parody) Yurchak’s examination of “the hegemony over meta-discourse” and it’s disintegration ring eerily familiar to those keeping score today. One example is what he called “rhetorical circularity”: in our case it means that anything the MSM refuses to cover is “misinformation”, because there are no MSM citations to support it. As I frequently comment, we’re in Late Stage Globalism. While many view Covid as the gateway to a “Great Reset” technocracy – it looks to me like it was instead, the a-c-c-e-l-e-r-a-t-i-o-n event of the millennia. I’m not an accelerationist and the elites are certainly still pushing hard for that WEF-style authoritarianism. But I’m just an observer and I’m here to tell you, that is what’s happening. Given the nature of technological compounding (“Future Shock”, as Alvin Toffler called way back in 1970), accelerationism is somewhat baked in and we just have to watch the implosion of corporate media (not to mention the self-destruction of Woke capitalism) to know it is happening. * * * My next ebook is The CBDC Survival Guide and I’m sending it free to Bombthrower subscribers when it’s done (early June). In the meantime, subscribe now and get The Crypto Capitalist Manifesto while you wait. Follow me on Nostr, or Twitter.
Vivek Ramaswamy @VivekGRamaswamy https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1661694592029274115 https://www.thefp.com/p/judges-ruin-high-school-debate-tournaments High school debates are now adopting the same rules as left-wing media: if you say “capitalism can reduce poverty,” “Israel has a right to defend itself,” or “illegal immigrants,” you will lose. No questions asked. This is why young Americans are so lost. At High School Debates, Debate Is No Longer Allowed At national tournaments, judges are making their stances clear: students who argue ‘capitalism can reduce poverty’ or ‘Israel has a right to defend itself’ will lose—no questions asked. New York Post @nypost NYC ProgDemSoc professor Shellyne Rodriguez turns herself in to cops after threatening Post reporter with machete trib.al/a2AUifj
https://rumble.com/v2pkmdi-post-truth-world.html John Campbell @Johnincarlisle Post truth world rumble.com/v2pkmdi-post-trut… When serious, well published academics can no longer get published I get concerned.
Democrats are violent, and gay... University Of Colorado Declares Misgendering An "Act Of Violence" Authored by Jonathan Turley, The University of Colorado Boulder (Boulder) is under fire this week for a statement on the “Pride Office” website stating that misgendering people can be considered an “act of violence.” The guide on pronouns is reportedly the work of students associated with the office and states that “choosing to ignore or disrespect someone’s pronouns is not only an act of oppression but can also be considered an act of violence.” It is a familiar position for many in higher education. Opposing viewpoints are now routinely declared to be violence. That allows professors and students to rationalize their own act of violence or censorship. The most vivid example was recently seen at Hunter College, which is part of the CUNY system. Professor Shellyne Rodríguez recently was fired after holding a machete to the neck of a New York Post reporter and threatened to “chop you up.” However, Hunter College decided not to fire her over a prior incident in which she trashed a pro-life table run by students. Rodríguez spotted students with pro-life material at the college. She was captured on a videotape telling the students that “you’re not educating s–t […] This is f–king propaganda. What are you going to do, like, anti-trans next? This is bulls–t. This is violent. You’re triggering my students.” Even after a remarkably polite student said that he was “sorry,” Rodríguez would have nothing of it. After all, espousing pro-life views is now “violence.” Rodríguez rejected the apology and declared “No you’re not — because you can’t even have a f–king baby. So you don’t even know what that is. Get this s–t the f–k out of here.” Just a week earlier, a professor stopped another “violent” display of pro-life views in New York. Professor Renee Overdyke of the State University of New York at Albany shut down a pro-life display and then resisted arrest. At the University of California at Santa Barbara, feminist studies associate professor Mireille Miller Young criminally assaulted pro-life advocates on campus, and later pleaded guilty to the crime. She was defended by faculty and students, including many who said she was “triggered” by a pro-life display and that pro-life advocates were “terrorists” who did not deserve free speech. It is that easy. You simply declare opposing views “violent” and then you can justify your own violence as a matter of self-defense. The Colorado controversy does not involve acts of violence over misgendering. Moreover, the guide reflects a deep-felt concern that using someone’s pronouns incorrectly, even unintentionally, leads to “dysphoria, exclusion and alienation.” There are also some positive recommendations in dealing with these difficult situations. However, this is a university site and there are countervailing free speech costs to characterizing of opposing views on pronouns as violence. As have previously discussed how other countries are prosecuting those who “misgender.” Schools in the United States have promised disciplinary action against any misgendering despite some court cases ruling for faculty with opposing views on pronouns. Even passing out “he/his” candies can result in a university investigation. Conservative sites like Campus Reform have reported on the Colorado controversy and sought clarification. Universities are often presented with difficult countervailing interests. On one hand, it must maintain a welcoming and tolerant environment. On the other hand, it must protect free speech values, including the right to express unpopular views or values. Colorado students have every right to declare misgendering as violence in their eyes, even if many of us disagree. However, the university has an obligation to clearly establish that such views are not the policy or approach of the university itself. The site states “This information was created by students, for students. The university supports an inclusive environment.” It should state that “while the university supports an inclusive environment, the statements on this site are not official statements or policies of the university.” Otherwise, the university should address the free speech implications of declaring misgendering as a violent act.
Deep State Pharma Etc are CensorBanning and LawFare SueBanning O'Keefe again for documenting the reality of your 1984... James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII Guerrilla Journalist. CEO of @okeefemedia On the Inside? OKeefeTips@protonmail.com or send an encrypted Signal message at 914-315-9415 New York okeefemediagroup.com Joined October 2008 Tweets 19,147 Following 1,560 Followers 1,670,618 Likes 2,848 4,908 Photos and videos Tweets Tweets & Replies Media Search Pinned Tweet James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII May 23 ANOTHER ONE: Special Assistant to @JohnFetterman says his boss is “okay with overturning the Second Amendment” and handpicked journalists like @karaswisher “will say exactly what you f***ing want them to. #RealJohnFetterman O’Keefe Media Group 679 9,139 499 20,881 983,000 James O'Keefe retweeted O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia 1h Defend James from attacks designed to silence him. Support the effort here👇 okeefemediagroup.com/help-ja… Help James O'Keefe Defend Against Attacks designed to silence him! The O'Keefe Legal Defense Fund within Liberty Guard, will be used to help James defend himself and the important constitutional public services in which he has so long engaged. okeefemediagroup.com 24 402 6 1,236 James O'Keefe retweeted O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia 3h Now on @Timcast, @JamesOKeefeIII! timcast.com TIMCAST | TIMCAST Timcast IRL is producing podcasts on cultural and political issues as well as interviews with prominent figures on topical issues. timcast.com 25 214 7 807 James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII 3h LIVE w/ @Timcast piped.kavin.rocks/timcastirl/live Timcast IRL News, Politics, Culture Podcast Follow us on: MINDS - https://www.minds.com/timcastirl youtube.com 33 176 5 716 James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII 4h Live now, join us! This tweet is unavailable 8 25 116 James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII 5h Join me for some real talk at 7:00pm EST nitter.pw/i/spaces/1ynJOaw… This card type is not supported. 45 185 7 687 James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII 6h I can see that I’m trending Will be doing a Twitter Spaces for my *Twitter Subscribers only* at 7PM EST, would love to call on you and hear your feedback on the news today. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.. James O'Keefe 127 646 21 3,438 329,902 James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII 5h It costs so much to do the investigative reporting and deal with all the accompanying lawsuits. We’ll offer the newsworthy parts of our reporting for free. Subscriptions are so I can raise money to defend my right to free speech - which is your voice, in uncovering the truth,… nitter.pw/i/web/status/166… 34 125 1 814 James O'Keefe retweeted O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia 7h OMG CEO @JamesOKeefeIII will be on @Timcast tonight at 8:00pm with BIG news Join us LIVE! 77 612 12 2,787 Show this thread James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII 8h Please tune into @Timcast show tonight. I’ll be making some major announcements. #OMG 158 1,103 30 4,844 James O'Keefe retweeted SPIRIT @spiritraps May 30 James O’keefe has an amazing production team. Very quality trailer right here. I’ll subscribe to see this! James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII May 30 OMG Podcast Episode #1 - My sit down with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Full length episode drops TOMORROW for subscribers ONLY —> okeefemediagroup.com/omg-pod… 28 327 3 1,514 James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII May 30 OMG Podcast Episode #1 - My sit down with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Full length episode drops TOMORROW for subscribers ONLY —> okeefemediagroup.com/omg-pod… 142 1,613 33 5,818 123,921 James O'Keefe retweeted O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia May 30 OMG Podcast Episode #1 - James O’Keefe and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Full length Episode drops TOMORROW for subscribers ONLY. Subscribe TODAY okeefemediagroup.com/omg-pod… nitter.pw/i/web/status/166… 27 437 10 1,716 36,824 James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII May 30 Finally got a chance to sit down with Jimmy Dore 60 627 8 2,538 53,774 James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII May 26 CJ ANNOUNCEMENT: Any citizen journalists in/around Miami, FL? We have an opportunity for you to expose corruption, wrong-doing, and abuse to the public! Fill out our jotform here and we’ll contact you today. form.jotform.com/23074486687… 86 941 16 2,790 James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII May 25 One of our OMG rockstars describes her recent get. Follow her lead. Become a citizen journalist today. Bring us a story and get paid for it! form.jotform.com/23074486687… 111 1,570 27 5,756 106,341 Load more nitter Logo O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia Empowering citizens through journalism. Want to be a journalist? Sign up here! form.jotform.com/23074486687… www.okeefemediagroup.com okeefemediagroup.com Joined March 2023 Tweets 165 Following 7 Followers 513,882 Likes 82 59 Photos and videos Tweets Tweets & Replies Media Search Pinned Tweet O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia May 16 Fox News Producer Talks Tucker Carlson, Dominion, and Pfizer in Explosive New Footage: James O'Keefe 733 14,804 728 32,036 1,810,322 O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia 5h We have MORE @JohnFetterman footage - dropping tomorrow for subscribers ONLY. Start your subscribption today. Visit okeefemediagroup.com 53 488 9 1,697 25,384 O’Keefe Media Group retweeted James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII 7h Had anybody used these and had success? Duxa @theduxashop May 27 Own one of the smallest cameras ever made. Stream live video from your phone. Shop now 👉 duxa.io/mini-camera 📸📸Mini WIFI Camera 1080P HD - Night Vision Included ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️(4.98/5) - Rated by Customers 227 292 11 2,115 O’Keefe Media Group retweeted esala @esala12 8h This resident in Biloxi, MS, told me that he just paid off his car and DID NOT contribute to @WINRED in the amount of $30,174.52 between the years 2019-2022. 