Re: FreeSpeech and Censorship: Thread
US Left-Dem Wokesters Forcibly Topple and Erase History to Prop Up Baphomet... Illinois State Capitol Approves Satanic Monument https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHFs6zPVIlY The separation of church and state is a principle fundamental to the United States' constitution. Along with sanctifying the free exercise of religion, the establishment clause forbids the state from advancing a singular belief system above others. Balancing the diverse religious demographics of the United States is no easy task and its difficulty is magnified during the Christmas season as nativity scenes and other decor often attract objections from those who do not adhere to the Christian faith. This year, the Illinois State Capitol finds itself marred in controversy yet again as Christmas approaches but for reasons entirely antithetical to any display detracted from for advancing the Christian religion. For the third straight year, the Illinois State Capitol has decided to approve a display erected by the Church of Satan. This is the third display approved by the Satanic religious group, with the first instance occurring in 2018 then again in 2019 with a pause during 2020 due to pandemic restrictions before being showcased again this year. The 2021 edition of the Church of Satan's display beneath the Capitol rotunda is to mark its holiday of Sol Invictus, which will be observed on December 25th -- Christmas day. The "deity" Baphomet is the centerpiece of the display, transformed into an infantile interpretation of the Éliphas Lévi illustration included in the French occultist's 1856 treatise Dogma and Ritual of High Magic by an Albuquerque-based artist named Chris P. Andres. Lévi's image of Baphomet was incorporated into the pentagram designed by fellow French occultist Stanislas de Guaita in his 1897 work The Key to Black Magic which would be adopted as the Church of Satan's official seal following its creation in 1966 by Anton LaVey. The Church of Satan's holiday of Sol Invictus is a vestige of the pagan origins of Christmas. Sol Invictus was the sun god within the Roman pantheon of deity's whose festival was observed toward the end of what was previously celebrated as Saturnalia. The Cult of Sol Invictus in Rome still remains shrouded in mystery. Some historians view it as a mystery school similar to the Mithraic order that Constantine The Great belonged to while others view it as an Aurelian era revival of the cult of the late Roman Emperor Antoninus, who took the name Elagabalus after the Syrian sun god who he worshiped. Elagabalus was the first and only transsexual Roman Emperor who was assassinated in 222 AD, decades before the Cult of Sol Invictus arose. Regardless of the history of its origins, the contemporaneous celebration of the Satanic iteration of the holiday of Sol Invictus has been met with expected opposition. Bishop Thomas Parocki of the Diocese of Springfield, Illinois voiced his vitriol of the Satanic display vociferously. The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property supported the diocese dissent by convening for prayer at the Capitol. Despite the outcry against the Satanic monument, organizations opposing it would be hard-pressed to accuse the Illinois State Capitol of advancing one religion over another. Since November 30th, the Capitol has also hosted a nativity scene of the birth of Jesus Christ erected by the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee. The Capitol also hosted a ceremony of the nativity scene on its own grounds when it was completed. The Sol Invictus display is another instance of the Church of Satan's public relations efforts. The organization recently filed a legal challenge to the State of Texas Heartbeat Bill claiming that its ceremonial practice of abortion was protected under the first amendment and their rights were violated by the law accordingly. For all its effort on the public relations front, the Church of Satan would have been prudent to invest more in legal research. Laws which act in the general welfare of a state interest like public health affecting but not designed to specifically inhibit religious exercise have been ruled upheld as constitutional following the 1998 case Employment Division v. Smith and subsequent case law affirming the precedent it sent. For all the benevolent intent it espouses by consecrating its Sol Invictus monument, the Church of Satan is less enthusiastic about discussing the exploitative practices of its founder as well as the checkered history of its other founding members. Michael Aquino, who died in 2020, was a priest within Church of Satan before starting The Temple of Set following his departure from LaVey's order. Aquino was famously renowned for his role pioneering psychological warfare linked to the CIA's notorious Project MKUltra as well as connections to child molestation cases at the Presidio daycare center in San Francisco and others linked to Lawrence E. King's criminal enterprise uncovered by the FBI's investigation into the Franklin Credit Union fraud scandal. Although there is plenty of reason to debate the integrity of the Church of Satan, the central question of the constitutionality of their display at the Illinois State Capitol is less debatable. In 2019, the United States' government officially recognized the Church of Satan as a religion under federal law. That year, the Church of Satan was awarded tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Service Code. Despite claiming that status, the Church of Satan has repeatedly contended that it is a non-theistic group with most members joining for entirely secular reasons. The decision of the Illinois State Capitol to display the Church of Satan's latest monument on its grounds is a perfect display of how difficult balancing the interests of different religious groups can become. While objections to the Baphomet monument continue to be raised, they are protected under the same amendment that protects the Church of Satan's freedom to exercise its religious beliefs. While the Church of Satan erected the display to symbolize its holiday of Sol Invictus, it does much more than represent an esoteric holiday -- it illustrates the starkly juxtaposed directions followed by citizens in an increasingly polarized society with eschatological undertones that are more becoming of the prophesized end times than the revelries of the holiday season.
https://www.bitchute.com/channel/specializedtom/ Banned Youtube Videos
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-folly-of-pandemic-censorship Taibbi: The Folly Of Pandemic Censorship Earlier this week, in the latest in a series of scolding campaigns, a Britain-based group called the Center for Countering Digital Hate gave a sneak peek at a research report on Substack to The Guardian and The Washington Post. Both outlets came out with their scare pieces this morning. From The Guardian: A group of vaccine-skeptic writers are generating revenues of at least $2.5m (£1.85m) a year from publishing newsletters for tens of thousands of followers on the online publishing platform Substack, according to new research… Imran Ahmed, chief executive of CCDH, said companies like Substack were under “no obligation” to amplify vaccine skepticism and make money from it. “They could just say no…” The Post, citing “some misinformation experts say” — the pandemic version of “people familiar with the matter” — added: These newer platforms cater to subscribers who seek out specific content that accommodates their viewpoints — potentially making the services less responsible for spreading harmful views, some misinformation experts say. If these stories sound familiar, it’s because this same Center for Countering Digital Hate two years ago tried to pull the same stunt with The Federalist, using NBC to ask Google to crack down on them. Humorously, and typically — this happens a lot with these stories — that effort ended in fiasco. The piece NBC ended up writing boasting of the success of its “Verification Unit” in getting the site demonetized, entitled, “Google bans two websites from its ad platform over protest articles,” turned out to itself be misinformation. The Federalist was never banned, only warned, and the issue was its comments section, not its articles. Google had to issue a statement: The Federalist was never demonetized. — Google Communications (@Google_Comms) June 16, 2020 Substack is home to tens of thousands of writers and over a million paying subscribers, quadruple last year’s total of 250,000. The sites range from newsletters for comics enthusiasts to crypto news to recipe ideas. Like the Internet as a whole, it’s basically a catalogue of everything. Still, panic campaigns in legacy press consistently focus on handfuls of sites, and with impressive dishonesty describe them as representative. I was particularly struck by a recent Mashable article that talked about a supposed “backlash” against Substack’s “growing collection of anti-trans writers,” which seemed to refer to Jesse Singal (who is no such thing) and Graham Linehan and — that’s it. Substack is actually home to more trans writers than any other outlet, but to the Scolding Class, that’s not the point. The company’s real crime is that it refuses to submit to pressure campaigns and strike off Wrongthinkers. Substack is designed to be difficult to censor. Because content is sent by email, it’s not easy to pressure platforms to zap offending material. It doesn’t depend on advertisers, so you can’t lean on them, either. The only real pressure points are company executives like Hamish McKenzie and Chris Best, who are now regular targets of these ham-fisted campaigns demanding they discipline writers. The latest presents Substack as a place where, as Mashable put it, “COVID misinformation is allowed to flourish.” The objections mainly center around Joseph Mercola, Alex Berenson, and Robert Malone. There are issues with the specific critiques of each, but those aren’t the point. Every one of these campaigns revolves around the same larger problem: would-be censors misunderstanding the basic calculus of the freedom of speech. Even in a society with fairly robust protections, as ours once was, the most dangerous misinformation is always, without exception, official. Whether it’s WMDs or the Gulf of Tonkin fiasco or the missile gap or the red scare or the twenty-year occupation of Afghanistan, the worst real-world disasters always turn out to be driven or enabled by official falsehoods. In the case of Afghanistan (and Iraq, and Vietnam before both), the cycle of war disaster was perpetuated by a sweeping, organized, and intricate system of official lying, about everything from the success of missions to the efficacy of weaponry to the political devotion of supposed allies. The only defense against these most dangerous types of deceptions is an absolutely free press. People know authorities lie, which is why the more they clamp down, the bigger their trust problem usually becomes. Unfortunately, censors by nature can’t help themselves. Our official liars are always trying to learn from their errors. For instance, film of wounded, suffering, or dead American boys, as well as of the atrocities we committed, not only resulted in pressure to end the Vietnam War, but probably prevented future invasions of countries like Nicaragua, as voters recalled the sickening “quagmire.” Military officials saw this, and when they finally got to go to war again, they banned the filming of coffins and instituted an embed system that closed off the bulk of adversarial reporting. Of course, that was not enough, because organizations like Wikileaks found ways to sneak out forbidden pictures. So, the powers that be imposed much tougher penalties on whistleblowers going forward. Instead of letting the Daniel Ellsbergs of the world write books and give lectures, the new reality for people like Julian Assange or Edward Snowden is permanent exile or imprisonment. The jailers seem quite proud of this, but the unofficial pseudo-ban on Assange coverage has only added to the impression of a not-free, certainly not trustworthy system of media. Instead of seeing the root causes of this atmosphere of rapidly declining trust, officials keep pushing for even more sweeping campaigns of control, most recently seeking to make platforms like Google and Twitter arbiters of speech. I’ve used Substack to show the amazingly diverse range of speech deemed unallowable on private platforms, from raw footage of both anti-Trump protests and the January 6th riots, to satirical videos no one had even seen yet, to advocates and detractors of the medication Ivermectin, to a Jewish tweeter’s pictorial account of Hitler’s life, to a now proven-true expose about the president’s son. The latter case is on point, because the widely distributed story that the New York Post’s Hunter Biden report was Russian disinformation was the actual disinformation. If the fact-checkers are themselves untrustworthy, and you can’t get around the fact-checkers, that’s when you’re really screwed. This puts the issue of the reliability of authorities front and center, which is the main problem with pandemic messaging. One does not need to be a medical expert to see that the FDA, CDC, the NIH, as well as the White House (both under Biden and Trump) have all been untruthful, or wrong, or inconsistent, about a spectacular range of issues in the last two years. NIAID director Anthony Fauci has told three different stories about masks, including an episode in which he essentially claimed to have lied to us for our own good, in order to preserve masks for frontline workers — what Slate called one of the “Noble lies about Covid-19.” Officials turned out to be wrong about cloth masks anyway. Here is Fauci again on the issue of what to tell the public about how many people would need to be vaccinated to achieve “herd immunity,” casually explaining the logic of lying to the public for its sake: When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent. Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, “I can nudge this up a bit,” so I went to 80, 85. We’ve seen sudden changes in official positions on the efficacy of ventilators and lockdowns, on the dangers (or lack thereof) of opening schools, and on the risks, however small, of vaccine side effects like myocarditis. The CDC also just released data showing natural immunity to be more effective in preventing hospitalization and in preventing infection than vaccination. The government had previously said, over and over, that vaccination is preferable to natural immunity (here’s NIH director Francis Collins telling that to Bret Baier unequivocally in August). This was apparently another “noble lie,” designed to inspire people to get vaccinated, that mostly just convinced people to wonder if any official statements can be trusted. To me, the story most illustrative of the problem inherent in policing “Covid misinformation” involves a town hall by Joe Biden from July 21 of last year. In it, the president said bluntly, “You’re not going to get COVID if you have these vaccinations,” pretty much the definition of Covid misinformation: It was bad enough when, a month later, the CDC released figures showing 25% of a sample of 43,000 Covid cases involved fully vaccinated people. Far worse was a fact-check by Politifact, which judged Biden’s clearly wrong statement “half true.” “It is rare for people who are fully vaccinated to contract COVID-19, but it does happen,” the site wrote. They then cited CDC data as backup. “The data that the CDC collected before May 1 show that, of 101 million people vaccinated in the U.S., 10,262 (0.01%) experienced breakthrough cases.” Politifact’s “bottom line”: Biden “exaggerated,” but “cases are rare.” Anyone paying attention to that story will now distrust the president, the CDC, and “reputable” mainstream fact-checkers like the Pew Center’s Politifact. These are the exact sort of authorities whose guidance sites like the Center for Countering Digital Hate will rely upon when trying to pressure companies like Substack to remove certain voices. This is the central problem of any “content moderation” scheme: somebody has to do the judging. The only thing worse than a landscape that contains misinformation is a landscape where misinformation is mandatory, and the only antidote for the latter is allowing all criticism, mistakes included. This is especially the case in a situation like the present, where the two-year clown show of lies and shifting positions by officials and media scolds has created a groundswell of mistrust that’s a far bigger threat to public health than a literal handful of Substack writers. About that: here’s the lede of a BBC report about an incident that took place in December, called “Australia police arrest quarantine escapees”: Australian police have arrested three people who broke out of a Covid quarantine compound in the middle of the night. The Howard Springs centre near Darwin in the Northern Territory is one of Australia’s main quarantine facilities for people returning to the country. Police said the trio scaled a fence to break out of the facility. Officers found them after a manhunt on Wednesday. All had tested negative to Covid the day before. Although I’m very much not a fan of Dr. Joseph Mercola’s, the fact that the CCDH wants to shut down articles like his “The Unvaxxed May Soon Be Shipped to Quarantine Camps” — which among other things contains passages about the Australian program — shows how little they understand about how media audiences think. As is the case with the Assange story, the paucity of information in mainstream press about the serious draconian measures in places like Australia and Germany has already massively heightened distrust in those outlets and in official reassurances. The “nothing to see here” attitude about the potential downsides of authoritarian policies has reached sick joke status (see Russell Brand’s hilarious but depressing take on the Australia situation here). As the Substack folks themselves pointed out today, our society has a trust problem, and attempts to sweep it under a rug only make things worse. Censors have a fantasy that if they get rid of all the Berensons and Mercolas and Malones, and rein in people like Joe Rogan, that all the holdouts will suddenly rush to get vaccinated. The opposite is true. If you wipe out critics, people will immediately default to higher levels of suspicion. They will now be sure there’s something wrong with the vaccine. If you want to convince audiences, you have to allow everyone to talk, even the ones you disagree with. You have to make a better case. The Substack people, thank God, still get this, but the censor’s disease of thinking there are shortcuts to trust is spreading. Lastly, while the Post certainly has its own problems in this area, the Guardian editors should puke with shame for even thinking about condemning anyone else’s “misinformation,” while their own fake story about Assange’s “secret talks” with Paul Manafort in the Ecuadorian embassy remains up. Leaving an obvious hoax uncorrected will tend to create a credibility problem, and you compound it by pointing a finger elsewhere. This is a lesson in this for health authorities, too. Clean your own houses, and maybe you won’t have such a hard time being believed. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-folly-of-pandemic-censorship https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/27/anti-vaxxers-making-at-le... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/sep/20/what-is-substack-and-why-is-it... https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-washington-post-steele-... https://web.archive.org/web/20200616191520/https:/www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-... https://twitter.com/Google_Comms/status/1272997425821540352 https://taibbi.substack.com/p/another-humorous-substack-panic https://jefflemire.substack.com/ https://willywoo.substack.com/ https://anewsletter.alisoneroman.com/ https://mashable.com/article/substack-covid-misinformation https://doyles.substack.com/p/in-queers-we-trust-all-others-pay https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/investigations/afghanistan-pape... https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-ford-fischer https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-status-coup https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-matt-orfalea https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-bret-weinstein https://scheerpost.com/2021/09/02/meet-the-censored-ivermectin-critic-david-... https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-hitler https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-bidens-is-the-first-family-corrupt https://taibbi.substack.com/p/with-the-hunter-biden-expose-suppression-136 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-... https://slate.com/technology/2021/07/noble-lies-covid-fauci-cdc-masks.html https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/01/14/world/omicron-covid-vaccine-tests https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizerbiontech-c... https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-high-cost-of-disparaging-natural-immunity-t... https://www.youtube.com/embed/wST_Oo1osdA https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-data-show-ris... https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/22/joe-biden/biden-exaggerate... https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-59486285 https://takecontrol.substack.com/p/quarantine-camps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_os74m9uFI https://on.substack.com/p/society-has-a-trust-problem-more https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/media-washington-post-steele-... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-w...