2022: 92 counts = $2,419.22 2021: 35 counts = $868.00 2020: 753 counts = $26,010.30 2019: 29 counts =… nitter.pw/i/web/status/166… 37 201 10 573 18,880 O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia 23h Elon Musk reveals former Twitter employee who colluded with DHS to censor James O'Keefe now works for Google thepostmillennial.com/elon-m… Elon Musk reveals former Twitter employee who colluded with DHS to censor James O’Keefe now works... Department of Homeland Security official Brian Scully admitted to working alongside Twitter to censor the journalist during a deposition. thepostmillennial.com 155 4,339 69 10,241 O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia Jun 2 Persistent citizen journalist uncovers more instances in New Jersey of @actblue linked campaign finance fraud targeting seniors #FollowTheMoney 118 1,510 75 3,291 46,853 O’Keefe Media Group retweeted James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII Jun 2 A DHS task force has “debunking” teams to try to stop the spread of O’Keefe journalism. CISA, (counter FOREIGN interference task force) was attempting to “debunk” videos featuring postal workers in Michigan and Nevada. “Doesn’t look like a debunk exists yet” is said to acting… nitter.pw/i/web/status/166… 151 2,554 64 6,891 Show this thread O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia Jun 1 NRA: "It seems as though Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) may like to overturn more than just the U.S. Senate’s standards of professional attire." nraila.org/articles/20230530… NRA-ILA | Undercover Video: Sen. Fetterman (D-Pa.) staffer claims boss would be “okay with like... It seems as though Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) may like to overturn more than just the U.S. Senate’s standards of professional attire. According to an undercover video of Fetterman senate staffer... nraila.org 22 168 1 628 O’Keefe Media Group retweeted James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII Jun 1 My first video podcast, a full hour long sit down with @RobertKennedyJr This will be a bi-weekly or tri-weekly series, asking questions others won’t ask, and telling stories others won’t tell. okeefemediagroup.com/omg-pod… OMG Podcast Episode #1 - O'Keefe Media Group James O’Keefe and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Full length Episode drops TOMORROW (05/31/23) for subscribers ONLY! Subscribe TODAY! okeefemediagroup.com 157 1,678 27 6,926 O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia Jun 1 Defend James from attacks designed to silence him. Support the effort here👇 okeefemediagroup.com/help-ja… Help James O'Keefe Defend Against Attacks designed to silence him! The O'Keefe Legal Defense Fund within Liberty Guard, will be used to help James defend himself and the important constitutional public services in which he has so long engaged. okeefemediagroup.com 54 781 16 2,517 O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia Jun 1 Now on @Timcast, @JamesOKeefeIII! timcast.com TIMCAST | TIMCAST Timcast IRL is producing podcasts on cultural and political issues as well as interviews with prominent figures on topical issues. timcast.com 37 286 9 1,232 O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia May 31 Join us! nitter.pw/i/spaces/1ynJOaw… This card type is not supported. 13 52 1 246 O’Keefe Media Group retweeted James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII May 31 Join me for some real talk at 7:00pm EST nitter.pw/i/spaces/1ynJOaw… This card type is not supported. 50 219 8 878 O’Keefe Media Group retweeted James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII May 31 I can see that I’m trending Will be doing a Twitter Spaces for my *Twitter Subscribers only* at 7PM EST, would love to call on you and hear your feedback on the news today. We few, we happy few, we band of brothers.. James O'Keefe 150 800 24 4,476 360,424 Show this thread O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia May 31 OMG CEO @JamesOKeefeIII will be on @Timcast tonight at 8:00pm with BIG news Join us LIVE! 79 635 11 3,048 O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia May 31 Link to watch at 8:00 PM: timcast.com TIMCAST | TIMCAST Timcast IRL is producing podcasts on cultural and political issues as well as interviews with prominent figures on topical issues. timcast.com 7 93 5 404 O’Keefe Media Group retweeted SPIRIT @spiritraps May 30 James O’keefe has an amazing production team. Very quality trailer right here. I’ll subscribe to see this! James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII May 30 OMG Podcast Episode #1 - My sit down with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Full length episode drops TOMORROW for subscribers ONLY —> okeefemediagroup.com/omg-pod… 30 350 3 1,662 O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia May 30 OMG Podcast Episode #1 - James O’Keefe and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Full length Episode drops TOMORROW for subscribers ONLY. Subscribe TODAY okeefemediagroup.com/omg-pod… nitter.pw/i/web/status/166… 26 447 9 1,787 38,156 O’Keefe Media Group retweeted James O'Keefe @JamesOKeefeIII May 30 Finally got a chance to sit down with Jimmy Dore 64 653 8 2,691 56,244 O’Keefe Media Group @OKeefeMedia May 30 We are now 500K strong on Twitter in less than 3 months! Thank you for supporting the mission! Visit OKeefeMediaGroup.com to find other ways to get in the game. #ExposeThem #OMG 73 1,567 15 9,118 244,671 Load more
Re: Assange, Trump, Free Speech https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1667047048443580416 [pictured] Excerpts from a 2016 amicus brief by the ACLU arguing the unconstitutionality of the Espionage Act. Get ready for lots of people to conveniently forget about all this. Some examples of previous Espionage Act prosecutions Two years in prison for saying: “This is a war fostered by Morgan and the rich" Five years in prison for saying: "America was buncoed into the war by munition makers" The National Civil Liberties Bureau, which would later be reconstituted as the ACLU, was formed in direct response to the 1917 passage of the Espionage Act, and would go on to have its offices raided under the claimed auspices of the Espionage Act May 4, 1918 — Sioux Falls, S. D. — Conrad Kornmann receives 10 years and $1,000 fine for opposing the Liberty Loan in a letter to a friend May 28, 1918 — New Britain, Conn — John Kunz convicted for remarking, "Young men are fools to enlist and go across to be blown up" March 6, 1918 — Fargo, N.D. — Henry von Bank convicted for alleged statement, "I would rather see a pair of old trousers flying from the school house flag pole than an American flag.” Conviction reversed on appeal. 2. In 1918 the founder of the Democrat "Sewer Socialist Movement", Congressman Victor Berger, and three others were charged under the Espionage (spying) Act (enacted in 1917), convicted in 1919 or 1920. Double Down News @DoubleDownNews Our interview video with Roger Waters, which reached over 1.5 million people has been deleted. This is extremely disturbing @Twitter. @ElonMusk can you please help, explain and reinstate the video with @RogerWaters
Creator Of Conservative Chatbot Powered By ChatGPT Says OpenAI Tried To Censor Content https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/openai-forces-shutdown-conservative-c... Authored by Bryan Jung via The Epoch Times, The creators of a conservative chatbot powered by OpenAI’s ChatGPT announced that they shut down the chatbot because of pressure from OpenAI to censor the bot’s responses. The conservative chatbot, named GIPPR in honor of the late President Ronald Reagan, debuted in May and is part of TUSK, a pro-free speech and anti-censorship web browser. GIPPR is a modified version of OpenAI’s ChatGPT and provides users with answers from a conservative perspective. The creators of GIPPR said they were forced to sever ties with OpenAI, after they were told that their chatbot failed to “conform to their requirements for what can or cannot be said.” TUSK founder and CEO Jeff Bermant said in a statement to Fox Business that OpenAI told him that GIPPR was not in compliance with its policies, which were “specifically related to deceptive activity and coordinated inauthentic behavior” and that they needed to “keep users and third parties safe.” The actions of OpenAI appear to many conservatives as another example of attempted censorship from the left. “The GIPPR bot had been modified to not be highly biased in favor of a leftist agenda, something which seems to be of critical importance to the original creators of ChatGPT,” Bermant said in the statement. “Tusk had produced the only AI bot in operation which actually was fair and balanced and did not promote a radical leftist agenda.” TUSK said it is currently exploring how to make GIPPR operational again and urged users to help them to support defending free speech on the internet. “Until they find a solution to get it back online, the world of AI will remain highly unbalanced,” Bermant added. GIPPR Creator Wants to Oppose Left-Wing Bias Bermant said he got the inspiration for GIPPR after his first interaction with ChatGPT following its launch in November. He said he was shocked after he asked the chatbot questions about cultural issues and politics and received left-wing answers in response. The TUSK CEO told Fox Business in May that he then realized that the ChatGPT was likely programmed with a “very progressive” bias, which led him to create his own version using the same OpenAI software. “We believe that Conservatives are subject to oppressive cancel culture that now includes AI and are expected to exist in a society that tells them what to think and how to act by the progressive left,” Bermant announced after releasing GIPPR. “It’s time for a TRUTHFUL AI chatbot to take the market by storm and remove the barriers the Radical Left and Big Tech have put in place to allow all Conservatives to enjoy the benefits of AI, without fear of being canceled or shamed for your beliefs,” he said. OpenAI did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment before press time.
Luke gets censorbanned for the millionth time... KanekoaTheGreat @KanekoaTheGreat The Ministry of Truth is working diligently to suppress @RobertKennedyJr's presidential campaign. Why is Google allowed to blatantly interfere in American elections? Luke Rudkowski @Lukewearechange Played a small clip of @RobertKennedyJr to comment on for my YouTube video today, and now MY ENTIRE CHANNEL HAS BEEN DEMONETIZED!!! But...... maybe I should now go to @rumblevideo and/or Twitter and do a full interview with RFK now?
Congress shall make no law respecting... Freedom of Speech. Mitt Romney is a piece of shit that needs sent to a horribly Unconstitutional Prison along with Joe Biden.
Elon Musk Says "Strange Almost No Legacy Media Coverage" On Worsening Southern Border Crisis https://twitter.com/BillMelugin_/status/1704535232970457439 https://twitter.com/CollinRugg/status/1704578724195352835 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1704547438780936304 https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/video-shows-freight-train-migrants-he... https://twitter.com/GriffJenkins/status/1703529736985542989 https://www.zerohedge.com/political/close-freaking-border-angry-new-yorkers-... Fox News reporter Bill Melugin posted on X, "It's a total free for all in Eagle Pass right now." Thousands of illegal immigrants continue flooding the southern US border while the Biden administration pretends everything is fine. Melugin and his team are at Eagle Pass, Texas, where they have captured alarming footage that shows a massive flow of illegals crossing into the US. Melugin said, "Mass illegal crossing taking place for over an hour and a half. Almost 2 years to the day we saw 15,000+ Haitians under the bridge in Del Rio, we now have thousands of predominantly Venezuelans gathering under Eagle Pass bridge." It’s a total free for all in Eagle Pass right now. Mass illegal crossing taking place for over an hour and a half. Almost 2 years to the day we saw 15,000+ Haitians under the bridge in Del Rio, we now have thousands of predominantly Venezuelans gathering under Eagle Pass bridge. pic.twitter.com/VkfUQnexGZ — Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) September 20, 2023 Melugin said Texas has declared an emergency in Eagle Pass. BREAKING: An emergency declaration has been issued in Eagle Pass, Texas after a surge of migrants invaded the southern border. The declaration was made by Eagle Pass mayor Rolando Salinas after over a thousand migrants crossed the border. Most of the migrants are coming from… pic.twitter.com/txkpmzl2FI — Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 20, 2023 Elon Musk commented on Melugin's X post: "Strange that there is almost no legacy media coverage of this." Musk continued, "About 2 million people – from every country on Earth – are entering through the US southern border every year. The number is rising rapidly, yet no preventive action is taken by the current administration." Musk is correct that corporate media aligned with the Democrats are not covering the continuing border crisis. And why would they? It's another failure of this administration, even after they put forth supposedly new 'border enforcement actions' earlier this year. Earlier this week, Fox News journalist Griff Jenkins shared another shocking video of a train of illegals heading north in Mexico to the US border. **NEW VIDEO** FOX News sources capture a FerroMex train bursting with migrants out of Zacatecas heading to our southern border right now… cheering and clearly not heeding the message: “do not come”@FoxNews pic.twitter.com/YflMwXrWqu — Griff Jenkins (@GriffJenkins) September 17, 2023 Under the Biden administration, disastrous open border policies have led to nearly 6 million illegal crossings. The influx of migrants has also supercharged the drug crisis nationwide, as fentanyl is now on every street corner. And things are quickly deteriorating in major metro areas, such as New York City, which have been swamped with migrants that risk sparking a financial crisis. Radicals in the White House are going against the will of the people with open border policies. Why is that?