Another fine work from Greenwald... Greenwald: Pressure Campaign To Remove Joe Rogan From Spotify Reveals Liberal Religion Of Censorship https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-pressure-campaign-on-spotify Sunday, Jan 30, 2022 [89]Authored by Glenn Greenwald, American liberals are obsessed with finding ways to silence and censor their adversaries. Every week, if not every day, they have new targets they want de-platformed, banned, silenced, and otherwise prevented from speaking or being heard (by "liberals,” I mean the term of self-description used by the [90]dominant wing of the Democratic Party). [91][IMG][92]Joe Rogan interviews Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on Aug. 6, 2019, roughly six months before he endorsed the Vermont independent for president. For years, their preferred censorship tactic was to expand and distort the concept of "hate speech” to mean "views that make us uncomfortable,” and then demand that such “hateful” views be prohibited on that basis. For that reason, it is now common to hear Democrats assert, [93]falsely, that the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech does not protect “hate speech." Their political culture has long inculcated them to believe that they can comfortably silence whatever views they arbitrarily place into this category without being guilty of censorship. Constitutional illiteracy to the side, the “hate speech” framework for justifying censorship is now insufficient because liberals are eager to silence a much broader range of voices than those they can credibly accuse of being hateful. That is why the newest, and now most popular, censorship framework is to claim that their targets are guilty of spreading “misinformation” or “disinformation.” These terms, by design, have no clear or concise meaning. Like the term “terrorism,” it is their elasticity that makes them so useful. When liberals’ favorite media outlets, from CNN and NBC to The New York Times and The Atlantic, spend [94]four years disseminating one fabricated Russia story after the next — from the Kremlin hacking into Vermont's heating system and Putin's sexual blackmail over Trump to [95]bounties on the heads of U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan, the [96]Biden email archive being "Russian disinformation,” and a [97]magical mystery weapon that injures American brains with cricket noises — none of that is "disinformation” that requires banishment. Nor are false claims that COVID's origin has proven to be zoonotic rather than a lab leak, the vastly overstated claim that vaccines prevent transmission of COVID, or that Julian Assange [98]stole classified documents and caused people to die. Corporate outlets beloved by liberals are free to spout serious falsehoods without being deemed guilty of disinformation, and, because of that, do so routinely. This "disinformation" term is reserved for those who question liberal pieties, not for those devoted to affirming them. That is the real functional definition of “disinformation” and of its little cousin, “misinformation.” It is not possible to disagree with liberals or see the world differently than they see it. The only two choices are unthinking submission to their dogma or acting as an agent of "disinformation.” Dissent does not exist to them; any deviation from their worldview is inherently dangerous — to the point that it cannot be heard. The [99]data proving a deeply radical authoritarian strain in Trump-era Democratic Party politics is ample and have been extensively reported here. Democrats [100]overwhelmingly trust and love the FBI and CIA. Polls show they [101]overwhelmingly favor censorship of the internet not only by Big Tech oligarchs but also by the state. Leading Democratic Party politicians have repeatedly subpoenaed social media executives and [102]explicitly threatened them with legal and regulatory reprisals if they do not censor more aggressively — a likely violation of the First Amendment given decades of case law ruling that state officials are barred from coercing private actors to censor for them, in ways the Constitution prohibits them from doing directly. Democratic officials have used the pretexts of COVID, “the insurrection," and Russia to justify their censorship demands. Both Joe Biden and his Surgeon General, Vivek Murthy, have [103]"urged” Silicon Valley to [104]censor more when asked about Joe Rogan and others who air what they call “disinformation” about COVID. They [105]cheered the use of pro-prosecutor tactics against Michael Flynn and other Russiagate targets; made a hero out of the Capitol Hill Police officer who [106]shot and killed the unarmed Ashli Babbitt; voted for an [107]additional $2 billion to expand the functions of the Capitol Police; have [108]demanded and obtained lengthy prison sentences and solitary confinement even for non-violent 1/6 defendants; and even seek to [109]import the War on Terror onto domestic soil. Given the climate prevailing in the American liberal faction, this authoritarianism is anything but surprising. For those who convince themselves that they are not battling mere political opponents with a different ideology but a fascist movement led by a Hitler-like figure bent on imposing totalitarianism — a core, defining belief of modern-day Democratic Party politics — it is virtually inevitable that they will embrace authoritarianism. When a political movement is subsumed by fear — the Orange Hitler will put you in camps and end democracy if he wins again — then it is not only expected but even rational to embrace authoritarian tactics including censorship to stave off this existential threat. Fear always breeds authoritarianism, which is why manipulating and stimulating that human instinct is the favorite tactic of political demagogues. And when it comes to authoritarian tactics, censorship has become the liberals’ North Star. Every week brings news of a newly banished heretic. Liberals cheered the news last week that Google's YouTube [110]permanently banned the extremely popular video channel of conservative commentator Dan Bongino. His permanent ban was imposed for the crime of announcing that, moving forward, he would post all of his videos exclusively on the [111]free speech video platform Rumble after he received a seven-day suspension from Google's overlords for spreading supposed COVID “disinformation.” What was Bongino's prohibited view that prompted that suspension? He [112]claimed cloth masks do not work to stop the spread of COVID, a view [113]shared by [114]numerous experts and, at least in part, by [115]the CDC. When Bongino disobeyed the seven-day suspension by using an alternative YouTube channel to announce his move to Rumble, liberals cheered Google's permanent ban because the only thing liberals hate more than platforms that allow diverse views are people failing to obey rules imposed by corporate authorities. It is not hyperbole to observe that there is now a concerted war on any platforms devoted to free discourse and which refuse to capitulate to the demands of Democratic politicians and liberal activists to censor. The spear of the attack are corporate media outlets, who demonize and try to render radioactive any platforms that allow free speech to flourish. When Rumble announced that a group of free speech advocates — including myself, former Democratic Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, comedian Bridget Phetasy, former Sanders campaign videographer Matt Orfalea and journalist Zaid Jilani — would produce video content for Rumble, The Washington Post immediately published [116]a hit piece, relying exclusively on a Google-and-Facebook-aligned so-called "disinformation expert” to malign Rumble as "one of the main platforms for conspiracy communities and far-right communities in the U.S. and around the world” and a place “where conspiracies thrive," all caused by Rumble's "allowing such videos to remain on the site unmoderated.” (The narrative about Rumble is particular bizarre since its Canadian founder and still-CEO, Chris Pavlovski [117]created Rumble in 2013 with apolitical goals — to allow small content creators abandoned by YouTube to monetize their content — and is very far from an adherent to right-wing ideology). The same attack was launched, and is still underway, against Substack, also for the crime of refusing to ban writers deemed by liberal corporate outlets and activists to be hateful and/or fonts of disinformation. After the [118]first wave of liberal attacks on Substack failed — that script was that it is a place for anti-trans animus and harassment — The Post returned this week for round two, with a [119]paint-by-numbers hit piece virtually identical to the one it published last year about Rumble. “Newsletter company Substack is making millions off anti-vaccine content, according to estimates,” blared the sub-headline. “Prominent figures known for spreading misinformation, such as [Joseph] Mercola, have flocked to Substack, podcasting platforms and a growing number of right-wing social media networks over the past year after getting kicked off or restricted on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube,” warned the Post. It is, evidently, extremely dangerous to society for voices to still be heard once Google decrees they should not be. This Post attack on Substack predictably provoked expressions of Serious Concern from good and responsible liberals. That included Chelsea Clinton, who lamented that Substack is profiting off a “grift.” Apparently, this political heiress — who is one of the world's richest individuals by virtue of winning the birth lottery of being born to rich and powerful parents, who in turn enriched themselves by [120]cashing in on their political influence in exchange for $750,000 paychecks from Goldman Sachs for 45-minute speeches, and who herself somehow was [121]showered with a $600,000 annual contract from NBC News despite no qualifications — believes she is in a position to accuse others of "grifting.” She also appears to believe that — despite welcoming convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell to her wedding to a hedge fund oligarch whose father was expelled from Congress after his conviction on thirty-one counts of felony fraud — she is entitled to decree who should and should not be allowed to have a writing platform: [122][IMG] This Post-manufactured narrative about Substack instantly metastasized throughout the liberal sect of media. “Anti-vaxxers making ‘at least $2.5m’ a year from publishing on Substack,” read the headline of The Guardian, the paper that in 2018 [123]published the outright lie that Julian Assange met twice with Paul Manafort inside the Ecuadorian Embassy and refuses to this day to retract it (i.e., “disinformation"). Like The Post, the British paper cited one of the seemingly endless number of shady pro-censorship groups — this one calling itself the “Center for Countering Digital Hate” — to argue for greater censorship by Substack. “They could just say no,” said the group's director, who has apparently convinced himself he should be able to dictate what views should and should not be aired: “This isn’t about freedom; this is about profiting from lies. . . . Substack should immediately stop profiting from medical misinformation that can seriously harm readers.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The emerging campaign to pressure Spotify to remove Joe Rogan from its platform is perhaps the most illustrative episode yet of both the dynamics at play and the desperation of liberals to ban anyone off-key. It was only a matter of time before this effort really galvanized in earnest. Rogan has simply become too influential, with [124]too large of an audience of young people, for the liberal establishment to tolerate his continuing to act up. Prior efforts to coerce, cajole, or manipulate Rogan to fall into line were abject failures. Shortly after The Wall Street Journal [125]reported in September, 2020 that Spotify employees were organizing to demand that some of Rogan's shows be removed from the platform, Rogan [126]invited Alex Jones onto his show: a rather strong statement that he was unwilling to obey decrees about who he could interview or what he could say. On Tuesday, musician Neil Young [127]demanded that Spotify either remove Rogan from its platform or cease featuring Young's music, claiming Rogan spreads COVID disinformation. Spotify [128]predictably sided with Rogan, their most popular podcaster in whose show they invested $100 million, by removing Young's music and keeping Rogan. The pressure on Spotify mildly intensified on Friday when singer Joni Mitchell [129]issued a similar demand. [130]All [131]sorts [132]of [133]censorship-mad [134]liberals [135]celebrated this effort to remove Rogan, then [136]vowed to [137]cancel their Spotify subscription in [138]protest of Spotify's refusal to capitulate for now; a [139]hashtag [140]urging the deletion of Spotify's app trended for days. Many bizarrely urged that [141]everyone buy music from Apple instead; apparently, handing over your cash to one of history's largest and richest corporations, repeatedly [142]linked to the use of slave labor, is the liberal version of subversive social justice. Spotify chose Joe Rogan over Neil Young. I’ll choose Apple Music over Spotify. — Jack Cocchiarella (@JDCocchiarella) [143]January 27, 2022 Obviously, Spotify is not going to jettison one of their biggest audience draws over a couple of faded septuagenarians from the 1960s. But if a current major star follows suit, it is not difficult to imagine a snowball effect. The goal of liberals with this tactic is to take any disobedient platform and either force it into line or punish it by drenching it with such negative attacks that nobody who craves acceptance in the parlors of Decent Liberal Society will risk being associated with it. “Prince Harry was under pressure to cut ties with Spotify yesterday after the streaming giant was accused of promoting anti-vax content,” [144]claimed The Daily Mail which, reliable or otherwise, is a certain sign of things to come. One could easily envision a tipping point being reached where a musician no longer makes an anti-Rogan statement by leaving the platform as Young and Mitchell just did, but instead will be accused of harboring pro-Rogan sentiments if they stay on Spotify. With the stock price of Spotify declining as these recent controversies around Rogan unfolded, a strategy in which Spotify is forced to choose between keeping Rogan or losing substantial musical star power could be more viable than it currently seems. “Spotify lost $4 billion in market value this week after rock icon [145]Neil Young called out the company for allowing comedian Joe Rogan to use its service to spread misinformation about the COVID vaccine on his popular podcast, 'The Joe Rogan Experience,’” is how The San Francisco Chronicle [146]put it (that Spotify's stock price dropped rather precipitously contemporaneously with this controversy is clear; less so is the causal connection, though it seems unlikely to be entire coincidental): [147][IMG] It is worth recalling that NBC News, in January, 2017, [148]announced that it had hired Megyn Kelly away from Fox News with a $69 million contract. The network had big plans for Kelly, whose first show debuted in June of that year. But barely more than a year later, Kelly's comments about blackface — in which she rhetorically wondered whether the notorious practice could be acceptable in the modern age with the right intent: such as a young white child paying homage to a beloved African-American sports or cultural figure on Halloween — so enraged liberals, both inside the now-liberal network and externally, that they demanded her firing. NBC decided it was worth firing Kelly — on whom they had placed so many hopes — and eating her enormous contract in order to assuage widespread liberal indignation. “The cancellation of the ex-Fox News host’s glossy morning show is a reminder that networks need to be more stringent when assessing the politics of their hirings,” [149]proclaimed The Guardian. Democrats are not only the dominant political faction in Washington, controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, but liberals in particular are clearly the hegemonic culture force in key institutions: media, academia and Hollywood. That is why it is a mistake to assume that we are near the end of their orgy of censorship and de-platforming victories. It is far more likely that we are much closer to the beginning than the end. The power to silence others is intoxicating. Once one gets a taste of its power, they rarely stop on their own. Indeed, it was once assumed that Silicon Valley giants steeped in the libertarian ethos of a free internet would be immune to demands to engage in political censorship ("content moderation” is the more palatable euphemism which liberal corporate media outlets prefer). But when the still-formidable megaphones of The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC News, CNN and the rest of the liberal media axis unite to accuse Big Tech executives of having blood on their hands and being responsible for the destruction of American democracy, that is still an effective enforcement mechanism. Billionaires are, like all humans, social and political animals and instinctively avoid ostracization and societal scorn. Beyond the personal interest in avoiding vilification, corporate executives can be made to censor against their will and in violation of their political ideology out of self-interest. The corporate media still has the ability to render a company toxic, and the Democratic Party more now than ever has the power to abuse their lawmaking and regulatory powers to impose real punishment for disobedience, as it has repeatedly threatened to do. If Facebook or Spotify are deemed to be so toxic that no Good Liberals can use them without being attacked as complicit in fascism, white supremacy or anti-vax fanaticism, then that will severely limit, if not entirely sabotage, a company's future viability. The one bright spot in all this — and it is a significant one — is that liberals have become such extremists in their quest to silence all adversaries that they are generating their own backlash, based in disgust for their tyrannical fanaticism. In response to the Post attack, Substack [150]issued a gloriously defiant statement re-affirming its commitment to guaranteeing free discourse. They also repudiated the hubristic belief that they are competent to act as arbiters of Truth and Falsity, Good and Bad. “Society has a trust problem. More censorship will only make it worse,” read the headline on the post from Substack's founders. The body of their post reads like a free speech manifesto: That’s why, as we face growing pressure to censor content published on Substack that to some seems dubious or objectionable, our answer remains the same: we make decisions based on principles not PR, we will defend free expression, and we will stick to our [151]hands-off approach to content moderation. While we have [152]content guidelines that allow us to protect the platform at the extremes, we will always view censorship as a last resort, because we believe open discourse is better for writers and better for society. A [153]lengthy Twitter thread from Substack's Vice President of Communications, Lulu Cheng Meservey was similarly encouraging and assertive. "I'm proud of our decision to defend free expression, even when it’s hard," she wrote, adding: "because: 1) We want a thriving ecosystem full of fresh and diverse ideas. That can’t happen without the freedom to experiment, or even to be wrong.” Regarding demands to de-platform those allegedly spreading COVID disinformation, she pointedly — and accurately — noted: “If everyone who has ever been wrong about this pandemic were silenced, there would be no one left talking about it at all.” And she, too, affirmed principles that every actual, genuine liberal — not the Nancy Pelosi kind — reflexively supports: People already mistrust institutions, media, and each other. Knowing that dissenting views are being suppressed makes that mistrust worse. Withstanding scrutiny makes truths stronger, not weaker. We made a promise to writers that this is a place they can pursue what they find meaningful, without coddling or controlling. We promised we wouldn’t come between them and their audiences. And we intend to keep our side of the agreement for every writer that keeps theirs. to think for themselves. They tend not to be conformists, and they have the confidence and strength of conviction not to be threatened by views that disagree with them or even disgust them. This is becoming increasingly rare. The U.K.'s Royal Society, its national academy of scientists, this month [154]echoed Substack's view that censorship, beyond its moral dimensions and political dangers, is ineffective and breeds even more distrust in pronouncements by authorities. “Governments and social media platforms should not rely on content removal for combatting harmful scientific misinformation online." "There is,” they concluded, "little evidence that calls for major platforms to remove offending content will limit scientific misinformation’s harms” and "such measures could even drive it to harder-to-address corners of the internet and exacerbate feelings of distrust in authorities.” As both Rogan's success and [155]collapsing faith and interest in traditional corporate media outlets proves, there is a growing hunger for discourse that is liberated from the tight controls of liberal media corporations and their petulant, herd-like employees. That is why other platforms devoted to similar principles of free discourse, such as Rumble for videos and Callin for podcasts, continue to thrive. It is certain that those platforms will continue to be targeted by institutional liberalism as they grow and allow more dissidents and heretics to be heard. Time will tell if they, too, will resist these censorship pressures, but the combination of genuine conviction on the part of their founders and managers, combined with the clear market opportunities for free speech platforms and heterodox thinkers, provides ample ground for optimism. None of this is to suggest that American liberals are the only political faction that succumbs to the strong temptations of censorships. Liberals often point to the growing fights over public school curricula and particularly the conservative campaign to exclude so-called Critical Race Theory from the public schools as proof that the American Right is also a pro-censorship faction. That is a poor example. Censorship is about what adults can hear, not what children are taught in public schools. Liberals crusaded for decades to have creationism banned from the public schools and [156]largely succeeded, yet few would suggest this was an act of censorship. For the reason I just gave, I certainly would define it that way. Fights over what children should and should not be taught can have a censorship dimension but usually do not, precisely because limits and prohibitions in school curricula are inevitable. There are indeed examples of right-wing censorship campaigns: among the worst are [157]laws implemented by GOP legislatures and championed by GOP governors to punish those who support a boycott of Israel by denying them contracts or other employment benefits. And among the [158]most frequent targets of censorship campaigns on college campuses are [159]critics of Israel and activists for Palestinian rights. But federal courts have been [160]unanimously striking down those indefensible red-state laws punishing BDS activists as [161]an unconstitutional infringement of free speech rights, and polling data, as noted above, shows that it is the Democrats who overwhelmingly favor internet censorship while Republicans oppose it. In sum, censorship — once the province of the American Right during the heydey of the Moral Majority of the 1980s — now occurs in isolated instances in that faction. In modern-day American liberalism, however, censorship is a virtual religion. They simply cannot abide the idea that anyone who thinks differently or sees the world differently than they should be heard. That is why there is much more at stake in this campaign to have Rogan removed from Spotify than whether this extremely popular podcast host will continue to be heard there or on another platform. If liberals succeed in pressuring Spotify to abandon their most valuable commodity, it will mean nobody is safe from their petty-tyrant tactics. But if they fail, it can embolden other platforms to similarly defy these bullying tactics, keeping our discourse a bit more free for just awhile longer. NOTE: Tonight at 7 pm EST, I will discuss the Rogan censorship campaign and the broader implications of the liberal fixation with censorship on my live Callin podcast. For now, live shows can be heard only with an iPhone and the Callin app — the app will be very shortly available on Androids for universal use — but all shows can be heard by everyone immediately after they are broadcast on the Callin website, [162]here. To support the independent journalism we are doing here, please [163]subscribe, obtain a [164]gift subscription for others and/or share the article 89. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-pressure-campaign-on-spotify 90. https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-xpm-2013-05-20-chi-ft-lunch-nancy... 93. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate 94. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarr... 95. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/journalists-learning-they-spread 96. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/biden-the-media-and-cia-labeled-the 97. https://rumble.com/vndi1n-the-latest-ciamedia-fraud-claiming-cricket-mating-... 98. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1470029431855058950 99. https://rumble.com/vnwyhz-the-mountain-of-data-showing-how-authoritarian-dem... 100. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1391455909386375171 101. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americans-now-say-gove... 102. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech 103. https://deadline.com/2022/01/joe-biden-covid-omicron-variant-media-123491190... 104. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/01/27/surgeon_general_murthy_re... 105. https://theintercept.com/2020/05/14/new-documents-from-the-sham-prosecution-... 106. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-c... 107. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-squad-enables-pelosis-massive 108. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-histrionics-and-melodrama-around 109. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-new-domestic-war-on-terror-has 110. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/26/youtube-ban-dan-bongino... 111. https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald 112. https://www.engadget.com/dan-bongino-suspended-youtube-covid-19-misinformati... 113. https://www.wsj.com/articles/cloth-face-mask-omicron-11640984082 114. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/589573-clot... 115. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cdc-warns-loosely-woven-cloth-masks-protecti... 116. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/12/rumble-video-gabbard-gr... 117. https://rumble.com/embed/v93iql/ 118. https://techcrunch.com/2021/03/18/substack-backlash/ 119. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/01/27/substack-misinformation... 120. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-went-from-dead-brok... 121. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/06/13/what-did-nbc-... 123. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-w... 124. https://twitter.com/APompliano/status/1478059547688374281 125. https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-rogans-podcast-sparks-tensions-inside-spoti... 126. https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/spotify-joe-rogan-alex-jones-podcast-1... 127. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jan/25/neil-young-demands-spotify-rem... 128. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/26/spotify-neil-young-joe-ro... 129. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/arts/music/joni-mitchell-neil-young-spoti... 