Fucking censorship regime getting caught on camera every week now... https://twitter.com/iluminatibot/status/1704150599632314711 Jacinda Ardern is a Lockdown cunt queen against Freedom that desperately needs to suicide herself in shame. Former NZ PM Ardern Urges United Nations To 'Crack Down On Free Speech As A Weapon Of War' https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/20/harvards-jacinda-ardean-calls-on-the-u... https://jonathanturley.org/2022/09/25/new-zealand-prime-minister-calls-for-g... https://www.hks.harvard.edu/announcements/jacinda-ardern-appointed-hks-fello... https://jonathanturley.org/2023/09/08/crimson-tide-a-new-study-shows-the-con... https://jonathanturley.org/2023/03/16/americas-rising-generation-of-censors-... https://jonathanturley.org/2023/06/05/your-speech-is-violence-how-the-mob-is... Jacinda Ardern may no longer be Prime Minister of New Zealand, but she was back at the United Nations continuing her call for international censorship. Ardern is now one of the leading anti-free speech figures in the world and continues to draw support from political and academic establishments. In her latest attack on free speech, Ardern declared free speech as a virtual weapon of war. She is demanding that the world join her in battling free speech as part of its own war against “misinformation” and “disinformation.” Her views, of course, were not only enthusiastically embraced by authoritarian countries, but the government and academic elite. Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says free speech is a weapon of war, and censorship is necessary to protect free speech. pic.twitter.com/O8jQMtNs55 — illuminatibot (@iluminatibot) September 19, 2023 In her speech, she notes that we cannot allow free speech to get into the way of fighting things like climate change. She notes that they cannot win the war on climate change if people do not believe them about the underlying problem. The solution is to silence those with opposing views. It is that simple. While some of us have denounced her views as an attack on free expression, Harvard rushed to give her not one but two fellowships. While the free speech community denounced her for unrelenting attacks on this human right, Harvard praised her for “strong and empathetic political leadership” and specifically enlisted her to help “improve content standards and platform accountability for extremist content online.” I actually have no objection to the inclusion of Ardern as a Harvard fellow. She is a former world leader who is leading the movement against free speech. It is a view that students should consider in looking at these controversies. However, Harvard has heralded her views with no acknowledgment of her extreme antagonism toward free speech principles. There is also little countervailing balance at the school with fellows supporting free speech as a human right. Rather, Harvard (which ranks dead last on the recent free speech survey) has become a virtual clearinghouse for anti-free speech academics and advocates. Free speech is now commonly treated on campuses as harmful. Rather than the right that defines us, it is treated as an existential threat. What is so chilling is to hear Ardern express her fealty to free speech as she calls on the nations of the world to severely curtail it to prevent people from undermining their policies and priorities. She remains the “empathetic” face of raw censorship and intolerance. She is now the virtual ambassador-at-large for global speech criminalization.
1984 and Internet... never short of twisted things... Ever notice how whenever anyone popular with the people speaks out against the corruption, nonsense, hypocrisy, and evil operations of the Deep State and Globalist powers... Rumble is still standing for now, most other big commercial platforms have caved to demonetization, downranking, censorship, and outright deletion and permabans. Twitter X Tesla and Elon are under massive assult, SpaceX only survives because Govts depend on it to fuck each other and you over, but they're all being commanded now to perform illegal racist "migrant" hiring practices, prosecuted [forced] by US Democrats. Rumble, Bitchute, Odyssey, and a few other distributed and alt-platforms, those are the only survivors, for now. " What about Tara Reade whose alleged rape by Joe Biden was apparently not a rape because she'd once expressed some positive views about Putin? " " Funny how Russel has been in the spotlight his entire career, and only now gets allegations against him after he rants about political corruption and endless wars. Exposing the real enemy will result in demonizing. It's obvious. " " It seems to me the people are already doing something about it seeing as though the legacy media is dying off before our very eyes. The news was the establishment’s most powerful tool to program the masses and they are now rapidly losing that ability thanks to the internet. This is why wannabe fascists are so desperate to censor their political opponents’ online accounts no matter how shameless it makes them look. " " Op illustrates a good point. The gross inbalance in what is deemed a criminal act and what is not. Its the usual story of slight-of-hand and focusing on anything other than actually what is important. Yes, rape is important but I rather see an in depth breakdown of the events leading up to the invasion of Ukraine. I want to see the backhand business deals going on with Biden there in Ukraine, I want NATO to be held accountable for inciting Russia by fucking around on the expansion treaty. And I want all that on the news until we get to the truth. But that can all be fucked off with because the powers don't want us to know. Instead, we get fed dog shit and were meant to feel full. " " His ratio of volume vs quality of information is different than Assange, but it's just as harmful to the narrative. The average suburban housewife doesn't know wikileaks, but they're aware of Brand. The point of this post is what's not being covered. We've got the names of Brand's accusers; let's see the names in Maxwell's book. " " Hollywood and mainstream media loves you with you are a degenerate drug and sex addict. As soon as you get married, have children, get sober, find God, and start speaking truth, then they want to destroy you for having lived their value system and left it. " " This bullshit with Brand is such a clear smear campaign it makes me what to puke. I myself being a victime of unsolicitated sexual acts, i DID NOT wait fucking 20 years and oh, stay annonymous by that, to file a complaint.. i can understand fear and shit but Naw man.. this makes it even harder for people, Men and women, who have been SA victims to be taken seriously.. and what about INNOCENT TILL PROVEN GUILTY?!?!?! Youtube has put a demonitization on everything Russell will post now its clear they want him quiet and subdued because he speaks up against all their bullshit and now people are looking towards them. They dont like that! So they are doing everything to shut him up and shoot him down. I will keep supporting him and this will not stop their little disgusting actions to see the day, sooner rather then later. " " I'll start caring whether or not Russell Brand had some questionable sex a decade or 2 ago when the media starts caring what Bill Gates or Prince Andrew was doing on Epstein's island, or when it starts naming the customers Ghislaine Maxwell was convicted of supplying trafficked minors to. And I'll care about what one former US president is or isn't guilty of when the media starts caring what other former US presidents are or are not guilty of (or even what the current one's been up to lately). And I'll care about a more powerful country invading a less powerful country when the media reports the conflict and its context in exactly the same tone and with the same degree of neutrality versus moral outrage as it uses when the more powerful country in question is the USA (or any other NATO member). Until that day, the mainstream media and everyone who repeats its talking points on social media is nought but idle gossip and the sound of one hand clapping. Until that day I could not give less fucks about who the msm says any fucker fucked or didn't fuck, so fuck the msm. Let anyone it fucks with tell it to fuck the fuck off with its farcical fuckery. This is primarily, but not only, a British thing. It's British television and British media that are doing most of the smearing. Brand is British. He was employed at Channel 4 at the time Channel 4 now alleges he was committing the alleged sex offences. Channel 4 made accusations and insinuations in their program that are contradicted by their own more defensive statements when responding to enquiries by another British media outlet, - statements which claim that they, Channel 4, are not aware of any allegations or complaints having been made to them against Brand at the time in question. Brand also worked for the BBC at the time the alleged events took place. So neither organisation reported on Brand when he was working for them - even though that was when the alleged events took place - but now that he has a market share of audience for contemporary events and discussion which works against them - in the sense that they think by rights that should be their audience, tuning in to the messages that they choose to put out - now, they have something to report. I dare say if you're not from the UK, you don't have the full background of how all this has played out. Brand was a household name in the UK long before his streaming content regularly attracted audiences of several millions. The UK media establishments of which he was once a part are not taking kindly to their former employee striking out on his own and contradicting their oligarch-sponsored messaging, especially as his shows are popular with members of the British public who no longer trust the established UK media brands. In some ways the problem for those players is that Brand is now a rival brand. " " Maybe you are autistic or something but clearly his point is this media frenzy surrounding Russel Brand did not show the same moral outrage and narcissistic grandstanding when these things were coming out about Epstein island and Ghislaine Maxwell. Where the fuck are the two year media investigations into THESE FAR MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES? Instead people would rather gossip like pathetic worms about some celebrity former drug addict who is far less influential THAN BILLIONAIRE ELITES involved in blackmail intelligence operations to control politics. Imagine if these "journalists" spent the time pulling those threads instead of playing defense for the REAL ELITE BILLIONAIRES who pay their salaries. Pathetic that your average American is so dumbed down they cannot see the creeping fascism staring them in the face. Snitch culture is a product of Nazi Germany where they would find dirt on anyone criticizing their regime and then use the media which they owned to destroy that person. Do you not find it the least bit curious that these accusations are coming out now when this man has been the most vocal in his opposition to the current establishment? Do you not think intelligence agencies like the CIA keep a close watchful eye on influential people with large audiences and then undermine or sabotage people opposing their own attempts to socially engineer culture? Use your head. If this was anything but a coordinated attack, this would have all come out years ago WHEN HE WAS WORKING AT THOSE COMPANIES and WHEN HE WAS A BIGGER CELEBRITY THAN HE IS NOW. The only reason it is coming out now is because he ruffled some powerful feathers and they needed to destroy him because they are more afraid of people actually listening to what he is saying and awakening to the reality of what these elites are doing and have planned. " " They’re only going after Brand because he speaks the truth and it’s not in their favor. His following had gotten too big and he is against big Pharma (the vaccine). They have to shut him up. Danny Masters got railroaded on a 22 yr old accusation of nothing more than he said/she said. ZERO evidence whatsoever. If you haven’t learned by now that the left and the elite in power will destroy any obstacle in their way, by whatever means necessary. Create a virus and a pandemic, create a deadly vaccine, Epstein your ass, car accident, shot in the back, execute you in your home, accused rapist, and so on. Brand is their newest threat. " " So, Huw Edwards, famous BBC anchor, was outed less than three months ago for soliciting naked pictures from a 17 year old boy. And sending naked pictures to him. He's a married man with several kids. The media circled the wagons for him, didn't report it, and let him use "mental health" as an excuse when he freaked out after it was exposed. He was supposedly investigated and it was determined no laws were broken. So no one should pretend like there's equal justice, Hue Edwards is a pervert at best, and a likely pedophile. Compare and contrast to how much publicity Brand is getting. • In separate claims, the newspaper published messages the presenter allegedly sent to a 17-year-old after initiating a conversation on Instagram in October 2018. Latest figures released on Tuesday confirmed his six-figure salary as being between £435,000 and £439,999 a year, making him the highest-paid journalist at the corporation. Meanwhile, both the Metropolitan Police in London and South Wales Police have confirmed that, after looking into some of the allegations, detectives have found no evidence of a crime being committed and are not taking any further action. Edwards allegedly paid a teenager more than £35,000 for sexually explicit photos over a three-year period. Edwards allegedly sent threatening messages to a young person in their early 20s, who has no connection to the person at the centre of The Sun's story, the BBC previously reported. The star met the young person on a dating app before their conversations moved to other platforms, according to the corporation. He then revealed his identity and asked the young person not to tell anyone, BBC News said. The newspaper said it had seen messages suggesting the presenter visited the person's home, sent cash and asked for a picture - and was sent a semi-naked photo. https://news.sky.com/story/everything-we-know-about-huw-edwards-scandal-1291... " " Regardless of what Mr Brand is accused of none of the accusations compares to grooming a 14 year old boy waiting and eventually putting a human sausage up his bum when he was of legal age like Philip Schofield. That's like Woody Allen level of disgusting. There are real nonce's out there like those who you've mentioned and much worse living life on Easy St " " i will care when everything is equal and nothing is political and we work to root out all corruption. "
A new wave of global censorship for 1984 is spooling up via UN and other cunt entities including Jacinda Ardern and Melanie Joly If you're not fighting back against these asshole tyrants in some way every single day, you are LOSING, because their fight against you never stops, ever in history. Canada Launches UN Declaration Targeting Online 'Disinformation' https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/canada-launches-un-declaration-targeting... https://www.canada.ca/en/global-affairs/news/2023/09/joint-statement-by-cana... https://epaper.nationalpost.com/article/281595245146720 https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_develo... https://www.international.gc.ca/transparency-transparence/rapid-response-mec... https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/international_relations-relation... https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/crtc-releases-plan-to-implement-online-n... https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/feds-say-online-news-act-could-bring-in-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/how-canadians-might-get-around-the-faceb... https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/google-blocks-rollout-of-ai-chatbot-bard... https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/in-depth-bill-c-11-is-now-law-what-does-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/in-depth-now-that-bill-c-11-has-passed-w... Authored by Amanda Brown via The Epoch Times Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly has launched a United Nations declaration that calls for action to protect what it calls "information integrity" and to tackle "disinformation." Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly speaks with reporters in the foyer of the House of Commons in Ottawa on April 27, 2023. (The Canadian Press/Adrian Wyld) Ms. Joly launched the Global Declaration on Information Integrity Online jointly with Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Hanke Bruins Slot during the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 20. “Information integrity is essential to help ensure the strength of democratic processes and to protect fundamental rights,” says a joint statement by Canada and the Netherlands. “The erosion of information integrity, including the propagation of disinformation, weakens the strength of democratic engagement.” In a speech on Sept. 20, Ms. Joly said the declaration is a “concrete step toward establishing global norms on disinformation, misinformation, and information integrity,” the National Post reported. Speaking to the U.N. on the same day, Ms. Bruins Slot said the emerging online environment makes it difficult to determine what is and what is not truthful. “Every day, the world is flooded with disinformation and misinformation. Rapid advances in technology—particularly generative AI—make it more and more difficult to tell fact from fiction,” she said. Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Japan, and South Korea are among the 30 countries that have signed the declaration. The declaration promotes concepts such as respect for "the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information." It says signatories need to "take active steps to address misinformation and disinformation targeted at women, LGBTIQ+ persons, persons with disabilities and Indigenous Peoples." It also calls on signatories to "refrain from unduly restricting human rights online, especially the freedom of opinion and expression, under the guise of countering disinformation," and to "promote and respect pluralistic media and journalism, and protect access to media content as one measure to counter disinformation." Multiple Strategies In recent years, the federal government has initiated a number of projects to counter “misinformation,” “disinformation” and what it considers extremist ideologies. Some initiatives are the result of international collaborative efforts to shape the flow of information, and others have been conceived closer to home. Canada's participation in the Rapid Response Mechanism, established by G7 leaders at the 2018 G7 Summit in Charlevoix, Quebec, monitors the digital information environment. Its goal is to encourage cooperation among member countries to provide a coordinated response to "foreign state-sponsored disinformation" and the “evolving foreign threats to democracy.” The Liberal government has enacted legislation to shape the information space, with bills C-18 and C-11 being passed in recent months. The Online News Act, Bill C-18, which passed in June, has been framed as an attempt to defend democracy by bolstering the coffers of flailing legacy media with money from Big Tech. In reaction to the new legislation, Meta has restricted Canadians’ access to news content in their feeds, to avoid sharing revenue with media outlets. Google has threatened to take action but hasn't yet. The Liberal government also passed Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, in order to boost Canadian content and to regulate some aspects of online streaming and social media. A new bill to address "online harms" is also in the works, but it does not appear to be a legislative priority for the government at this time.