130. https://twitter.com/AngelaBelcamino/status/1486508599430025217 131. https://twitter.com/williamlegate/status/1486827380916330500 132. https://twitter.com/RoArquette/status/1487224468602720259 133. https://twitter.com/katbeee/status/1487261672049758209 134. https://twitter.com/bryanbehar/status/1487308963162963969 135. https://twitter.com/Winter/status/1486361753935966209 136. https://twitter.com/rollingstoneaus/status/1486902627459760131 137. https://twitter.com/enenbee/status/1486825123403341828 138. https://twitter.com/georgehahn/status/1487468518786355200 139. https://twitter.com/DrEricDing/status/1486762802324848647 140. https://twitter.com/nilslofgren/status/1487273610079178753 141. https://twitter.com/JDCocchiarella/status/1486733295484342274 142. https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-china-suppliers-uyghur-muslims-forced-... 143. https://twitter.com/JDCocchiarella/status/1486733295484342274 144. https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus/148990/anti-vax-row-coul... 145. https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/music/spotify-to-remove-neil-youngs-music-o... 146. https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/music/spotify-loses-4-billion-in-market-val... 148. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/business/media/megyn-kelly-nbc-fox-news.h... 149. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/oct/27/megyn-kelly-blackface-comments... 150. https://on.substack.com/p/society-has-a-trust-problem-more 151. https://on.substack.com/p/substacks-view-of-content-moderation 152. http://substack.com/content 153. https://twitter.com/lulumeservey/status/1486460150441562128 154. https://royalsociety.org/news/2022/01/scientific-misinformation-report/ 155. https://www.axios.com/media-trust-crisis-2bf0ec1c-00c0-4901-9069-e26b21c283a... 156. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1987-06-20-mn-8487-story.html 157. https://theintercept.com/2018/12/17/israel-texas-anti-bds-law/ 158. https://theintercept.com/2016/02/16/greatest-threat-to-free-speech-in-the-we... 159. https://ccrjustice.org/the-palestine-exception 160. https://theintercept.com/2018/01/31/kansas-bds-law-free-speech/ 161. https://theintercept.com/2019/04/26/in-case-brought-by-school-speech-patholo... 162. https://www.callin.com/show/the-glenn-greenwald-podcast-eLzjZcJdah 163. https://greenwald.substack.com/subscribe 164. https://greenwald.substack.com/subscribe
Censorship By Algorithm Does Far More Damage Than Conventional Censorship https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/censorship-by-algorithm-does-far-more-dama... [89]Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com, Journalist Jonathan Cook has [90]a new blog post out on his experience with being throttled into invisibility by Silicon Valley algorithmic suppression that will ring all too familiar for any online content creators who’ve been sufficiently critical of official western narratives over the last few years. “My blog posts once attracted tens of thousands of shares,” Cook writes. “Then, as the algorithms tightened, it became thousands. Now, as they throttle me further, shares can often be counted in the hundreds. ‘Going viral’ is a distant memory.” “I won’t be banned,” he adds. “I will fade incrementally, like a small star in the night sky — one among millions — gradually eclipsed as its neighbouring suns grow ever bigger and brighter. I will disappear from view so slowly you won’t even notice.” Cook [91]says this began after the 2016 US election, which was when a [92]major narrative push began for Silicon Valley corporations to eliminate “fake news” from their platforms and soon saw tech executives [93]brought before the US Senate and told that they must “quell information rebellions” and come up with a mission statement expressing their commitment to “prevent the fomenting of discord” online. My latest: Is it already too late to say goodbye? Because those independent voices in the new media you so value will wither and decay like autumn leaves once they have no audience [94]https://t.co/X6wbmpgHBe — Jonathan Cook (@Jonathan_K_Cook) [95]January 22, 2022 Arguably the most significant political moment in the United States since 9/11 and its immediate aftermath was when Democrats and their allied institutions concluded that Donald Trump’s election was a failure not of establishment politics but of establishment narrative control. From that point onwards, any online media creator who consistently disputes the narratives promoted by the same news outlets who’ve [96]lied to us about every war has seen their view counts and new follows slashed. [97][IMG] By mid-2017 independent media outlets were [98]already reporting across ideological lines that algorithm changes from important sources of viewership like Google had suddenly begun hiding their content from people who were searching for the subjects they reported on. “In case anyone wants to know how Facebook suppression works — I have 330,000 followers there but they’ve stopped showing my posts to many people,” Redacted Tonight host Lee Camp [99]tweeted in January 2018. “I used to gain 6,000 followers a week. I now gain 500 and FB unsubscribes people without their knowledge — so my total number never increases.” I saw my own shares and view counts rapidly diminish in 2017 as well, and saw my new Facebook page follows suddenly slow to a virtual standstill. It wasn’t until I [100]started using [101]mailing lists and giving indie media outlets [102]blanket permission to republish all my content that I was able to grow my audience at all. And Silicon Valley did eventually admit that it was in fact actively censoring voices who fall outside the mainstream consensus. In order to disprove the false right-wing narrative that Google only censors rightist voices, the CEO of Google’s parent company Alphabet [103]admitted in 2020 to algorithmically throttling World Socialist Website. Last year the CEO of Google-owned YouTube [104]acknowledged that the platform uses algorithms to elevate “authoritative sources” while suppressing “borderline content” not considered authoritative, which [105]apparently even includes just marginally establishment-critical left-of-center voices like Kyle Kulinski. Facebook spokeswoman Lauren Svensson [106]said in 2018 that if the platform’s fact-checkers ([107]including the [108]state-funded establishment [109]narrative management firm Atlantic Council) rule that a Facebook user has been posting false news, moderators will “dramatically reduce the distribution of all of their Page-level or domain-level content on Facebook.” In case anyone wants to know how Face book suppression works - I have 330,000 followers there but they've stopped showing my posts to many ppl. I used to gain 6,000 followers a week. I now gain 500 and FB unsubscribes ppl w/out their knowledge - so my total numbr never increases — Lee Camp [Redacted] (@LeeCamp) [110]January 27, 2018 People make a big deal any time a controversial famous person gets removed from a major social media platform, and rightly so; we cannot allow such brazen acts of censorship to become normalized. [111]The goal is to normalize internet censorship on every front, and the powerful will push for that normalization to be expanded at every opportunity. Whether you dislike the controversial figure being deplatformed on a given day is entirely irrelevant; it’s not about them, it’s about expanding and normalizing internet censorship protocols on monopolistic government-tied speech platforms. But far, far more consequential than overt censorship of individuals is censorship by algorithm. No individual being silenced does as much real-world damage to free expression and free thought as the way ideas and information which aren’t authorized by the powerful are being actively hidden from public view, while material which serves the interests of the powerful is the first thing they see in their search results. It ensures that public consciousness remains chained to the establishment [112]narrative matrix. It doesn’t matter that you have free speech if nobody ever hears you speak. Even in the most overtly totalitarian regimes on earth you can say whatever you want alone in a soundproof room. That’s the biggest loophole the so-called free democracies of the western world have found in their quest to regulate online speech. By allowing these monopolistic megacorporations to become the sources everyone goes to for information (and even actively helping them along that path as in for example Google’s [113]research grants from the CIA and NSA), it’s possible to tweak algorithms in such a way that dissident information exists online, but nobody ever sees it. At the Senate Commerce Committee hearing, when asked by Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah to provide the name of one left-wing “high profile person or entity” that has been censored by [114]#Google, Pichai named the [115]#WSWS.[116]https://t.co/Nq4vXN4S4s — World Socialist Web Site (@WSWS_Updates) [117]November 4, 2020 You’ve probably noticed this if you’ve tried to search YouTube for videos which don’t align with the official narratives of western governments and media lately. That search function used to work like magic; like it was reading your mind. Now it’s almost impossible to find the information you’re looking for unless you’re trying to find out what the US State Department wants you to think. It’s the same with Google searches and Facebook, and because those giant platforms dictate what information gets seen by the general public, that wild information bias toward establishment narratives bleeds into other common areas of interaction like Twitter as well. The idea is to let most people freely share dissident ideas and information about empire, war, capitalism, authoritarianism and propaganda, but to make it increasingly difficult for them to get their content seen and heard by people, and to make their going viral altogether impossible. To avoid the loud controversies and uncomfortable public scrutiny brought on by acts of overt censorship as much as possible while silently sweeping unauthorized speech behind the curtain. To make noncompliant voices “disappear from view so slowly you won’t even notice,” as Cook put it. The status quo is not working. Our ecosystem is dying, we appear to be rapidly approaching a high risk of direct military confrontation between nuclear-armed nations, and our world is rife with injustice, inequality, oppression and exploitation. None of this is going to change until the public begins awakening to the problems with the current status quo so we can begin organizing a mass-scale push toward healthier systems. And that’s never going to happen as long as information is locked down in the way that it is. Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. And as more and more people get their information about what’s happening in the world from online sources, Silicon Valley algorithm manipulation has already become one of the most consequential forms of narrative control. * * * My work is [118]entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on [119]Facebook, [120]Twitter, [121]Soundcloud or [122]YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on [123]Ko-fi, [124]Patreon or [125]Paypal. If you want to read more you can [126]buy my books. The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at [127]my website or [128]on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, [129]has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, [130]click here. 89. https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/censorship-by-algorithm-does-far-more-dama... 90. https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/2022-01-22/too-late-goodbye/ 91. https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/1485376035193556999 92. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/08/hillary-clinton-fake-news-co... 93. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/11/01/goog-n01.html 94. https://t.co/X6wbmpgHBe 95. https://twitter.com/Jonathan_K_Cook/status/1484948121402712077 96. https://podcastaddict.com/episode/53781281 98. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/07/27/goog-j27.html 99. https://twitter.com/LeeCamp/status/957346222372786176 100. https://caitlinjohnstone.com/ 101. https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/ 102. https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/i-permanently-release-all-copyrights-to-al... 103. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2020/11/04/goog-n04.html 104. https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-ceo-basement-authoritative-sources/ 105. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2ONsgx4Mxw 106. https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/11/media/facebook-infowars/index.html 107. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/09/08/atla-s08.html 108. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/donate/honor-roll-of-contributors-2019... 109. https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/atlantic-council-explains-why-we-need-to-b... 110. https://twitter.com/LeeCamp/status/957346222372786176 111. https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/dont-underestimate-how-badly-the 112. https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/society-is-made-of-narrative-realizi... 113. https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-cia-and-nsa-resear... 114. https://twitter.com/hashtag/Google 115. https://twitter.com/hashtag/WSWS 116. https://t.co/Nq4vXN4S4s 117. https://twitter.com/WSWS_Updates/status/1323992593861062660 118. https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/05/24/my-experiments-with-hacking-capitali... 119. https://www.facebook.com/CaitlinAJohnstone/ 120. https://twitter.com/caitoz 121. https://soundcloud.com/going_rogue 122. https://www.youtube.com/c/CaitlinJohnstone/videos 123. https://ko-fi.com/caitlinjohnstone 124. https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4445783 125. https://paypal.me/caitlinjohnstone 126. https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/books-by-caitlin-johnstone-a5a5e6f71772 127. http://caitlinjohnstone.com/ 128. https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/ 129. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/i-permanently-release-all-copyrights-to-a... 130. https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/11-things-you-should-know-about-me-and-wh...
Spotify Has Officially Become The Battleground For Big Tech's Censorship Civil War https://quoththeraven.substack.com/p/spotify-has-officially-become-the Far be it for me to be sensationalist, but it looks like Spotify has become the official venue where the big tech censorship civil war is about to take place. Or, perhaps where it has already started. Spotify has been in the news over the past few weeks because it has been home to “controversial” podcast host Joe Rogan. And let me tell you, “controversial” isn’t what it used to be. Nowadays, Rogan is considered “controversial” because he’s someone that - <gasp> - allows individuals to speak their opinions and listens to both sides of the story while presenting a spectrum of takes on political and social issues that runs the gamut and may not conform to the mainstream narrative or “the science”. It was only days ago that I wrote about how I thought Rogan would reshape the mainstream media landscape single-handedly and how his “controversial” style of open-minded discussion may benefit both political parties in the upcoming presidential election, should they be wise enough to adopt it. This week, the decrepit clutches of cancel culture continued their “war” against Rogan (read: open minded discussion) in the form of 76 year old aging rock star Neil Young, who threatened to pull his catalog of music - which he doesn’t even fully own the rights to - from Spotify as a result of what he calls “misinformation” being presented on Rogan’s show. Neil Young tells Spotify to remove music over Joe Rogan vaccine misinformation Photo: The Verge Now that we’ve redefined “controversial” as “open minded discussion”, it’s also crucial we redefine “misinformation”. Nowadays, “misinformation” means any utterance of thoughts that weren’t handed down directly from Dr. Anthony Fauci, the CDC, the mainstream media or global elites and central planners. In response to Young’s temper tantrum this week, Spotify did precisely nothing and, at Young’s request, deftly pulled the artist’s music from their platform. Perhaps feeling defeated by Spotify’s common sense decision, or perhaps motivated by the perverse amount of press Young received for his “declaration against misinformation”, a second septuagenarian former rocker, 78 year old Joni Mitchell, also joined the fray and threatened to pull her music from Spotify, as well. As her reasoning for the ultimatum, Mitchell claimed that “irresponsible people are spreading lies”. At first, I thought maybe she had looked back on the “official” declarations that cloth masks would work against the virus, vaccinations would end Covid altogether and that ivermectin was nothing more than veterinary horse paste. Instead, it turns out she, too, was referring to Rogan’s podcast. Photo: Insider I don’t think it’s a coincidence that people threatening to pull their music from Spotify are extremely wealthy. Mitchell has an estimated net worth of $100 million and Young has an estimated net worth of $200 million. I’m not sure these once rebellious, freedom seeking musicians have taken the time to consider those who are now in the shoes they were once in, reliant upon platforms like Spotify for their pittance of royalties as they embark on the beginning stages of their careers. For Young and Mitchell, it clearly isn’t about who else may be affected by a downturn in Spotify’s business. For them, anything is justified in upholding their opinions, ideologies and political beliefs as it comes to what is and isn’t acceptable free speech. People like Young and Mitchell have become unfortunate shells of what they used to represent while they were writing and performing music decades ago. Worse than that, they’ve become hypocrites, trampling over the very same first amendment they banked on to give them the voice they used to make themselves extravagantly wealthy as counter-culture songwriters in the first place. Young and Mitchell were immense successes because they tapped into the same vein of American culture that Rogan now resides in: the incessant need to hear “the other side of the story” from what “the man” was preaching. Whether the dialogue is about protesting the Vietnam war or Covid lockdowns is moot: these are the issues of our respective generations. Today’s blog post has been published without a paywall because I believe the content to be far too important to deny to anyone. However, if you have the means and would like to support my work by subscribing, I’d be happy to offer you 22% off for 2022: Get 22% off forever The irony is uncanny, if you can zoom out and look at the bigger picture. Joe Rogan is now what these artists used to be: an iconoclast. My guess is that more aging rockers may also follow suit and that, even if they don’t, the fever pitch to censor Joe Rogan is going to be dialed up even further for Spotify. Many people may be thinking we have seen what Spotify is made of in its decision to tell Neil Young to go pound sand; but how will the platform react if a barrage of artists starts to make similar threats? As a believer in capitalism, I wouldn’t be surprised if Spotify is taking a risk/reward approach to this battle in the boardroom. After all, they have shareholders, and there likely is, in fact, some dollar amount that may cause them to cave on Rogan’s deal. Don’t say it isn’t possible: remember, in a similar analogue, NBC parted ways with Megyn Kelly after just two years, leaving her with the spoils of a $69 million contract just because the network faced feverish outcry from the woke mob. I just hope that Spotify takes the time to realize that it is in an extremely unique position. If the company continues to have a backbone and is the first to consistently and publicly dissent against the methods of its big tech peers - names like Google, Twitter and Amazon – who don’t seem to have any issues censoring at the first sign of one pimple faced teenager complaining behind a laptop screen and a Reddit forum – they truly have a unique have an opportunity to be on the right side of history going forward. And that can win them favor that money could never compete with. As much as businesses may see this as a war based on economics, it is also a war that I believe will grow deep enough to be based on ideologies. The fact is you are either for politicians, elites, and large technology companies dictating what you can and can not have the right to consider when making decisions, or you support the idea of being able to consider opinions from all ends of the spectrum in order to make your personal decisions. You are either an advocate for stifling one entire half of an argument - which admittedly may contain the boogeyman disguised as some actual misinformation - or you are pro freedom of speech and an individual’s right to decide for themselves. And most importantly, you either have the wherewithal to understand that the official narrative has, and will, continue to get things wrong (vaccines would wipe out Covid, for example) and that opinions labeled as “misinformation” and “conspiracy theories” can sometimes turn out to be the objective truth (like the lab leak ‘theory’), or you don’t. If your intentions are only to seek out objective truths, why would you turn away anyone’s opinion before sifting away at all available information before trying to arrive at the facts? These are questions and concepts that Spotify needs to be asking itself very carefully. While, from a monetary standpoint, canceling Joe Rogan may, at some point, look like it makes sense on paper, the music giant needs to ask itself at the end of the day: are they the battleground for something even more important than money? We have yet to see a mainstream big tech company take a serious stand against censorship. Spotify: are you prepared to be the first?
https://freedomfighternation.org/ https://www.freedomconvoy.ca/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Convoy_2022 https://www.gofundme.com/f/taking-back-our-freedom-convoy-2022 Funds blocked, should have used crypto Corporate Media And Big Tech Align Against #FreedomConvoy https://bombthrower.com/articles/corporate-media-and-big-tech-align-against-... https://bombthrower.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/freedomconvoy-both-1.png https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1486704226449379329 <== Lying Fraudster https://www.ottawapublichealth.ca/en/public-health-topics/information-for-th... https://twitter.com/TrueNorthCentre/status/1487465754668810240 https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1487495863026991110 You know who to back by whom the media calls “toxic” As the pandemic’s grip on society is clearly waning, governments at various levels and locales seem to be sorting themselves into two buckets: End all emergency measures and learn to live with COVID Cling to emergency powers and up the ante Canada is vast country that is run primarily by left-wing liberals who select their PMs from political dynasties in Quebec and who couldn’t pull it off without the support of urban Toronto (the 416). The corporate media in Canada is largely homogenous, liberal and unabashedly globalist. To them, anything outside of Toronto or Ottawa is “flyover country”. Anything that happens there doesn’t matter unless it’s some issue that can wrapped within a narrative of victimhood to shame the populace into believing their country is a structurally racist, carbon spewing abomination. In Canada, a pitched ideological battle between the Liberals and Conservatives would be whether the top marginal tax rate should be 53% (where it is now) or 45%. If things got really wild and bare knuckled, maybe Trudeau would come out with a “double-mask” mandate and Erin O’Toole, a third-rate non-entity who has lost two fat-pitch elections, would say “1.5 masks!” Even then he would waffle as soon as some polling data came out. That’s the political spectrum in Canada, unless you count the NDPs who are even further left than the Liberals. Federally, the NDPs are led by a millionaire socialist. The Libertarians here are a joke (sorry, but it’s true. I ran for the Libertarian Party federally in 2015 so I get to say that). Political leaders actually standing up for the civil rights of all Canadians are few and far between: Maxime Bernier federally, running the PPC, and here in Ontario the likes of Randy Hillier and Roman Baber – a couple of MPPs who were jettisoned from #FordNation for resisting the lockdowns and mandates. When it comes to these rare political voices, and despite rising popular support for them, the corporate media circles the wagons and demonizes them as (what else?) racists, far-right, etc. Out of nowhere, comes the truckers By “nowhere” I mean any place outside of Toronto, the economic hub of Canada where progressivist thinking is dominant and compulsory. Here in the city, bare shelves in the grocery stores are more likely to spark angry calls to the Amazon Prime support desk than any serious introspection on why. There is no awareness that everything that magically appears on the shelves of Whole Foods, without fail, every day, was grown, farmed, raised, slaughtered, processed and then transported by non-cosmopolitan plebes from backwoods Canada (or US). The #FreedomConvoy is on their way to Ottawa to protest vax passports and lockdown tyranny because nobody else will do it. It was the political opposition’s job, they instead supported it. It was a mainstream media’s job to examine and question it. Instead they propagandized it. So it comes down to these (in the eyes of the media) backward, racist, infantile hillbillies, to stand up for constitutionally guaranteed human rights that most Canadians are too cowardly or sycophantic to demand back. Predictably, Canada’s corporate media, who received hundreds of millions of dollars in rebates, tax credits and funding from the federal government has come out with hostility against the truckers. CBC, the state funded broadcaster, is even pulling out the “Russian actors” card… The CBC suggests "Russian actors" are behind the #TruckersForFreedom convoy. Seriously. #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/a6sQyWtKkx — True North (@TrueNorthCentre) January 29, 2022 And their pals in Big Tech are helping them. On the left: a search via Google in a clean browser on Freedomconvoy, on the right, same search via DuckDuckGo. Click for full size Note how the entire issue is framed by Google: If it were up to Google (and it is, when you use them for search), there is no popular support for #Freedomconvoy, everything above the fold is media antagonism and hostile editorial demonizing. Contrast with DuckDuckGo: which unassumingly pulls in excerpts from websites involved with the convoy itself and its Wikipedia entry. Which one is biased and trying to shoehorn you into a predetermined narrative? Which one looks to be simply trying to pull in what the user is actually searching for? For awhile it also looked like the GoFundMe for the Freedom Convoy, which has raised $7.9 million from over 21,000 donors as I write this, was initially going to suspend it and freeze their funds. Fortunately they backed off when they had the beginnings of a major shitstorm on their hands. (Disclosure: I have made a donation to Freedom Convoy) Trudeau, for his part, when not demonizing fellow Canadians as racists and misogynists will not be on hand in Ottawa to face the truckers (whom he called “fringe”). He’s claiming a community COVID exposure to go into hiding…. Last night, I learned that I have been exposed to COVID-19. My rapid test result was negative. I am following @OttawaHealth rules and isolating for five days. I feel fine and will be working from home. Stay safe, everyone – and please get vaccinated. — Justin Trudeau (@JustinTrudeau) January 27, 2022 The problem with Trudeau’s story is the Ottawa Public Health rules clearly do not call for five day isolation for an asymptomatic community contact accompanied by a negative test. Trudeau is basically lying (and since fled the city….) JUST IN - Canada's PM Trudeau and his family have left their home in #Ottawa for a secret location, CBC reports. — Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) January 29, 2022 I wrote at the beginning of this month, on New Year’s Day that the pandemic was over. It’s just a matter of how fervently the most brainwashed and self-serving will cling to failed narratives. The truckers are part of the resistance. I’m part of the resistance, and you should be part of the resistance. Hold your politicians accountable: vote every single incumbent politician out. Anybody who held any office at any level of government in any jurisdiction who was not vocally opposed to lockdown tyranny has to go. Cancel all your mainstream media subscriptions. Turn off your TV. It’s over and it’s time for anybody and everybody who stands in the way of full restoration of civil and human rights to be held accountable.