A new wave of global censorship for 1984 is spooling up via UN and other cunt entities including Jacinda Ardern and Melanie Joly
If you're not fighting back against these asshole tyrants in some way every single day, you are LOSING, because their fight against you never stops, ever in history.
Didn't cypherpunks say they had a solution to all this? https://disinfocode.eu/ The new Digital Services Act rules apply to 19 "very large" digital platforms (such as social media networks, websites, and online retailers) with at least 45 million active users in the EU. The 19 platforms that fall under the umbrella of the new rules are: Alibaba AliExpress, Amazon Store, Apple AppStore, Bing, Booking.com, Facebook, Instagram, Google Maps, Google Play, Google Search, Google Shopping, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, X, Wikipedia, YouTube, and Zalando.
Replying to @rustyrockets Joe Rogan - targeted bc of his dissenting voice. Tucker Carlson - targeted bc of his dissenting voice. RFK Jr. - targeted bc of his dissenting voice. Donald Trump - targeted bc of his dissenting voice. Gina Carano - targeted bc of her dissenting voice. Russel Brand - targeted bc of his dissenting voice. Conservative Influencers Twitter 1.0 - targeted bc of their dissenting voices. and many more... When you oppose the narrative, you become the target.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q="censorship+in+argentina" With the pending win of a Libertarian Party in Argentina, it will soon enjoy less censorship and more Free Speech. Argentina's corrupt politicans tried to arrest prosecute persecute and cancel Javier Milei during his Presidential campaign for speaking out freely about the worthless peso vs other currencies and exposing inflation, taxation, unsound money poliies.
1984 @Consortiumnews Oct 23 US Government & NewsGuard Sued by Consortium News consortiumnews.com/2023/10/2… The suit accuses #NewsGuard of defaming @Consortiumnews and the U.S. government of acting in concert with NewsGuard to violate the First Amendment. Read about it and watch the news conference.
Censorship: LondonReal Brian Rose David Icke Shutdown for Silenced Documentary re Big Tech Libs The one thing 1984's Censors absolutely will not let you talk about, is that the Censors are Censoring and Manipulating you with their Mind Control PsyOp Programming Regimes. If they don't want you to see it, it's vitally important that you do seek it out and watch it. "This account has been terminated for a violation of YouTube's Terms of Service." "This video has been removed for violating YouTube's Community Guidelines." https://www.londonreal.tv/silenced https://londonreal.tv/the-truth-behind-the-coronavirus-pandemic-covid-19-loc... https://londonreal.tv/the-coronavirus-conspiracy-how-covid-19-will-seize-you... https://londonreal.tv/1000000-fighting-for-freedom/ https://freedomplatform.tv/rose-icke-iv-we-will-not-be-silenced/ https://freedomplatform.tv/rose-icke-v-the-answer/ https://freedomplatform.tv/rose-icke-9/ https://londonreal.tv/digital-freedom-platform-interview-1-dr-rashid-buttar/ https://londonreal.tv/dr-david-e-martin-covid-was-an-act-of-war-against-the-... https://londonreal.tv/responding-to-criticism-surrounding-my-viral-documenta... https://wetransfer.com/downloads/b41a6fb0b1909690a125b375a54ad31c20200406191... Facebook goes after London Real for promoting Freedom of Speech and for speaking out against Censorship Fuck Google and the UK Govt, Facebook, Twitter, et al. London Real: David Icke Exposes The Cabal's Dystopian Social Credit System Used In China And Being Implemented In The United States, Commonwealth Countries And Around The World We_Will_Not_Be_Silenced_World_Premiere_In_London_October_6th_-_Tickets_-_www.londonreal.tv_silenced EUs_Digital_Services_Act_which_aims_to_censor_alleged_misinformation_online Big_Tech_Censorship_Is_Jeopardizing_Free_Speech_Making_Society_Weaker_-_Tim_Kennedy The_Vaxxed_Festival_Censorship_-_Are_they_Afraid_That_People_Are_Now_Starting_to_Wake_Up Peeling_Back_the_Layers_-_Investigating_Ukraine_s_Alleged_Influence_on_Twitter_Censorship The_Man_Who_Would_Not_Be_Silenced_-_Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr._s_Fight_for_Truth_-_James_O_Keefe The_Man_Who_Would_Not_Be_Silenced_-_Robert_F._Kennedy_Jr._s_Fight_Against_Big_Pharma Our_Voices_Have_Been_Silenced_-_It_s_Time_to_Fight_Back_-_Brian_Rose_Interview_The_Alex_Jones_Show ROSE_ICKE_4_-_We_Will_Not_Be_Silenced_-_David_Icke We_Are_Being_Silenced_Why_Political_Parties_Don_t_Want_You_To_Hear_Our_Ideas_-_Brian_Rose THE_DIGITAL_FREEDOM_PLATFORM_IS_A_SUCCESS_www.londonreal.tv_freedom_WE_WILL_NOT_BE_SILENCED RIP_Dr._Rashid_Buttar_1966-2023_-_Fear_Censorship_Are_Controlling_The_Population Next_level_Censorship_-_They_Are_Using_Algorithms_To_Purposely_Censor_Anyone_They_Want The_Land_Of_The_Banned_-_Censorship_Is_One_Of_Our_Biggest_Issues_In_Western_Civilizations Roger_Ver_on_Censorship_In_Crypto_People_Think_We_Are_Scammers I_Was_Banned_And_Censored_Because_Of_My_Credibility_-_Dr._Robert_Malone Building_A_Transparent_And_Censorship_Resistant_Monetary_System_-_Christopher_Giancarlo CBDCs_are_ripe_for_Censorship_Social_Engineering_Discrimination_Blacklisting-_Alex_Gladstein John_Cleese_-_Censorship_and_Freedom_of_Speech. ICE-T_-_FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH_JUST_WATCH_WHAT_YOU_SAY_-_Censorship_During_Coronavirus_Lockdown The_Ayahuasca_Experience_-_Dr._Gabor_Mate Brian Rose (LondonReal) now BANNED from LinkedIn - after being punished by YouTube, Google, BBC, OFCOM, Instagram - for posting an interview about anti-5G. https://twitter.com/Lukewearechange/status/1683179530054139904 Grifters and Antis abound
Tommy Robinson and Katie Hopkins freed... https://twitter.com/TRobinsonNewEra https://twitter.com/KTHopkins Tommy Robinson Full Address Oxford Union https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YQ94jFg_4A Nuck Fuentes, Alex Jones, Andrew Anglin, and numerous others still jailed for FreeSpeech. #FreeEverybody
https://twitter.com/shellenberger/status/1726975551402099045 Michael Shellenberger @shellenberger Nov 21 NEW DOCUMENTARY: "The Censorship Files" How much would you pay to protect your freedom? by @lwoodhouse & @shellenberger One year ago, we and other journalists gained access to the Twitter Files. What we discovered shocked us. Not only were highly partisan and ideological individuals within Twitter censoring people for holding views with which they disagreed, they were often doing so on behalf of US government officials and contractors with the FBI, CIA, and Department of Homeland Security. And so, one year later, we are happy to announce a new, full-length documentary film, “The Censorship Files.” You can see the trailer above. The film, made by Leighton Woodhouse and Jonah Markowitz, will bring you inside the Twitter Files and the race to the Supreme Court, which will hear the Missouri v. Biden censorship case early next year. Today we must ask you a personal question: what price would you put on your freedom? Many of us tell ourselves that freedom is priceless: we would sacrifice everything, die even, to protect our freedoms and keep America a free nation. Even if we weren’t willing to die or go to prison for our nation, we would make a significant financial investment to protect it. We are asking you to make a far more modest payment: less than $9/month, or about half the cost of a Netflix subscription. A subscription to Public is an investment in our investigative reporting, our free speech campaigning, and the final production and distribution of “The Censorship Files,” a film that will change how Americans think about free speech. We believe $9/month is a tiny investment to pay to ensure that, in the future, you can read what you want to read, watch the programs you want to watch, and voice your opinions. “The Censorship Files” will be a landmark film in educating younger Americans, who are more censorial than their elders, about America’s remarkable history of strong free speech protections. They will learn about the Civil Rights movement, the right of the New York Times to publish “the Pentagon Papers,” and the right even of pro-Nazi and pro-terrorism activists to march freely through America’s streets. “The Censorship Files” will reveal the origins and scope of the Censorship Industrial Complex, its leaders and architects, and its victims of censorship, from moms sharing stories about the Covid vaccine’s side effects on their children to two of the world’s foremost experts on the Covid response, Harvard’s Martin Kulldorff and Stanford’s Jay Bhattacharya. Finally, we will use “The Censorship Files” to build a new free speech movement in America, city by city, campus by campus, from the grassroots up. Because if we can’t persuade America’s youth to support free speech, then the First Amendment is just some words on a piece of paper. We can’t save the First Amendment without you. We can’t even finish “The Censorship Files” without you. This is not complicated. We need more paid subscribers. We need more than 10% of our subscribers to contribute thirty cents daily. If we could get 30% of our free subscribers to support our movement, I believe that we would have a fighting chance to save our first freedom and the other pillars of democratic civilization along with it. One year ago, we didn’t even know we lived in a heavily censored society. Today, we have ripped back the veil of the Censorship Industrial Complex and are on the cusp of defunding and dismantling it. Such a process will take years but won’t take a decade. It may even happen much more quickly than that, depending on the actions of the Supreme Court and Congress. What’s certain is that we can’t do it without our paid subscribers — and we don’t want to do it without our unpaid ones. We promise that, in the future, you’ll be grateful you funded the fight for our first freedom.
From Alex Jones, to Laura Loomer, Tommy Robinson, Owen Shroyer, J6'rs, and many more around the world, many have now been freed, yet more than a sizeable number are still being held as Political Prisoners, and they must all be freed as well, regardless of platform or country, including Julian Assange, Andrew Anglin, Nick Fuentes, Max Igan,
Fantastic news for Free Speech this week... privacy coins, all the covid people, all the election people, groypers, the LaptopFromHell, and many more. The fact that they've been Freed, is proof that their imprisonment was false, malicious, corrupt, conspiratorial, and worse, to allow these global tyrants to push their bogus narratives, defraud elections, silence, oppress, and psyop the world's people without consent, critique or challenge or arrest. Al Gore Warns: People Having Access To Non-Mainstream Information "Threatens Democracy" To all the Authoritarians and Tyrannies still holding political prisoners, tp the Nanny State Warn'ers, Globalist Powermongers, CBDC purveyors, and more, you're going to lose, so GO FUCK YOURSELVES! https://x.com/RealAlexJones/status/1037775869714948096 6 Sep 2018 Alex Jones Confronts The Architect Of Deplatforming Conservatives: Oliver Darcy Alex Jones Confronts The Censorship Architect: Oliver Darcy Alex Jones went to Washington D.C. for the congressional hearings where Twitter and Facebook heads were testifying, and he confronted one of CNN's censorship propagandists: Oliver Darcy. "People Have Spoken": Elon Musk Restores X Account Of Alex Jones After User Poll https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones https://twitter.com/InfoWars https://banned.video/ https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1lPKqbPkeLdGb https://twitter.com/ElonMusk/status/1733733520235696526 https://twitter.com/ElonMusk/status/1733529033575465381 https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1732897835572461582 https://x.com/AllIDoIsOwen https://x.com/OwenShroyer1776 https://x.com/OwenShroyerLive https://x.com/AmericaShaman https://x,com/HarrisonHSmith https://x.com/LauraLoomer He’s baaack! The media meltdown that’s about to ensue is going to be epic 😆 @RealAlexJones @MarioNawfal 🚨 Big Tech's de-platforming playbook that got people like @Cobratate banned from all socials, was created for @RealAlexJones back in 2017 Following a poll, @elonmusk brought Alex back: "I vehemently disagree with what he said about Sandy Hook, but are we a platform that believes in freedom of speech or are we not? That is what it comes down to in the end. If the people vote him back on, this will be bad for 𝕏 financially, but principles matter more than money." Alex Jones will be joining us in less than an hour for his first appearance on 𝕏. Freedom of Speech in Action https://twitter.com/MarkDice/status/1733579822180512101 Friendly reminder, this video, which was livestreamed on Twitter's Periscope, is the reason cited for Alex Jones being banned. Not his conspiracy theories about the school shooting, as widely believed. Twitter called it "harassment" to tell off a CNN reporter (a public figure) who was working in the capacity of a reporter at the time, while on public property, while covering a congressional hearing about social media censorship. The irony is just too thick. ALX 🇺🇸 @alx Owen Shroyer (@allidoisowen) was suspended by Twitter 1.0 in 2020 at the behest of Media Matters for telling people to go to a rally that violated a local “social distancing order” Just an example of how easily they were able to control policy under 1.0 Owen Shroyer, Harrison Smith, Paul Joseph Watson, Kari Lake, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Candice Owens, Steve Bannon, Christine Anderson, Javier Milei, etc. etc. etc. + 81 MILLION AMERICANS!!!!!!! God Bless America Elon Musk @elonmusk Haha true ALX @alx If we banned all conspiracy theorists from the internet, @CNN, @NYTimes, @WashingtonPost, @MSNBC et al. would be the first to go. @MarkDice As the media flips out over @ElonMusk restoring Alex Jones account (@RealAlexJones), it's important to point out to everyone the REAL reason Alex was banned from Twitter in the first place back in 2018. And contrary to popular belief it was NOT because he entertained some conspiracy theories about Sandy Hook, as crazy as they were. Twitter specifically cited the Oliver Darcy confrontation, who is a public figure (working for CNN), which took place on public property, while Darcy was working in the capacity of a reporter at the time, outside a congressional hearing about censorship on social media. They claimed it was "harassment" because he told him off for working to get him banned off all the other platforms. The irony is too thick to even describe. Twitter held out after he was unpersoned by YouTube and Facebook, but then after he humiliated the CNN clown, that was cited as the reason for the ban by Twitter's Trust and Safety account. People should watch Tucker Carlson's interview with Alex Jones to see the real Alex, not just his flaws and mistakes that the media spent years amplifying and trying to make his identity. He is a genius, but like most geniuses, it's counterbalanced by equal sized flaws. But he was banned for bogus reasons in order to silence him, not because of a whacky conspiracy theory from years earlier he entertained, but because when he's firing on all cylinders and on point, he's a wrecking ball to the corrupt political establishment and was revealing too much about how the power structures work. Period. At 1 pm EST, a discussion will take place on X Spaces between host Mario Nawfal and Alex Jones. The focus of their conversation will likely be centered on Elon Musk's decision to reinstate Jones on the free speech social media platform. https://t.co/iTZYmfO1lq — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) December 10, 2023 "Big Tech's de-platforming playbook that got people like @Cobratate banned from all socials, was created for @RealAlexJones back in 2017," Nawfal said. 🚨 Big Tech's de-platforming playbook that got people like @Cobratate banned from all socials, was created for @RealAlexJones back in 2017 Following a poll, @elonmusk brought Alex back: "I vehemently disagree with what he said about Sandy Hook, but are we a platform that… pic.twitter.com/JGNDeePl2G — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) December 10, 2023 "The people have spoken, and so it shall be," Elon Musk posted on X in reply to a poll on Saturday asking users whether to reinstate Alex Jones' account. "Reinstate Alex Jones on this platform?" Musk asked. Nearly two million X users voted, with more than 70% voting in favor of Jones' return. The people have spoken and so it shall be — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 10, 2023 Jones' account was banned under old Twitter in September 2018 for violating the platform's abusive behavior policy. As of early Sunday morning, Jones' X account has been reinstated. The self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist" billionaire said Jones is welcomed on the platform but added: "He cannot break the law." He cannot break the law — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 9, 2023 Restoring Jones's account came days after the Infowars blog founder sat down with Tucker Carlson for an interview. "If People Think Things Are Bad Now..." Tucker And Alex Jones Talk Deplatforming, Depopulation, & The NWO Friday, Dec 08, 2023 - 11:55 AM In a deep-dive on everything from 'deplatforming' to 'depopulation', Tucker Carlson sat down with Alex Jones. Elon Musk said it best... Oh, this is going to be an interesting one… <U+1F525><U+1F525><U+1F525> — Elon Musk (Parody) (@ElonMuskAOC) [70]December 7, 2023 Dubbed "the most censored man in the world", Jones began by discussing his (correct) prediction about 9/11. As Tucker points out, "the 9/11 thing, you called it in public." [71][IMG] But Jones says his most accurate prediction was around a decade ago when he read the "Rockefeller Foundation Operation Lockstep report," which he says: "described using a virus to bring in world government, a world medical ID, which they would then build a social credit score off of... ...that they would make people wear masks for fear, shut down sporting events and things like that... and basically phase in this new tyranny." These warnings, among other things, were the reason, Carlson argues, why Jones was so widely deplatformed. "Fundamentally, Alex Jones is right about a lot of things. And in fact, that's why they don't like him." <U+1F6A9> Alex Jones Explains How He Has Been Able to Make So Many Accurate Predictions “I’m able to make predictions because they’ve given us a roadmap…They describe we really need big terror attacks, we really need Pearl Harbor events, to get Americans to give up their rights.”… [72]pic.twitter.com/75Di4mirKj — Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) [73]December 7, 2023 Deplatforming "To this day, nobody has been more aggressively censored, I don't think, than you... I read about it, and I felt that it was a major moment in the history of American media. I don't think anybody defended you when that happened. Anybody, with any kind of audience," To which Jones replied: "When Tim Cook admitted that he met on the weekend in August of 2017 with the other big tech heads, and they made the decision to "curate" like it's a museum - and take me off, it was hundreds of platforms. It wasn't just the big ones. Everything from LinkedIn, to our bank accounts being taken away, to everything ensuing over the next week and that month. And I knew I was a test case." "It was the questioning the school shooting thing that came later. They kind of dredged that up from my past, blew that up after I'd been deplatformed, and said I'd been deplatformed for that. "Once they deplatformed me, it made the show in ways only get bigger... So then they panicked and said 'okay, let's look at his record and create more of a reason,' so they took things out of context from 5-6 years before, blew em up as a current thing out of context, and deceptively reported on what I said to create a strawman argument to then facilitate the reason." The discussion turns to the current state of America with Jones laying the blame for the growing division of the nation by race squarely at the feet of China. "The CCP, along with the SPLC and ADL, see America's weakness and they are literally coming in and saying 'white people are inherently bad because of the color of their skin... ...and then they organize all them into race-based groups under the Democratic party flag to attack who is left... which tends to be more conservative." Jones warns however that "they are panicking" because "more and more blacks and hispanics are voting Republican," which, he explains is why the open border policy is being allowed. "They are bringing in all these totally disenfranchised people from around the world... putting them in camps where they indoctrinated into a subdued political under-class... that's then going to be turned loose on America." This is why Democrats are giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses, the right to vote in some cities, allowing them to become police officers "so they are importing a new enforcemen t class against the American people." The new class will allow them to bring home a New World Order. NWO Jones and Carlson also discussed the New World Order after Carlson noted that White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is an idiot. "That's it," Jones replied. "We're in a beautiful ball. It's prom night. Everybody's dressed great. There's wonderful food, big delicious punch bowl, and then they say 'what can we do?' - well, just have Brian Stelter take a dump right in that. And then he's there, laughing at you - they're all there laughing at you, to make you feel small. To make you question reality - why is everything so ugly?" Jones then explained that the elites demonize rural Americans in order to blame them for the ills of society. "The reason you're doing bad is not blackrock and the WEF and Bill Gates. It's all those evil people in the countryside. They're all white supremacists, terrorists and racists. Let's go get 'em! Cause the last group they don't control is rural people that are self-sufficient. And so I get going to the countryside, protecting your children. That's the holy grail. The problem is, you gotta have one foot in each - you gotta go back and fight in the city for the infrastructure, for the government." Alex Jones explains the UN's plan for global domination: "The last group they don't control is rural people. They have to demolish the cultures and societies that were here before and bring in the next phase, a high-tech, cashless society robot-drone controlled nightmare." [74]pic.twitter.com/vIFz5rfINg — Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) [75]December 7, 2023 "You gotta give people hope, while also building a backup operation of farming and ranching and self-sufficiency," Jones continues. "So that's why the WEF and the UN are coming in in Ireland and in areas of Asia, and in the Netherlands, and saying 'by 2030, 80% of your cows gotta be dead,' and they just banned like 30% this year in the Netherlands." "They're