Leftists Use Mass Censorship Because They Don't Have The Guts To Engage In Fair Debate https://alt-market.us/leftists-use-mass-censorship-because-they-dont-have-th... https://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/googles-billions-in-internet-subsidies/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/03/google-tesla-apple-facebook-rake-in-m... https://quillette.com/2019/02/12/it-isnt-your-imagination-twitter-treats-con... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/opinion/sunday/free-speech-social-media-v... https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/black-lives-matter-cashes-1... https://tennesseestar.com/2021/11/22/some-leftists-defend-waukesha-mass-kill... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20101253v2 https://www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-... https://www.nbcboston.com/news/coronavirus/82466-new-breakthrough-cases-in-m... Why is censorship the go-to tactic for leftists? Well, if you ask them they won’t deny their love affair with the memory hole. In fact, most leftists will vehemently defend censorship as absolutely moral and for the “greater good.” Their position is basically this: We live in a “society”, and some ideas, thoughts and words are “dangerous” and destructive to that society. Therefore, those ideas and words must be eliminated from open discussion so they can protect society from itself. But who gets to decide which ideas are dangerous and destructive? It’s rather convenient that the political left has anointed themselves the pure and objective arbiters of our culture. Purity within leftist groups is measured by expressions of “empathy” (virtue signaling). They are the thought police because, somehow, they believe they are the most empathetic. True empathy is of course impossible to measure in another human being. You could very well be dealing with a narcissist or psychopath that is very good at pretending they care and have a conscience. They might say all the right things and have all the right opinions in public, but in their private lives they are malicious and take pleasure in causing pain in others. Humans are utterly fallible, which is why all systems of freedom seek to decentralize power through checks and balances and avoid mass censorship. All systems that value freedom and peace seek to eliminate the existence of thought police. Leftists (and globalists) have sought to circumvent checks and balances as well as free speech protections through a number of tactics. In much of the western world they pay lip service to free speech rights when it is convenient for them, but most European nations and countries like Australia have NO legitimate constitutional measures that restrict governments from easily initiating speech suppression laws whenever they want. The draconian restrictions put in place over covid have proven this beyond a doubt. This is what makes the US so unique as a culture, and it is the reason why leftists have pursued other methods to silence dissent. In America, the left has partnered with the corporate world and is attempting to use “business rights” as a means to attack and diminish conservative voices. That is to say, they think that if they can harass and pressure a business to deplatform their opposition then this is a technically legal tactic because a business has a right to associate or not associate with whoever they choose. If the power of government cannot be used to muzzle their opponents, then the power or corporations and Big Tech can be just as effective. Of course, most Big Tech corporations are NOT private businesses. They rely heavily on government subsidies and tax incentives in order to survive. If Google had to pay for the massive amount of bandwidth that it has used in the past decade they would have gone out of business a while ago, but with federal government incentives Google is given an immense advantage over its competition. In terms of state subsidies companies like Google, Amazon, Apple and Facebook rake in billions. That’s your tax dollars going into the pockets of the same corporations that claim they have the right to censor you for your political views. If they want to censor the public, then we should take away all the subsidies and the tax dollars; it’s that simple. We can let those companies implode without our money to support them. We have seen Big Tech and social media companies silence tens of thousands of conservative’s over the past few years. The whole time these companies and the media have denied that they specifically target people on the political right (which these days means anyone to the right of full bore communism and globalism). This gaslighting has been debunked over and over again. It is undeniable that conservatives are far more likely to be blocked or banned from social media than people who express leftist views. Once confronted with the data that proves Big Tech is biased in favor of the left, they switch gears to the same old circular argument: “Well, conservatives are banned more from social media because they are the people always posting dangerous and destructive ideas…” And we’re right back to where we started. So let’s just establish some basic facts here before moving forward in order to avoid any misunderstandings about the left… FACT 1: Leftists are rabidly pro-censorship. This is not up for debate. As the leftist New York Times argued in 2019, “free speech is killing us,” specifically in reference to conservative speech. They will say conservatives do the same thing and this is simply not true. We are not living in the America of the 1960’s when religious suppression of language was prominent; we are living in the America of the 2020’s where leftists have insinuated their own bizarre cult of Puritanism into US life and are viciously seeking to silence anyone that disagrees with them. FACT 2: Leftist censorship almost always aligns with the policies and desires of establishment elites. It is a mistake to assume that corporations are being “bullied” by the left. On the contrary, corporate elites and globalist foundations are the people influencing leftist activists and molding social justice movements to serve establishment interests. Look into the background of any SJW movement and your will find hundreds of millions of dollars in funding from the Ford Foundation, Open Society Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and so on. Leftists take their marching orders from the corporate elites. Why are leftists so aggressively pro-vax mandate, for example? Because the establishment media told them they must be – When Trump was in office and the media was anti-vax, leftists were mostly anti-vax. When Biden entered the White House the media became militantly pro-vax and so did the vast majority of leftists. They have no individual autonomy and no original thoughts; they are a hive mind waiting around for the establishment to tell them what to think. FACT 3: Leftists believe the ends justify the means no matter the consequence, and they view contrary facts and evidence with disdain. You will almost never see a leftist argue on the basis of merit, logic or results. They will ALWAYS argue based on emotional justification, righteous indignation and the projection that anyone that disagrees with them MUST be a terrible or evil person that has malicious intent. This is why their go-to attacks are consistently personal; they use accusations of bigotry, racism, sexism, etc. in order to avoid discussions on facts and evidence. Because if facts and evidence are being presented by a “literal Nazi” then all of those facts become null and void and the person can be ignored. FACT 4: Leftists believe the mob is the law and all other laws and principles must be subservient to the dictates of the “majority.” Leftists are obsessed with majority rule and obsessed with manufacturing consent by manufacturing a false consensus. In other words, leftists believe that if they can trick or coerce 51% of the population to think the way they do, then they have won and all of their actions are sacrosanct by the virtue of the majority. They actually believe that the other 49% of the population must submit to their dictates because the majority is god. In truth, the mob is almost always wrong and the “majority” has a tendency to be the lowest common denominator and the most ignorant within a society. If they can’t obtain that precious 51% of the population, then they will try to pretend as if they are the majority anyway. They will use coordinated mob attacks on their opponents to make it appear as if millions of people are against them when the mob is actually only in the hundreds or thousands. Exposure of their true numbers is like Kryptonite to leftists and they would rather disband than admit being in a tiny minority. They will respond by claiming the group “never existed” and is a “figment of conservative paranoia.” FACT #5: If leftists could rule at the barrel of a gun, they would. Leftists are absolutely in favor of imprisoning political opponents and anyone that speaks against them, and many of them openly applaud the idea of murdering conservatives because of their ideals. Just look at how they defended the Waukesha mass killing by a BLM activist as “karma” for the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse. There is no such thing as a peaceful end game for the political left. The violent direction their ideology is traveling is obvious. But what is all the subversion and chicanery meant to accomplish? Why not confront their opponents directly instead of using subterfuge? Because they are afraid. They are terrified of legitimate debate on fair ground based on reality instead of emotional fantasy. They will do anything to avoid direct confrontation because they know they will lose. Their common tactics include subversion, bait and switch, ambushes, and always choosing the ground that a confrontation takes place so they can control the debate and shut down their opponents whenever they start losing. This does not mean that I think that every website and platform out there is supposed to exist with no rules and no restrictions; that’s impossible by the simple fact that trolls and saboteurs exist. But leftists don’t engage in case-by-case censorship, they rely on mass censorship and enormous corporate partners to strong arm people. They aren’t interested in an honest disagreement with a respectful platform user, they are interested in silencing everyone that disagree regardless. I can’t help but once again use the example of the leftist Jihad against Joe Rogan to illustrate my point. The left hates Rogan because he allows both political sides to have a voice on his show, and his show is bigger than anything the leftists and the mainstream media can hope to achieve. Leftists believe that if they cannot control something, then they must destroy it. An open platform that treats conservatives and their views fairly cannot be allowed to exist, so Rogan becomes a top target of the political left. Rogan is targeted over his position on the covid pandemic and the vaccine mandates, but these are merely vehicles that leftists think they can use to rationalize the mass censorship they wanted long before the pandemic was a thing. They believe that the argument that “millions of lives are at risk” supplants all other debate. That is to say, the more people that die from covid, the happier they are because those bodies can be used are fuel to push their ideological cult forward to greater power. The interesting thing about covid, however, is that it turns out NOT to be a very effective vehicle for the leftists in terms of using bodies to buy control. As we saw when Joe Rogan confronted CNNs top medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta on his show, the political left is easy to destroy when it comes to debate on the response to covid, and it is a prime example on why leftists usually avoid debate on fair ground. When Rogan contracted covid the leftists were practically dancing in the streets looking forward to his imminent death. These people are so stupid they don’t seem to realize that on average over 99.7% of ALL PEOPLE that contract covid will easily survive it. I have now had the virus twice, about two years apart, and survived both times without any treatment and without vaccination. Rogan fared even better than I did, beating back covid in just a few days, most likely because he had access to Ivermectin. The leftists and the media went into a rage after Rogan’s easy recovery. Instead of admitting defeat and admitting that vaccines are not necessary when dealing with covid, they attacked Rogan’s method of treatment, accusing him of spreading medical misinformation and promoting “horse paste” (Ivermectin). To clarify, Rogan is living proof that easy treatment of covid is possible, and this made the left angry enough to spread lies about him and his treatments. During his debate with Sanjay Gupta, Rogan annihilated CNN’s assertions on Ivermectin and treatment for covid in general. Remember, Gupta is CNN’s top medical correspondent, Rogan is not a doctor at all, yet, Rogan wiped the floor with Gupta because the leftists have no leg to stand on when it comes to covid. When the debate ground is fair and these people have to actually defend their claims based on facts and evidence, they lose every time. They can’t beat Rogan on the facts, so they seek to beat him through censorship. Multiple studies have now been released which prove that Ivermectin is a safe and effective treatment for covid, greatly reducing the number of hospitalizations and deaths. But, because leftists and the establishment only want vaccinations (for some reason…), millions of lives have been lost that could have been saved. What this shows is that leftists do not actually care about saving lives, they only care that people submit to their agenda. The covid vaccines are ineffective and unnecessary, but they represent public fealty to leftist authority, and that is all that matters. There is even less logical support for the vax mandates, which are designed to force people to accept vaccines through coercion. Leftists claim this is not force because they think force only entails holding a gun to someone’s head (which they would do if they thought they could get away with it). This is not reality. Force also includes taking away people’s rights and removing them from the economy. It includes making people’s lives miserable until they “choose” to comply. The biggest leftist lie when it comes to covid and the primary justification for the authoritarianism and censorship is the claim that unvaxxed people are a threat to everyone else, and they have no right to put other people at risk. Again, you will never see a leftist try to defend this moronic claim in a fair debate forum because it cannot be supported. If the vaccines worked, then vaxxed people should have nothing to fear from the unvaxxed. If vaxxed people still have to worry about contracting covid and dying from covid, then the vaccines MUST NOT WORK. And this is the reality leftists and the media do not want to talk about. Vaxxed people are just as likely to transmit the virus to others. Vaxxed people are just as likely to contract covid as the unvaxxed. Vaxxed people still end up in ICU and still die from covid, and some state numbers indicate that vaxxed people are more likley to die from covid. As a point of reference, in the state of Massachusetts alone there have been over 262,000 fully vaccinated people who still ended up infected with covid and 1054 deaths according to official numbers. That is an infection fatality rate of 0.4%, which is HIGHER than the national average IFR of 0.27%. To summarize, the vaccines are pointless and vax mandates are criminal. Leftists cannot defend either one on scientific or moral grounds. Their only option is to silence anyone who has the guts to talk about the truth. They are weaklings with no reason in their heads, and these are the types of people that always turn to mass censorship as a tool to legitimize their ideology. * * * If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
The Internet demands a new crypto based decentralized uncensorable crowfunding platform.