all WEF globalist alumni that the big banks, on record, brag - they've 'penetrated the cabinets,' to quote Klaus Schwab, they've put their operatives in to cut off our energy, demoralize us, release the hardened criminals, put the political activists in prison, continue to cut off the resources, to make an angrier world... Klaus Schwab says, 'we're gonna make the world collapse, we're gonna have everybody turn against each other, we're going to blame the political classes that we own and control, and then when we're done we'll bring in our new solution. But first thing they have to demolish the cultures of societies that we had before, with the fentanyl, with the open borders, with the demoralization, and then they bring in their next phase, which is a high-tech cashless society. Robot drone-controlled nightmare. More than half of the US in their official UN maps, that they've had for more than 25 years, show half the US off-limits to humans. All cars will have to have GPS, everyone by law will have to have a cell phone at all times... And that's the admitted global UN standardized plan, where you don't leave your house without a cell phone." [76][IMG] "So if people think things are bad now," Jones continued, "the straight-jacket, the ball-and-chain is going on, and it's all being militarily run. Our military is great men and women, but at the top, our military has been globalist Ukraine, New World Order people for at least 30-40 years." Jones also says that the NWO is pushing for: * 15-minute cities * Central bank digital currencies * All of these systems that track and trace everything you do with the social credit scores * The plan for the 99% is 250 square-foot coffin-apartments * 5G bathing you * Literally eating bug protein Depopulation The New World Order discussion leads Jones on to discuss the controversial topic of depopulation that seems at the end of every globalist policy delivered from on high. "The Globalists have gone from testing-phase to fully operational now," he warns, noting that "they say - read their writings - we are going to have a post-industrial world by 2030... and we will start the depopulation of 90% of the people by 2045." That, Jones explains is the official WEF/UN/Club of Rome plan. A stunned Carlson asked "what do you mean 'depopulation'?" Jones replies: "they want to bring the world population down to 500 million." "We are told 'do not have children, because it is bad for the earth'," and points out that Elon Musk is a hero for pointing out that we need to have kids to save the world, "otherwise, society collapses." Carlson takes a moment to reflect on what he has heard and says poignantly, "I feel a little bit innervated and downbeat just hearing your dot-connecting... what's that like to live with?" Brian Stelter Prank Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson "had some drinks" last night and then prank called Brian Stelter. [77]pic.twitter.com/6kuzUsywPh — Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) [78]December 7, 2023 2024 election, WW3 The two also discussed the upcoming US election next year. According to Jones, both Biden and Trump are 'liabilities' for the deep state, so the plan is : "They have a right winger, they'll claim, assassinate Biden, and they'll have a left-winger assassinate Trump... ...That then gets the country even in more of a fight against each other, and then they put in Gavin Newsom and, you know, somebody like Mike Pence or who knows. But I really think the next 13 months is the most critical time - not just in American history, but world history," Jones continued. Biden "doesn't know who he is." Alex Jones says sources in the White House have told him that Biden "wanders around naked" and is on a constant cocktail of amphetamines and benzos. Tucker says he knows someone who witnessed Biden taking amphetamines in 2020. Alex Jones says he has Government sources that confirm Biden wanders around the White House naked at night, “doesn’t know who he is” Tucker says a makeup artist confirmed Biden is pumped full of Amphetamines to perform his duties WOW! [79]pic.twitter.com/h3HzI7n6Ev — johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) [80]December 7, 2023 "Because if they can bring down America, they're going to bring down the world. Then you've got the escalation," he warns. "Remember a year ago, Biden said, you can't give F-16s and Abrams tanks and cruise missiles to the Ukrainians, that's WW3. Now they're doing it. So as Russia wins that war as Col. McGregor documented a few months ago with you, NATO is escalating. Well, that leads right to nuclear war." "Since when do Democrats love war?" Jones asked. "Since when did Democrats love the intelligence agencies. They love them now. And so really, the Democrats, just like the Republican party is the beachhead for sanity and populism - it's not perfect, but it's a beachhead. The Democrat party is totally turned over to evil." Finally, Jones says he doesn't expect Elon Musk to reinstate him on X: “I understand that if he did that, the ADL and others would really be able to shut down Twitter” <U+1F440> Alex Jones Says He Doesn’t Expect Elon Musk to Reinstate His X Account “I understand that if he did that, the ADL and others would really be able to shut down Twitter”[81]@TuckerCarlson [82]@elonmusk [83]pic.twitter.com/jgmFXwH3aQ — Chief Nerd (@TheChiefNerd) [84]December 7, 2023 Watch the full interview below: Ep. 46 The Alex Jones Interview TIMESTAMPS: 2:46 Alex Jones predictions 15:07 Deplatforming 21:59 Dividing us on race 25:37 The border 28:09 Austin 32:12 New World Order 42:09 Brian Stelter demon video 50:57 Depopulation 1:07:51 Food 1:13:51 Whiskey 1:16:22 Presidential… [85]pic.twitter.com/IsJAQDUzDc — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) [86]December 7, 2023 @SunTzusWar MK ULTRA THREAD: 1. Project MK-Ultra or Mind Control – what the CIA has been doing for years under our noses is “bigger than anyone can imagine” – 2/15/18 Q post 772, 773. It’s no longer called MK Ultra and is not supposed to exist or be in operation. For purposes of this thread I will refer to it as MK Ultra. All references to Q posts can be found at Qalerts.app. @elonmusk Shocker 🙄 @realchrisrufo EXCLUSIVE: @RealChrisBrunet and I have obtained documentation demonstrating that Harvard President Claudine Gay plagiarized multiple sections of her Ph.D. thesis, violating Harvard's policies on academic integrity. This is a bombshell. 🧵 @KanekoaTheGreat @ElectionWiz @EndWokeness @LibsOfTikTok @Redacted247 https://x.com/GenFlynn https://x.com/PrisonPlanet https://x.com/LukeWeAreChange https://x.com/GenFlynn/status/1733834523983450214 Sun Tzu @SunTzusWar Fighting from victory, not towards it! Thank you @GenFlynn 🇺🇸 General Mike Flynn @GenFlynn Listen to the short clips of the below speeches from Herr Klaus Schwab of the subgroup called the WEF and Argentinian President @JMilei (his is simply a brilliant synopsis of where America and American politicians have taken the U.S. — into the dumpster fire of tyranny and corruption). Schwab wants to destroy everything and build it back better in the globalist image, while President Milei wants his people to be the rulers of their destiny…and NOT UNELECTED bureaucrats from halfway around the world. Stand strong America! We are heading into the final round that will shine the forever light of freedom over those nocturnal creatures who creep around in the darkness of tyranny…and, WE’RE WINNING!!! and they know it 😎 🔥🦅🙏🏼🇺🇸 I’m ready, are you? The USA will become a Libertarian country, because Socialism, and all others, are illogical, and lead to all this kind of censorship nonsense we've had to endure. @DavidIcke Of course Alex Jones is back on Twitter/X. As I have been writing here, the 'poll' and waiting for God Elon's pronouncement, has all been a GAME to hijack your perception and that of the Mainstream Alternative Media (MAM). You are being had, people, but most will never get that. They only see what is in front of their eyes, not what is weaved through what they think they see. The decision was made a long time ago and the Carlson interview with Jones was just the calculated prelude to it. The interview was the set up for what was long planned. Musk could have simply done this long ago, but the ritual had to be played out to both eulogise Musk, the new MAM God, and to put Alex Jones centre stage as a symbol of the Mainstream Alternative Media alongside Musk, Carlson, Rogan, Tate, Peterson, Brand, Vlaardingerbroek, and all the rest. They may each have useful things to say about some 'dots' but they stand as a collective blockade to the deep levels of the rabbit hole within which their 'dots' are mere symptoms, not the cause. These are now the MAMMIES of the New Mainstream Alternative Media, with Musk at its summit decreeing what is and treated as a God while fronting up companies, SpaceX, Neuralink, Tesla, etc, that are essential to the Cult agenda that the MAMMIES claim to oppose. Where is the question of how someone can be officially the richest man in the world while opposing the Cult without whose support his business empire would collapse in a day? 'Elon!, Elon!, Elon!, oh, thank you, sir!' Where is the question about why governments that supposed to hate Musk's 'free speech' would go on handing over the taxpayer subsidies on which his empire depends? 'Elon!, Elon!, Elon!, oh, thank you, sir!' Where is the question of why the Cult, through its Deep State, which controlled Twitter and what could be posted, would suddenly sell it to 'free speech absolutist' Musk who, as a result, has become the God of the very alternative media the Cult needs to direct and control so it goes here and no further? 'Elon!, Elon!, Elon!, oh, thank you, sir!' Where is the question about the occult significance of Musk's obsession with the letter 'X' and his plan for X to become the global App for everything? 'Elon!, Elon!, Elon!, oh, thank you, sir!' The REAL alternative media that has no 'here and no further' is thus marginalised by comparison, as planned, but we are still here and still pursuing the depths of truth where the MAMMIES refuse to go. Cue abuse from the MAMMY believers, but they'll see. Or maybe, blinded by the light of the Elon God, they won't. @MikeBenzCyber “If you fear the dangers posed by a strong man, you should see what a weak man is capable of.” @UnityNewsNet This is Jeremy Godfrey. He is now head of monitoring and censoring social media in the Republic of Ireland. This is not a joke. @clif_high What is THE most dangerous word in the English language? 25% thinking 75% government 2,125 votes • 1 day Max Igan https://www.bitchute.com/video/LgZ11HiI82SR https://cozy.tv/nick https://rumble.com/nickjfuentes https://twitter.com/GroypGangAF/status/1733159967266419004 https://x.com/NickJFuentes https://gab.com/realnickjfuentes https://t.me/nickjfuentes @VivekGRamaswamy The ‘conspiracization’ of “The Great Replacement Theory” is the standard left-wing playbook: transparently advance a toxic policy, then label it a conspiracy theory when the other side contests the merits of it. We need a real debate on whether intentionally facilitating mass illegal migration to change this country is good for America or not - because that’s exactly what’s happening. I think it’s bad, but if the left believes this is a good thing, they should make the case for it. Vivek: "The Great Replacement Theory is not some grand right-wing conspiracy theory, but a basic statement of the Democratic party's platform." Funny how it takes an Indian guy to finally admit this. @KeithWoodsYT I think the time has come to unban @NickJFuentes from this site. Despite all the labels thrown at him, Nick Fuentes is a Christian, America First nationalist who was cancelled early in his career by the same people now working to cancel EVERY anti-Zionist voice. And as you can see from this clip, Nick has a far more moderate position on recent events than some of the most "respected" conservative voices and politicians - who in recent weeks we have seen use this platform to make outright calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing. @elonmusk made a brave commitment to a fully free speech platform when he took over Twitter, a promise that is changing the public conversation, but as long as popular commentators like Fuentes remain banned that promise remains unfulfilled. As one of the most cancelled voices in the Western world, Fuentes' presence on a platform is a litmus test for free speech. Prominent voices like Piers Morgan regularly discuss Fuentes - he is ALREADY part of the public conversation, and he should be allowed a response. As long as people like Nick are excluded from X, it is not a true public square. It's time to #FreeFuentes
On 12/11/23, pro2rat@yahoo.com.au <pro2rat@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Wikileaks as a limited hang-out. Who knew!?
https://newsofinterest.tv/audio_pages/alex_jones/_101205_w_tarpley.php
Your posts will be more visible, and pass through more filters, if you properly thread them by hitting some form of the 'reply' button instead of initiating a new message everytime, moron. You can also quit using the retarded Yahoo webmail interface and switch to Mozilla Thunderbird, or whatever.
On 12/11/23, pro2rat@yahoo.com.au <pro2rat@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
Wikileaks as a limited hang-out. Who knew!? https://newsofinterest.tv/audio_pages/alex_jones/_101205_w_tarpley.php
Everyone knows that ProfRat is too fucking shamefully lazy to paste the article... Webster Tarpley Speaks With Alex Jones About the Wikileaks Organization Being “Controlled Opposition” Audio: Webster Tarpley Speaks With Alex Jones About the Wikileaks Organization Being “Controlled Opposition,” December 5, 2010 recorded December 5, 2010, running time 37 minutes 42 seconds [Note: March 1, 2020— I have updated the text of this article.] Author and Historian Webster Tarpley discusses issues with Alex Jones concerning the Wikileaks organization. Explained is that its leaks are controlled by the political Establishment in order to “whitewash” the most significant wrongdoings of the government and to attack individuals and organizations that are on the CIA’s “hit list” as well as to attack certain financial institutions, while at the same time serving as an excuse for the government to crack down on freedoms of the internet. The following are descriptions of statements from the conversation: Webster Tarpley: The Wikileaks operation is associated with the globalist financier George Soros and the rouge network of intelligence agencies including the CIA and NSA, being similar to Daniel Ellsberg’s “Pentagon Papers” of 1971 which was a similarly highly publicized “document dump” as Wikileaks is today. The RAND Corporation and CFR associated Pentagon Papers covertly intended to “whitewash” wrongdoing by the CIA and to shift guilt to the U.S. Army and to President Kennedy, and also to cover up many aspects of the Kennedy assassination. Similarly, “Watergate” was used to shift popular rage to be against Nixon when it should have been against the CIA for its involvement in such activity as drug smuggling and gun running operations and their involvement in setting up the major wars at the time. Morton Halperin is a highly ranked individual in George Soros’ organizations who had been personally involved with the Pentagon Papers, and Daniel Ellsberg himself has recently been personally endorsing Julian Assange. Daniel Ellsberg’s “Pentagon Papers” of 1971 was a similar Establishment trick to disseminate disinformation as Wikileaks is today. Webster Tarpley: Wikileaks has had three major “waves” of public releases so far. The first wave was the now well-known exposure of the video of people being machine gunned from a helicopter in Iraq, which was released to build credibility for the organization. The second round came in July 2010, where it was attempted to “Watergate” Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq to show that he was corrupt and presided over murders— which was true, but the intention was to create an excuse for bringing in Ayad Allowi who was more of a U.S. puppet than Maliki was, but up until now that operation has failed. Also the second round of releases exposed the murder of the Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari, who had gone into Iraq and was able to free a kidnapped Journalist Guiliana Sgrena of the left wing “Manifesto” newspaper of Rome. Calipari had much specific information about the U.S. running Al-Qaeda in Iraq and he was murdered so he would not expose that information, and the Wikileaks documents were disinformation which attempted to conceal direct U.S. involvement in his murder. Alex Jones: Four years ago George Bush put out a press release admitting that the U.S. was running four Muslim groups— three of them Al-Qaeda based, out of Iraq and Kurdistan into Iran. Also two months ago Fox News exposed a secret document explaining that Anwar al-Awlaki was really a CIA operative hanging out secretly at the Pentagon getting orders while running the “Underwear Bomber,” and the “Fort Hood Shooter.” Al-Queda was created decades ago by high ranking U.S. individuals such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and the current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. Alex Jones: The Wikileaks situation is ultimately meant to help move toward global destabilization and a major global war leading to a police state in the U.S. The influential organization the RAND Corporation has openly stated that they want such a war in internal documents as reported two years ago by Alex Abella who was one of the only outsiders to ever be given entrance into the organization. Alex Jones: Ray McGovern, the high level CIA analyst and former top briefer to Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr. said four years ago on the Alex Jones Show that the “Golden Mosque” bombing was intended to get Sheites and Sunni Muslims fighting and killing each other. Also a Guardian of London Report showed MI6 commandos dressed as Sunnis Muslims shooting Iraqi police in Basara. He explains that since it is a multi-trillion dollar war, it is necessary for them to create a fake enemy. Webster Tarpley: The cables released by Wikileaks are carefully selected by an interagency committee of “old boys” from organisations such as the CIA and NSA in a “self exposure” operation. Webster Tarpley: In the current document dump by Wikileaks, everybody who is “hit,” meaning “embarrassed,” “attacked,” or “ridiculed” is on the CIA “hit list,” and nothing in the leaks is concerning the “echelon” powers such as Israel, the British, Australia, Canada, or New Zealand. Currently information is being put out about Russian President Putin and Belisconi of Italy for the purpose of creating conflict with Russia. Also it is shown that Saudi Arabia is interested in the U.S. attacking Iran. Alex Jones: News organizations such as Fox News create a big fuss about the “danger” of the leaks in order to give the appearance of legitimacy to the operation. Webster Tarpley: Julian Assange is a government operative who is a product of the CIA MK-Ultra mind control program, who was created in the “Anne Hamilton-Byrne” LSD mind control cult in a neighborhood of Melbourne, Australia in the 1970s. One of his parents was involved in the cult and Assange grew up being exposed to its activities including much LSD drug use and fornication amongst the children of the cult. The children of the cult had their hair dyed blond, and Assange’s hair was initially dyed blond when he first came upon the scene. Assange became part of a “hacker” community where he hacked into NASA and he wrote a book under the name “Mendax” which is a Latin word for “liar.” Assange is a mind controlled “zombie” operative who is now the “media darling” of the most high profile outlets of the anglo American media Establishment of the world, including the New York Times and London Guardian. [Note: Janury 29, 2011— Also see the Henry Makow article Julian Assange’s Ties to Nazi Cult.] Webster Tarpley: If the CIA actually wanted to “shut Assange up,” they would abduct him and extradite him to one of the CIA “black sites” around the world and then proceed to beat him up, which is a legal practice under the Obama Administration, but instead the CIA is only issuing impotent and empty requests for Wikileaks to stop while at the same time the U.S. is attempting to pass legislation in the U.S. restricting free speech using the organization as an excuse. Assange has become a new hero for the “left liberals,” and they are lining up to support him now that it is clear to them that Obama has betrayed them. Webster Tarpley: Julian Assange is more than merely a “useful idiot,” and Assange has claimed that he will be exposing information about a major U.S. bank such as Bank of America or Citibank, and it might be a ploy to push the Bank of America into a panic— and George Soros and his hedge funds have already “shorted” it, with Soros preparing to otherwise profit from whatever else Wikileaks is going to do. Alex Jones: George Soros associated Cass Sunstein is now the White House information Czar, and he openly said in an essay two years ago that they will infiltrate the alternative media such as anti-man made global warming groups and 9/11 truth movements by issuing disinformation to discredit those movements and then start outlawing the media and free speech. Now that Assange has built up his “street credentials,” he is saying that he will go after certain brokerage firms and banks, and George Soros has been convicted in two countries of financial wrongdoing. Julian Assange has said he is “irritated and fed up” with 9/11 truth activists because their claims “have no basis.” Webster Tarpley: Wikileaks and Assange is the fulfillment of what Sunstein said he wanted when he said that something needs to be done for the “cognitive disruption” of conspiracy theorists by posing as the anti-Establishment media. Assange is saying that he is “irritated and fed up” by people who talk about 9/11 conspiracies that he says “have no basis.” Assange was used as distraction before such as when in Iceland many activists were pushing for a “debt moratorium” and Wikileaks attempted to distract them to forget about those issues. Webster Tarpley: Wikileaks came into being in 2007 and the first time it was mentioned was in a Washington Post op-ed by Cass Sunstein who said Wikileaks was a “positive” organization. Wikileaks initially had involvement of Chinese Dissidents who were connected to George Soros, and also Morton Halperin who was also involved in the Pentagon papers in the early 1970s. Webster Tarpley: Leftists are “easy marks” for Assange, who is portrayed as being “persecuted” and “on the run” while at the same time being trumpeted by the international media consortium by such outlets as the New York Times and London Guardian. This is not the way people are treated if they are being suppressed by the Establishment, but rather if they are wanted to be promoted, with this being an open-and-shut case. Alex Jones: The information Jesse Ventura was going to expose about FEMA camps was permanently banned from being aired on Ventura’s television show, and Alex Jones is attacked almost every day by Soros financed publications. Webster Tarpley: The information Assange is putting out is becoming more and more dubious and rotten, and more and more dictated by the CIA hit list, and aimed toward U.S. banks rather than British banks because there is an agenda of shifting blame to American financial institutions rather than British ones. Webster Tarpley: The “left liberals” have learned nothing from the Pentagon Papers or Watergate and they are going into it again with Wikileaks. The main goal of Wikileaks is to create justification to shut down all sorts of web sites with legitimate suppressed information such as by Alex Jones or himself. Alex Jones: An article speaks about an anti-Wikileaks bill being unveiled in Congress by the usual suspects Joe Lieberman who is always saying he wants to shut down the internet, Senator Jay Rockefeller who said we would be better off without an internet, and Cass Sunstein who wants to shut down free speech on the web. The bill states they they will put citizens into jail for a long time and give them a giant fine if they release classified information from the Government. Also Columbia University is being told by the State Department that its students are not to discuss Wikileaks or they will get into trouble. Government agencies are restricting employee access to Wikileaks, and they are saying that they will need to spy on government employees to make sure they are not reading it. It is all a perfect excuse for them to ram through the Cybersecurity Act right as the alternative media is surpassing the Establishment media outlets who we now learn have secretly individually gotten hundreds of millions of dollars of bailout tax dollars, which makes it “state run media.” Webster Tarpley: Wikileaks is intended to furnish a pretext to implement a new monstrous piece of legislation that begins to put the screws on the internet, using the idea that since “Assange is running wild, we’ve got to crack down on people across the board,” with the joke being that everything in Assange’s document dumps is precisely what you can already read in the newspapers, which also was the same story with the “Pentagon Papers” in 1971. Nothing in the document dumps mentions anything about the 9/11 attacks, or the rouge B-52 in 2007 from which a nuclear cruise missile is still missing, or the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in Israel, or anything that makes Bush or Obama look really bad. The victims are always foreign leaders. Most of the documents are very “low level,” being classified as only “confidential,” or “secret.” Webster Tarpley: The Establishment might eventually “burn” Assange because part of the myth that the leftists need to believe is that he is being “persecuted,” and he might be turned into a “Lee Harvey Oswald,” who can be liquidated in order to build up sympathy for him. Since Assange is an MK-Ultra zombie type, he is not going to be a particularly good witness or defendant.
The Perpetual War On Free Speech by Donald Jeffries via "I Protest" substack, https://donaldjeffries.substack.com/p/the-perpetual-war-on-free-speech The Founding Fathers made the Constitution palatable by including a Bill of Rights. Without the First 10 Amendments, the Constitution is just what its early critics, including Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson, said it was; a dangerous consolidation of power far less representative of liberty than the Articles of Confederation. The First Amendment was always a huge concern with statists of every era. Those who thirst for power, and will compromise themselves in order to attain it, have never looked favorably upon those critical of them. John Adams, the second president of the United States, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts for just this reason. He bristled at criticism. Fortunately, Thomas Jefferson succeeded him in office and scrapped this tyrannical concept. But the notion reared itself again in 1860, with the election of Abraham Lincoln. Adams was a civil libertarian compared to Lincoln. “Honest” Abe didn’t pass any new Alien and Sedition Acts; he just shut down over two hundred newspapers that opposed any of his unconstitutional actions. Woodrow Wilson revived these odious acts during World War I. Eugene Debs and others were imprisoned for opposing the pointless shedding of blood, and America’s participation in it. The Supreme Court, in perhaps its worst ruling ever, upheld Wilson’s right to jail antiwar protesters. Great “liberal” justice Oliver Wendell Holmes coined the phrase “yelling fire in a crowded theater” to justify such heinous oppression, placing an ugly asterisk on free speech. Apparently no concerned American asked at the time, just how protesting a war could be construed as yelling fire in a crowded theater. This expression gained great renown across the land, and is forever on the lips of those who seek to censor dissent. Franklin Roosevelt built upon the actions of Wilson, who was inspired by the maniacal despot Lincoln. One of the countless unconstitutional agencies created under the New Deal, the Federal Communications Commission was in effect a national Alien and Sedition Act for the radio stations, and would go on to control content in Hollywood and on every television network. It banned selling advertising that discussed “controversial issues.” Vulgarity and “extremist” opinions were strictly forbidden. FDR pushed several inquisitions in Congress, most notably the one chaired by then Senator Hugo Black. You know, the former KKK member who went on to become a “liberal” Supreme Court justice and arbitrarily awarded the 1948 Senate election to “Landslide” Lyndon Johnson, who was the first to court the dead vote. The Black Committee and other inquiries attempted to severely curtail the ability of journalists to criticize the New Deal. FDR himself is documented to have personally tried to ruin the careers of his political opponents. And all of this was years before the Pearl Harbor false flag. Once America entered the war, FDR went after draft evaders, and memorably incarcerated American citizens in concentration camps. Not just Japanese Americans, but German and Italian Americans, too. The Roosevelt