After Enabling Violent, Far-Left Extremists, GoFundMe 'Steals' Millions From Freedom Convoy Fundraisers Conservatives are livid after GoFundMe caved to the Canadian government and canceled a massive donation campaign that had reached C$10 million (US$7.9m). Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) tweeted: "It is a fraud for @gofundme to commandeer $9M in donations sent to support truckers and give it to causes of their own choosing," adding "I will work with @AGAshleyMoody to investigate these deceptive practices — these donors should be given a refund." It is a fraud for @gofundme to commandeer $9M in donations sent to support truckers and give it to causes of their own choosing. I will work with @AGAshleyMoody to investigate these deceptive practices — these donors should be given a refund. — Ron DeSantis (@GovRonDeSantis) February 5, 2022 Rep Jim. Jordan (R-OH) pointed out that "GoFundMe promoted the ANTIFA-occupied CHOP zone in Seattle, But they shut down fundraisers for truckers protesting #COVID mandates." GoFundMe promoted the ANTIFA-occupied CHOP zone in Seattle. But they shut down fundraisers for truckers protesting #COVID mandates. We’ve got questions. — Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) February 5, 2022 Benny Johnson captured the prevailing sentiment on Saturday, tweeting that the "Go Fund Me story was my breaking point. Blood boiling. FUCK GO FUND ME. Put them in prison. Authoritarian boot-licking thieving scum. Not another dollar to them - EVER." I keep it light hearted on this platform. Try not to doomscroll or rage tweet. Happy Warrior, right? But Go Fund Me story was my breaking point. Blood boiling. FUCK GO FUND ME. Put them in prison. Authoritarian boot-licking thieving scum. Not another dollar to them - EVER. — Benny (@bennyjohnson) February 5, 2022 Others were similarly outraged. SEND IT ALL BACK IMMEDIATELY YOU THIEVING SCUM https://t.co/6KwB186GVI — Truckistan Amb. Poso 🏁 (@JackPosobiec) February 5, 2022 .@GoFundMe allowed money to go to bailing violent BLM rioters out of jail... but now denies the peaceful Freedom Convoy their funds... stop using this leftist trash and demand refunds. — Tim Young 🚛 (@TimRunsHisMouth) February 5, 2022 GoFundMe's Trustpilot rating page was just suspended after people began to bombard it with negative reviews. BREAKING: Trustpilot has just suspended the GoFundMe profile after people started to bombard it's profile with 1000s of negative reviews. We need to start pushing back against these liberal-owned entities. Mixing business with biased politics is a bad idea. pic.twitter.com/BcheWK67FL — E = mc² (@ElijahWere247) February 5, 2022 For example: Meanwhile, a GiveSendGo campaign for the Freedom Convoy reached $1.1 million in donations overnight, however the platform is currently inaccessible and has said it's under DDOS attack. We have been under heavy DDOS and bot attacks. In spite of all of this we still have managed to raise funds 5X faster than the gfm did. GFM raised 10mil in 3 weeks. GSG campaign has already raised over 1.1mil in just over 12 hours! — GiveSendGo (@GiveSendGo) February 5, 2022 Let's review GoFundMe's previous support of far-left violence: .@gofundme allows the campaign for violent Portland #Antifa member Alissa Azar to remain so she can raise cash after she was indicted on a felony & more. Her attack on people at a park was caught on video by Melissa Lewis, who has tried to scrub the video. https://t.co/PRRQcKf6aW pic.twitter.com/jfKHSctD4v — Andy Ngô 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) February 5, 2022 Far-left extremists occupied an entire hotel during the 2020 riots and raised hundreds of thousands on @GoFundMe: https://t.co/GMyl66w7Zh — Andy Ngô 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) February 5, 2022 .@gofundme donated to Riot Kitchen, a Seattle antifa group that gave food to far-left rioters and occupiers in 2020 across state lines. https://t.co/aT5qMO0wuG — Andy Ngô 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) February 5, 2022
The Revolution Has Come For Joe Rogan https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-revolution-has-come-for-joe-rogan The Taliban seized control of Afghanistan in the late summer of 2021, shortly after the Americans withdrew, tired and weary and broke after nearly 20 years of fighting. They seized was control of the country in the broad and particular sense: setting up command in the presidential palace in Kabul and targeting the individuals who criticized the new government. By December 2021, regular Afghans and the members of the Afghan press who had expressed critical views of their new rulers had “been subjected to months of [90]intimidation and fear.” The Biden Administration has adopted these same tactics, calling for their critics to be silenced by the Administration’s corporate and media allies. After 20 years of trying to export Western values to Afghanistan, they ended up importing Taliban-style repression to the United States. And it only cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. [91][IMG] Now, the Regime and its comrades target Joe Rogan, an inquisitive comedian with a podcast. He is accused of spreading “misinformation” by those that illegally spy on their citizens and lies without remorse. In reality, this isn’t about misinformation. It’s that Rogan’s crimes are those of words and thought. The prosecutors have become the prophet of the god they have created, searching to eradicate those guilty of the sin of blasphemy. The Taliban would be proud. We can be certain that the Regime is not concerned with the truth. Have you seen them [92]struggle to explain the “evidence” that Russia was planning a false-flag in Ukraine to justify an invasion? Or, consider how the COVID-19 misinformation originated from the U.S. government and its bureaucratic arms. In early 2020, Anthony Fauci and Francis Collins were both presented with [93]arguments that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered. Instead of investigating this issue, they saw to it that this theory was killed off. Despite – or perhaps because of – these lies, Fauci and Collins remain dear sons of the Regime. Reminders that “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others. (The Christians of the Left – such as David French – even go so far as to say that you have a “[94]spiritual problem” if you don’t trust Fauci and Collins. Both the left and the right make their idols.) They killed the truth before. Who is to say they’re not trying to do that with Rogan? Those are the easy observations. Then we get to the deeper and more consequential truths that are manipulated and deformed and remade for political purposes. Patterns emerge - and maybe they’re repeating. The institution of marriage, and the definition of marriage, is subjected to social – meaning political – evolution. Mothers are redefined as “[95]birthing people.” [96]Words are even disappeared by the U.S. government for threat that they are stigmatizing, dare someone have a negative opinion of an ex-convict or prisoner. To put it more bluntly, the people who believe men can give birth are now in charge of what is true. The only authority they have is political power. Such power isn’t necessarily authoritative, but it gives them the strength to set definitions and enforce the rules, to declare guilt and issue punishment. Conflicts of interest be damned. Power over language is power over the people: “the primary purpose of language – which is to describe reality – is replaced by the rival purpose of asserting power over it.”[97]1 In their eyes, this public lynching is justified because these are revolutionary times and removing Rogan is a revolutionary act. There is no forgiveness because they seek destruction, not restoration. There is some limitation to their enforcement power, those means by which they achieve their ends, necessitating the Biden Administration in July 2021 to order social media companies to [98]ban those who disagree with the official line of thinking. The U.S. government went so far as to flag the objectionable content itself, helping corporate America snuff out inconvenient voices. Supposedly devout Christian Francis Collins has been silent on the government’s campaign to punish dissent, having been part of the cover-up. As [99]Collins uses his faith to promote COVID-19 vaccines, perhaps he needs a reminder that Christianity does not give the civil government jurisdiction over your thoughts or words. Or a refresher of the [100]evils of abortion. Anyway, the censorship encouraged by the Biden Administration was effective – to an extent. Alex Berenson was [101]banned from Twitter in August 2021 for correctly labeling the COVID-19 vaccines as “therapeutics.” Dr. Robert Malone, “who has been credited with inventing the mRNA technology used in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 immunizations,” was also been [102]banned from Twitter. These suspensions came after Fauci and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy and other members of the Biden Administration called for [103]stronger measures to stop the spread of misinformation. Yet Joe Rogan thrived, in large part because he provided an alternative platform to the voices that were being suppressed. The public yearned for this information and it was delivered through his podcast. It’s reported that Rogan has an estimated 11 million listeners per episode. It’s also estimated that his interviews with Dr. Malone and Dr. Peter McCullough brought in millions more. In response, the Biden White House [104]demanded Spotify do more to censor the discussions of Rogan and his guests. At the same time, the liberal mob – encouraged by their leadership – aimed at Rogan, hurling disgusting and false allegations of “racism.” CNN, eager to shift the focus off the [105]network’s own problems, is asking Spotify to give Rogan the proverbial death sentence: CNN's [106]@BrianStelter & Jim [107]@Acosta strongly suggest Spotify should remove Joe Rogan from their platform; also note his "profanity-laced apology" "It seems untenable to have that kind of video surface, and that kind of compilation surface, and keep one’s job" [108]pic.twitter.com/rSyAV8f1dN — Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) [109]February 6, 2022 This is the same network that [110]lied about Rogan’s use of Ivermectin, calling it “horse dewormer.” It is the same network that ran an [111]altered video of Rogan, making him seem sicker with COVID-19 than he really was. No surprise that it’s CNN’s Brian Stelter leading the way against Rogan. How do I describe Stelter? (For starters, I do so with pleasure.) He is a humorless fat man. A dedicated media believer pretending to be a media reporter. He is as dumb as he sounds and as arrogant as he looks. He oozes the sadism of a hall monitor and the false confidence of an impostor. He is Kim Jong-un without the hair or the country or the charisma. Prior to Rogan, Stelter’s favorite targets were enemies of the Regime: Tucker Carlson and Fox News. For being a “media reporter,” he typically has a curious focus to target one journalist and one network. CNN tolerates this well enough, excusing Stelter’s poor ratings because he attacks the network’s adversaries and defends the network without question. Put Stelter on the offense against critics and he’ll call a Jihad against “right wing” media from his CNN studio. He’s the zealot that will behead you for drawing a cartoon of the wrong left-wing figure (whether it’s Joe Biden or Don Lemon) – and then blame you for inciting violence on “Reliable Sources” the next day. He will demand the unvaccinated be treated as second-class citizens, relegated to the margins of society until they comply with his favored health policies, just as he continues on his own adventure of finding out what comes after “morbid obesity.” And in the presence of his preferred State power, masochist Stelter emerges to flatter and grovel. When he had the chance to interview Biden’s press secretary, he lobbed the softball of his dreams: “[112]What does the press get wrong when covering Biden’s agenda?” But back to Rogan. One could say that Rogan is under attack for speaking truth to power. But that’s not quite true. As Christopher Hitchens observed, that cliché is looking in the wrong direction because power already knows the truth. More importantly, Rogan – and his guests – speak truth to the powerless. That’s what they’re scared of. And that’s why we see these campaigns against Tucker and Rogan and anyone else who dare tell dangerous truths. To put it another way, President Biden and his corporate allies, and their mob of supporters, seek to obliterate the relationship between the writer and the reader, the speaker and the listener. Thus, this is about more than Joe Rogan. It is about you and it is about me. It is about gatekeeping and limiting what we can watch and read and hear. And they achieve that end through the destruction of Rogan the individual.[113]2 89. https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-revolution-has-come-for-joe-rogan 90. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2021/1217/Free-speech-in-Afghani... 92. https://twitter.com/Cernovich/status/1489366748134449153 93. https://technofog.substack.com/p/new-documents-reveal-early-beliefs 94. https://technofog.substack.com/p/david-frenchs-spiritual-blackmail 95. https://technofog.substack.com/p/newsweek.com/biden-admin-replaces-mothers-b... 96. https://www.cdc.gov/healthcommunication/Preferred_Terms.html 97. https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-revolution-has-come-for-joe-rogan 98. https://www.yahoo.com/video/white-house-says-social-media-202900243.html 99. https://religionnews.com/2021/09/10/francis-collins-a-bit-frustrated-with-ev... 100. https://www.discovery.org/a/nih-director-francis-collins-isnt-a-national-tre... 101. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/569908-twitter-bans-conservative-author-A... 102. https://nypost.com/2022/01/08/twitter-ceo-parag-agrawal-has-brought-wave-of-... 103. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/07/18/fauci-surgeon-genera... 104. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/psaki-big-tech-should-censor-more-misin... 105. https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/jeff-zucker-cnn-investigat... 106. https://twitter.com/brianstelter 107. https://twitter.com/Acosta 108. https://t.co/rSyAV8f1dN 109. https://twitter.com/tomselliott/status/1490357546191888388 110. https://thehill.com/homenews/media/576723-gupta-tells-joe-rogan-cnn-shouldnt... 111. https://ijr.com/cnn-caught-deceptively-altering-video-of-joe-rogan-to-make-h... 112. https://www.yahoo.com/now/cnn-brian-stelter-draws-criticism-190801600.html 113. https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-revolution-has-come-for-joe-rogan 114. https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-revolution-has-come-for-joe-rogan 115. https://technofog.substack.com/p/the-revolution-has-come-for-joe-rogan
It's pretty bad when trackers and mirrors startup to track all the censorship that's going on... Spotify Removes 113 'JRE' Episodes With No Explanation https://jremissing.com/ While the tsunami of piler-on'rs grows - because what is more virtuous that signaling your disdain for someone that dares to think for themselves - there is also a gathering storm of support for Rogan and what his podcast stands for... The eclectic group of @joerogan guests who were pulled from Spotify just shows you this censorship shit isn’t about left or right. It’s about an authoritarian push for complete control over speech. They hate Rogan bc he’s not controlled by corporate media. — Krystal Ball (@krystalball) February 5, 2022 The effort to smear Joe Rogan as a racist is one of the most despicable efforts I’ve ever seen in my lifetime. They don’t actually care, they’re just trying to destroy him. We either live in a society where context matters or we don’t. By their standard Joe Biden is a racist pic.twitter.com/7wUI8aeL3P — Saagar Enjeti (@esaagar) February 5, 2022 Rogan is the man. If they cancel him just end your Spotify subscription. — Shane Gillis (@Shanemgillis) February 6, 2022 Nobody targeting Joe Rogan right now gives two damns about anything he's said in the past. This is all just an opportunity for activists to destroy a guy who doesn't carry water for those with institutional power, and whose audience dwarfs their own. It is that simple. — Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) February 6, 2022 If they can cancel Joe they can cancel anyone. Time to stand up people. — Funky (@Benaskren) February 5, 2022 Nobody is offended by anything @joerogan said. Nobody is hurt. Nobody is a victim. They went digging for the “offensive” comments. They’re happy to have found them. That’s why these damned vultures deserve a middle finger, not an apology. Rogan owes them nothing but contempt. — Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) February 5, 2022 So far, Spotify has removed at least 113 episodes, according to a running count by JRE Missing, a website dedicated to monitoring how many episodes of the show are no longer available on the service. Some of the episodes were removed months ago, but the biggest purge has taken place since Friday. The show has been exclusively available on Spotify for about a year. CNN's Collapse Is Now Complete By Joe Concha It all began 42 years ago — Ted Turner's creation of a 24/7 news network that would exist on something called cable TV. Few believed it could succeed. And, for its first decade, CNN largely chugged along but wasn't seen as a game-changer or a true competitor to big broadcast news entities based in New York in the form of CBS, NBC and ABC. That all changed when war broke out between the United States and Iraq in 1991. On the night war exploded over Baghdad, CNN was the only news organization that was able to broadcast from the city under siege as the U.S. onslaught began, all courtesy of the CNN team’s ability to convince the Iraqi government to grant them a line out of the city to broadcast, one that the competition could not secure. "How CNN Won the War" was the glowing headline from the Washington Post on a story that perfectly chronicled the events that led to CNN officially becoming a major player. And off it went. Until 2002, CNN was No. 1 in the cable news race. But competition that hadn't existed before ended its dominance forever, primarily in the form of Fox News and, to a lesser extent, MSNBC. Despite the ratings results, CNN continued to carry itself as a credible, facts-first network of integrity that leaned heavily on solid reporting with a sprinkling of opinion and infotainment mixed in via programs such as "Larry King Live" and "Crossfire." In 2013, the network hired former NBC Universal president Jeff Zucker to take the reins as ratings continued to be below average at best. This gave Zucker a mandate to radically change the network from its journalistic roots of more than three decades — the months-long wall-to-wall coverage of a missing Malaysian airliner being an early example. But two years later, the move to insert heavy doses of partisan opinion into its news reports only accelerated when Donald Trump – a Zucker hire at NBC for "The Apprentice" – jumped in to the 2016 presidential race. At first, CNN bear-hugged Trump's every move. (Hillary Clinton's giving a speech somewhere? Screw it. Let's show an empty Trump podium with chyrons stating "Trump to speak soon" instead.) The real estate mogul's 17 Republican challengers never had a shot; Trump blotted out the sun in terms of media coverage on his way to winning the nomination. At that point, Zucker and CNN began to worry. Because while it was a ratings boon for the network to make Trump the centerpiece, there was growing concern that the guy could actually beat Hillary and become the nation's 45th president. So Zucker unleashed the hounds, but it was too late. Trump would go on to shock the world in November 2016. Undeterred, CNN decided there would be no honeymoon period for the new president. Talk about Russian collusion handing Trump the White House began even before the inauguration. And after the nonstop Trump-bashing, Harvard University concluded that CNN led the way, along with Zucker's former home of NBC, in giving Trump 93 percent negative coverage in his first 100 days. For the next four years, CNN served as the leading media resistance to Trump, throwing objectivity out the window. And after Joe Biden got elected, the network cheered the new president as it had throughout the entire campaign while still making Trump a prime centerpiece for over-the-top negative coverage despite his being out of office. But as much as CNN tried to resurrect its lead character – who was banned from social media and largely off the grid for the year – his absence clearly showed the network was a one-trick partisan pony. Ratings fell 90 percent overall when comparing January 2021 to January 2022. That’s hard to do. Which brings us to the events of this week: Zucker released a statement saying he had to resign because of a consensual affair with a female executive named Allison Gollust. WarnerMedia apparently has a rule against this, so Zucker – instead of a slap on the wrist for a benign offense – simply had to go abruptly. Nobody believed this excuse. Turns out they may have had plenty of reason to be skeptical. Per several reports, Zucker and Gollust allegedly advised then Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-N.Y.) – the older brother of then-CNN anchor Chris Cuomo – on what to say during his COVID-19 daily briefings in the spring of 2020. They also reportedly told Cuomo how to respond to and how to criticize then-President Trump, to make it more compelling TV. (Gollust is a former communications director for Andrew Cuomo.) Let's unpack all of this: In the spring of 2020, the country was in a horrific place. Businesses shut completely; people were scared. There were no COVID therapeutics, no vaccines. Hospitals were overwhelmed, thousands were dying each day. If ever there was a time for news organizations to educate and inform the public, this was it. Instead, Zucker apparently believed it was the perfect time to exploit the situation for political gain and to help the network's ratings. Andrew Cuomo benefitted from briefings that made him appear to be the adult in the room regarding COVID and Trump appear to be the villain. Cuomo got a $5.1 million book deal as a result. Chris Cuomo and Zucker/Gollust/CNN benefitted from marathon interviews with Cuomo's governor/brother, which didn't touch the governor's alleged nursing home scandal. Ratings soared. So, was Zucker's departure simply about a consensual relationship with a co-worker? One might be forgiven for questioning that. Moving forward, what's next for CNN when the company falls under the Discovery Channel umbrella later this year? Let's hear from its soon-to-be largest shareholder, John Malone of Liberty Media. "I would like to see CNN evolve back to the kind of journalism that it started with, and actually have journalists, which would be unique and refreshing," Malone said in an interview that recently aired on CNBC. The collapse of CNN is now complete: Nine-out-of-ten viewers, gone. Its top-rated anchor, Chris Cuomo, gone. Its network president, gone. Its integrity in shambles. Oh, and new management coming in that is signaling big-time changes ... changes that may bring CNN back to the proud network it once was before Jeff Zucker destroyed it.