administration also stole billions in personal property from these poor souls. Much as Lincoln had locked up any northern antiwar voices without any due process, FDR imprisoned those opposed to his war. In 1945, his successor Harry Truman had antiwar poet Ezra Pound arrested, and he spent a decade in a mental institution. We must consider today’s “Woke” authoritarianism in its historical context. The precedents are all there. Cancel culture was born when Lincoln “canceled” his critics in the press, and threw thousands of uncharged citizens into makeshift prisons. Wilson followed this precedent, but FDR expanded it into a totalitarian art form. His administration “canceled” its critics in a variety of ways. FDR used J. Edgar Hoover to target some of them. His administration confiscated millions of telegrams to and from Roosevelt opponents. Long before Richard Nixon’s laughable efforts to use the IRS to monitor his critics, FDR had the fledgling agency audit almost everyone who opposed him. Indeed, FDR led a veritable crusade against free speech. The Social Justice Warriors might look different. Tattooed. Pink or purple hair. Transitioned into countless new “genders.” Utterly addicted to name-calling. But they are the logical descendants of those who supported the Alien and Sedition Acts. Who threw citizens into jail that objected to our involvement in faraway wars. Who wanted to use the IRS, and the FBI, to “cancel” critics of the political elite. Not enough tried to stop this onerous censorship in 1860. Or 1918. Or 1939. And too few are trying to stop it now. The January 6 political prisoners are a testament to that, subjected to the cruel and unjust punishment explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, which was inflicted on northern “Copperheads” during the Civil War, and anarchists and “Reds” during World War I, and “Nazi sympathizers” during World War II. The crazed adherents of Identity Politics are hardly the first to want to silence their critics. Get them fired from their job, and rendered unemployable. And increasingly, prosecuted for their Thought Crimes. Those opposing Lincoln’s mad war and suppression of civil liberties were the Thought Criminals of their time, long before Orwell gave a name to them. Everyone reading this little missive is a modern day Thought Criminal. There are millions of us. Is there room in their overcrowded prisons for all of us? As Lord Acton, the great lover of liberty who was friends with Robert E. Lee, not Ulysses S. Grant, reminded us; power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Those in power in America 2.0 are absolutely corrupt. How many of us truly believe in free speech? Almost everyone has a big “but,” to quote the late Pee Wee Herman. Sure, I’m for free speech but…not for “Holocaust denial.” Disbelievers in the Apollo moon landings. Or their even more extreme bedfellows, the flat earthers. Those who think mass shootings were a hoax, or “fake news.” White people outraged by the Great Replacement. Just referring to the Great Replacement can get you canceled, unless you’re supporting such a thing. Which all of our horrific leaders do. Try mentioning how the average American woman today weighs what the average American man did sixty years ago, and see what happens. There are a lot of caveats to the mainstream ideal of “free speech.” The symbolic prosecutions, these figurative “fire in a crowded theater” abridgements of free speech, are in full swing. Alex Jones supposedly owes nearly a billion dollars to selective Sandy Hook parents. And now any mention of Sandy Hook is even more anathema to public discourse than the Great Replacement is. Jones also apologized for “Pizzagate.” Which was ridiculous; look at those disturbing pictures on Instagram, and the Podesta emails published by Wikileaks. If Donald Trump had paintings of children with freshly spanked bottoms on the walls of Mar-a-Lago, do you think it might be reacted to differently than it was in the case of Podesta’s brother? Now Rudy Giuliani owes almost $150 million to two particular “offended” election poll workers? The only acknowledged exceptions to free speech at one point were overtly slanderous or libelous comments. This is understandable; people do have a right to protect their reputation. But it’s a slippery slope, and obviously applied in a wildly unfair manner. There’s a fine line between libel and justified criticism. Donald Trump, think whatever you want to think of him, has been the object of slander from numerous national figures. This includes physical and even death threats. But if Trump ever brought a slander suit against the Fake Media he rages against, it would be laughed out of every courtroom. Because it’s Trump, not because it isn’t slander. Obama, Clinton, Biden- they’d all be treated much more respectfully by this hopelessly corrupt, Tik Tok “justice” system of ours. Some slander is more equal than others. But slander and libel have been supplanted now by the Orwellian term “hate speech.” Which has been accepted by almost everyone, even though the very term immediately destroys any concept of free speech. And now “disinformation” and “misinformation,” entirely subjective terms (like “hate speech”), are being bandied about as potential “crimes.” This is essentially what Jones and Trump are being prosecuted for; the notion that they are misleading others with speech that the State finds “offensive,” or “racist,” or “disinformation/misinformation.” Trump is being tried in court for contesting the results of an election. And for exaggerating the value of his assets. That doesn’t seem to worry most Americans. They need to remember that whole, “First they came for the Communists” thing. Don’t think they won’t come after you. If we were really protected by the First Amendment, then there would be no possibility of being prosecuted for our views on an election. Or a virus. Or a vaccine. Or any historical event. Every opinion is protected under the First Amendment. Well, theoretically. If you say something “offensive” to any of the groups and individuals that are allowed to be perpetually “offended,” then you are now subject to a politicized prosecution. No one should want to go anywhere near one of our Orwellian courtrooms. They’re nearly as dangerous as hospitals. Thought Criminals, by definition, are not being pursued for their actions. They aren’t robbers. Or rapists. Or murderers. It’s a difficult task to prosecute the thoughts of others. But our authoritarian leaders are up to that task. And millions are complicit by their silence. Today, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube ban, suspend and “cancel” those users who have unwelcome views. First Amendment be damned. As the “conservative” defenders of the cancel culture remind us, “They’re private companies! They have a right to ban people!” As I would respond, you mean like restaurants, for instance? So did business owners in the segregated south have a right to deny service to certain people? They don’t need a reason, right? After all, they’re private companies! What exactly is the difference between denying admission to a restaurant, or a store, or a neighborhood, on the basis of skin color, or on the basis of political philosophy? Or even simply wearing a MAGA hat? It’s a selective discrimination thing, you wouldn’t understand. It isn’t easy being a true supporter of free speech, in a society that doesn’t value it. Where more people than not are fine with stipulations on it. “The First Amendment doesn’t protect hate speech,” their nauseating mouthpieces in our state controlled media will bleat, as effortlessly as they will bleat “Oswald killed Kennedy” or “Diversity is our Strength.” The word “hate” doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bill of Rights, or the Constitution itself. But there is no one there to counter them when they make these statements, which are disinformation if anything is. I’ll be waiting for someone, perhaps a member of the loyal “opposition,” to point that out. But fewer people have probably read the Constitution than have read the Bible. I thought the internet was beyond their control. They let us have unfettered access to true diversity of thought for a few decades. But the social media conglomerates gave them their opening. FDR “canceled” the editors and radio commentators of his day. Now, the “Woke” leftists can get big tech to deny access to crucial internet platforms to those who write or say discouraging words. Many in the alt media cheered the de-platforming of Alex Jones. YouTube and Facebook are shells of their former selves. Many like me are “shadow banned.” They restrict our access to a larger audience. That’s one way to control the competition. FDR and Lincoln would have loved it. What they ideally want is an FCC to control internet content. Millions of Americans don’t believe in God. So they don’t value rights that the Founders said come from God. The Right, though victimized by politicized prosecutions in America 2.0, hardly believe in true free speech. Witness their reaction to the mostly nonwhite students on college campuses, protesting Israel’s brutal retaliation against the Palestinians. At Harvard, these students were “doxxed,” just like so many right-wingers have been. Their names were published, and powerful Jewish businessmen tried to blacklist them from employment. Most conservatives, being Zionist defenders of Israel, applauded this particular “canceling” on campus. It was educational to watch the Ben Shapiros and Meghan Kellys of the world display such obvious hypocrisy. Everyone seems fine with suppressing some speech. Who supports all speech? We are at war. I’m not referring to the continuous interventionism in other, smaller sovereign nations, which is the foundation of our disastrous “bipartisan” foreign policy. Our leaders are at odds with the concept of free speech. They hate it more than they supposedly hated any foreign bogeyman. I don’t know why they just don’t treat the Bill of Rights like a troublesome Confederate memorial, and remove it from the Constitution. All they’d have to do is declare it’s “racist,” and the majority of White people would start cucking and jiving. If sleep, and birds, and proper grammar, are “racist,” why not free speech? If you don’t have free speech, you don’t have a free country. No one to “hate us for our freedom.” Democracy isn’t threatened by any speech. But we are threatened by those who don’t believe in freedom of speech. Maybe we can start up a new American Civil Liberties Union. One that is, you know, actually concerned about the protection of civil liberties. Civil liberties begins with free speech. If you can’t say what you want, it’s obvious you can’t do what you want. The mass arrests after the truly mostly peaceful January 6 protest demonstrated that we don’t have the right to peacefully assemble, as is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Well, some do. BLM, for instance. It’s not about protest, or speech, itself. It’s about what the speakers and protesters are speaking or protesting. Abridged speech is not free speech. If you don’t support speech you disagree with, you don’t support free speech. Some speech is not more equal than others.
Attention: World "Economic" Forum (WEF) and Asshole Politicians in Ireland... Go Fuck Yourselves !!! Act for the Irish peoples at the link below... https://freespeechireland.ie/TakeAction/ https://twitter.com/FreeSpeechIre/status/1746854766032846910 Free Speech Ireland @FreeSpeechIre The Irish government wants to pass a law that could see you or your loved ones jailed for possession of memes, cartoons or any content that could be deemed "hateful". The Bill includes no definition of hate and is wide open to abuse by bad actors. Defend free speech – say no to this legislation. Sign the petition: freespeechireland.ie/TakeAct… #BinTheBill This Bill will have major consequences for Freedom of Speech in Ireland and around the world. Now more than ever, the scale of what we could be doing has outpaced what we can do. If you can, please support us. #BinTheBill Watch this video... - I’m sure Trudeau is very upset that his government didn’t propose this first - The Thought Police is here. Literally. - The fact that we even need to protest such crap is terrifying. - I can smell Stalin
Attention: Asshole Globalist Elites, and Pussy Self-Preserving Corrupt Members Parliaments... Your Legacy has Expired... Go Fuck Yourselves !!! https://www.tickettailor.com/events/freespeechireland/1113638 https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/dublin-universities-afaf-branch-launch-meetin... " Sullivan stated that the Bill contains “very invasive search powers on the grounds of material that hasn't even yet been communicated.” Asked about potential parallels to the situation in the U.K., where police have raided houses for offensive tweets, Sullivan said, “I think the fact that many of these offences are vaguely worded is concerning.” @HMcEntee has dismissed objections to her Bill's lack of a definition for 'hate', stating that “we all have an understanding of what hatred means.” But Sullivan says that “there are requirements that criminal law be clear.” " https://www.afaf.org.uk/free-speech-ireland/ https://europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/the-brussels-led-pathol... https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1855968/leo-varadkar-elon-musk-Hate-... https://twitter.com/Shellenberger https://twitter.com/SpeechUnion @elonmusk Destroying freedom of speech means destroying democracy https://thehill.com/opinion/4387994-proposed-irish-hate-speech-regulations-c... "Just because they're attractive white blonde females, doesn't make them not leftist globalist tyrants... honeytraps, trojan horses for the Schwab'ian regime that should be booted from office and power immediately." https://www.cnam.ie/coimisiun-na-mean-opens-public-consultation-on-irelands-... https://twitter.com/FreeSpeechIre/status/1745135457799745961 ⚠️ Civil Rights Alert: The below screenshot is from @CNaM_ie's draft Online Safety Code. CnaM have been given authority by Dublin & Brussels to regulate Video-Sharing Platform Services (VSPS), such as @X, @YouTube, & @facebook. Through their Code, CnaM are proposing to make VSPS penalisable for 'harmful content' posted by users. Most notable, 𝗩𝗦𝗣𝗦 𝘄𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗯𝗲 𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗼𝘀 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗺𝗳𝘂𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁, or as they say “content that is indissociable from user-generated videos.” This would mean to avoid penalties, platforms such as X would need to censor user content that is not even regarded as 'harmful' under the Code. While these regulations are to be enforced in Ireland, they could lead to censorship worldwide. The offices of many of the VSPS based in Dublin are their European headquarters. Brussels-based journalist @PeterCaddle says such censorship could soon hit America as it will “likely be easier to apply EU censorship rules to all users rather than to try to split the user base into EU and non-EU users.” The deadline for submissions for the consultation on the draft Online Safety Code is the 31st of January. Details can be found here.
GovCorp Deep State and Democrat 1984 PsyOps keep getting exposed. https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1752466469454061656 Ep. 70 Governments colluded to shut down and destroy Russell Brand. This is his first interview since that happened. Watch it when you get a minute. It's one of the most brilliant explanations of the modern world you'll ever hear. See also: Max Igan, David Icke, Alex Jones The Conspiracy Theorists were always right, it's now all Conspiracy Fact.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1758529993280205039 Conversation between Tucker Carlson and @MikeBenzCyber Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. "What I’m describing is military rule," says Mike Benz. "It’s the inversion of democracy."
participants (8)
-
Cari Matchit -
coderman -
Douglas Lucas -
grarpamp -
jim bell -
Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 -
Steven Schear -
Zenaan Harkness