Traditional women's sports should reject biological born males. Create new leagues open for all to join and let players, fans, sponsors, etc freely align as they wish. Free Speech In The UK? https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18208/free-speech-britain "It isn't hate to speak the truth." — J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, Twitter, June 6, 2020. "An entire generation are puzzled by the idea that anyone has the right to say things they don't agree with...for most people, true free speech has ceased to exist.... On some issues, such as the transgender controversy, it is virtually impossible to say anything without attracting the attention of the Thought Police." — Peter Hitchens, author and journalist, Daily Mail, December 11, 2021. "Among millions, the idea that you can defend someone's right to say something you disagree with is now puzzling. They have no idea why anyone would do that. For them, the debate is over, they have won, and those who oppose them are stupid and wrong." — Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail, December 11, 2021. "They also view my doubts about the theory of man-made global warming as 'denial' of a fact which they regard as proven. To them, this is little short of sabotage of efforts to combat this peril." — Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail, December 11, 2021. "All of them believed that they owned the truth, that they were profoundly good and that those who got in their way were therefore evil as well as wrong." — Peter Hitchens, Daily Mail, December 11, 2021. J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter book series, found herself denounced as transphobic. She received not just a storm of social media abuse, but death threats, for saying that biological sex is real and that biological males should not be allowed into women's spaces simply by declaring themselves to be women. Pictured: Rowling accepts the "Ripple of Hope Award" from Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, on December 12, 2019 in New York City. (Photo by Bennett Raglin/Getty Images for Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights) Freedom of speech is doing extremely poorly in the UK, according to a recent YouGov poll. When Britons were asked what should be the priority, 43% said protecting people from offensive or hateful speech should be the priority, while only 38% said the focus should be on protecting free speech. Generally, men and conservative voters were more concerned about protecting free speech, while women, younger people and Labour voters were more concerned about blocking offensive or hateful speech. The poll also showed that self-censorship is thriving: 57% of those polled said they have "found themselves stopping themselves from expressing their political or social views for fear of judgement or negative responses from others." According to the poll: "In most cases, those holding what might be considered the 'un-progressive' view more frequently omit their opinions on that topic. For example, those who believe immigration has generally been a bad thing for the UK... those who disagree with the statement 'a transgender woman is a woman' feel they have to frequently keep bottled up." Recent years have offered many examples of the dire conditions of suppressed free speech in the UK. Opinions that a person's biological sex takes precedence over "gender identity" -- that identifying as a woman is not the same as being born a woman, or that transgender men competing against women in sports creates an unfair playing field -- provoke some of the fiercest backlash. Professor Kathleen Stock, for instance, from Sussex University, ended up resigning after being denounced as "transphobic" by students and receiving death threats for her views on transgenderism. According to one report: Stock criticized the idea that "One aspect in particular that baffled her was the claim that a person's belief about their psychological identity, whether they are male or female, is more important than their material sex at birth — not least due to the impact such categories have on medicine, sport, science, education and more." Stock decided to resign from her position after her own lecturer's union sent a letter urging the university's management to "take a clear and strong stance against transphobia at Sussex." Jo Phoenix, a professor of criminology at the Open University, resigned from her position in December after receiving abuse from colleagues and the university. She had, among other problematic matters, spoken out about "the silencing of academic debate on trans issues" as well as pointing out the problems of housing transgender women in women's prisons. J.K. Rowling, author of the Harry Potter book series, also found herself denounced as transphobic. She received not just a storm of social media abuse, but death threats, for saying that biological sex is real and that biological males should not be allowed into women's spaces simply by declaring themselves to be women. In response to the attacks on her, she tweeted: "If sex isn't real, there's no same-sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn't hate to speak the truth." As a reported consequence, Rowling had her name removed from a primary school, because Rowling's "views on this issue do not align with our school policy and school beliefs - a place where people are free to be," according to the BBC. But not, apparently, to speak. Gillian Philip, a Scottish author of children's books, was dropped by her publisher for posting the hashtag '#IStandWithJKRowling' on Twitter. In a column for the Daily Mail, she wrote: "I'm not remotely transphobic, but the idea that a man can simply declare himself to be a woman, fully intact, without surgery or hormones, and be allowed into women's prisons or hospital wards is a crazy situation that I sometimes want to shout about." Rosie Kay, a leading choreographer, resigned from the dance company she founded in 2004, after she was accused of being transphobic, following remarks she made at a private dinner she hosted for the dancers in her company. Kay had said that "women are losing rights to males who identify as women, including rights to single sex spaces". She left after complaints made by the dancers about her remarks, and said they led to an "unfair, opaque and horrific investigation process that's still ongoing". According to Kay: "This was a dinner in my own home, at which I was attacked by six individuals. The hostility was directed at me, and has lasted for nearly four months. I make no apology for standing up against this treatment... This is not aimed at the dancers, but at the toxic nature of a culture that will see women lose their livelihoods for believing that sex is real." Jess de Wahls, an embroidery artist, had her work withdrawn from the gift shop of the Royal Academy of Arts (RA) in June 2021, after complaints about a blog she had written in 2019. She had noted that a woman is "an adult human female" and "not an identity or feeling". The Royal Academy published a statement declaring: "The RA is committed to Equality, Diversity and Inclusion and does not knowingly support artists who act in conflict with these values. We would like to reiterate that we stand with the LGBTQ+ community." "Eight people had complained," de Wahls told the Telegraph, "It was ridiculous. The RA told me they stood with the LGBTQ community and I said, 'So do I.' I told them it was insane to call me a 'transphobe' just because I understand biological science." "Cancel culture, this cancelling, this punishment, it's everywhere," said Dame Maureen Lipman, an actress and comedian, about the world of comedy. She expressed her concern that it is in danger of being "wiped out" because "comedians are scared that audiences will take offence, and... they self-censor their material as a precaution... It's in the balance, whether we're ever going to be funny again." Patrick West recently wrote in the Spectator: "Earlier this month, both Jack Whitehall and David Baddiel warned about the perils of 'cancel culture'. One comedian has made his name on the back of deprecating his own privileged background; the other made his in the 1990s as a right-on, anti-racist favourite among us teens and students – when students were funny.... comedy is under threat by this new orthodoxy. This is no joke." Journalist and author Peter Hitchens wrote in his column for the Daily Mail, on December 11, 2021: "Free speech is already dead in Britain. It is just that the chattering classes have not realised it yet. There is still a very limited liberty to say a few nonconformist things in some newspapers and magazines, and perhaps in some universities and schools...for most people, true free speech has ceased to exist. Step outside the borders of acceptable thought in a school or a workplace and you can very quickly find yourself being denounced and in serious trouble. On some issues, such as the transgender controversy, it is virtually impossible to say anything without attracting the attention of the Thought Police. "They also view my doubts about the theory of man-made global warming as 'denial' of a fact which they regard as proven. To them, this is little short of sabotage of efforts to combat this peril. "Among millions, the idea that you can defend someone's right to say something you disagree with is now puzzling. They have no idea why anyone would do that. For them, the debate is over, they have won, and those who oppose them are stupid and wrong... All of them believed that they owned the truth, that they were profoundly good and that those who got in their way were therefore evil as well as wrong."
Congrats to Emma Weyant on winning NCAA Womens 500yd freestyle. Crypto fantasports, online gaming leagues and compete sims, crypto sponsors owners and players... already up and running.
German States Outlaw Letter "Z" Displays As Ukraine Asks World To Criminalize https://www.thelocal.de/20220326/german-states-outlaw-display-of-russias-z-w... https://www.youtube.com/embed/qON-LmkIdAI Public displays of the letter "Z" have been outlawed in two German states, after authorities in Bavaria and Lower Saxony announced over the weekend that anyone who displays the letter - which has become synonymous with support for Russia's war in Ukraine - will be subject to a fine or three years in jail, according to The Local. "The Russian war of aggression on the Ukraine is a criminal act, and whoever publicly approves of this war of aggression can also make himself liable to prosecution," said an Interior Ministry spokesperson in a Monday press statement. The letter became a hot-button issue after tanks amassed at the Ukrainian border displayed it - possibly to distinguish them from Ukraine's tanks. Chapter 140 of Germany's criminal code recognizes "incitement to crime of aggression" as an offense, according to Ukrainian state news agency Ukrinform. The Local reports that there have been displays of "Z" in both Lower Saxony and Bavaria. -NPR Russia’s war of aggression against #Ukraine is a criminal offense. Anyone publicly approving the war may be liable to prosecution in Germany. This applies to using the "Z" symbol, too. German security authorities are keeping an eye on the use of the symbol. - Ministry of Interior https://t.co/diQEgGwR7a — German Embassy (@GermanyinUSA) March 28, 2022 Meanwhile, Ukraine is asking the entire world to criminalize the usage of "Z" - with Foreign Affairs Minister Dmytro Kuleba tweeting on Tuesday: "I call on all states to criminalize the use of the 'Z' symbol as a way to publicly support Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine." "'Z' means Russian war crimes, bombed out cities, thousands of murdered Ukrainians. Public support of this barbarism must be forbidden." I call on all states to criminalize the use of the ‘Z’ symbol as a way to publicly support Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine. ’Z’ means Russian war crimes, bombed out cities, thousands of murdered Ukrainians. Public support of this barbarism must be forbidden. — Dmytro Kuleba (@DmytroKuleba) March 29, 2022 The actual meaning of the letter has never been confirmed, however Russia's Defense Ministry said in a series of tweets earlier this month that the "Z" stands for "Victory," "for the truth," "for peace," as well as "denazification" and demilitarization." pic.twitter.com/kNVJ3gFi3O — Минобороны России (@mod_russia) March 4, 2022 Summing up the situation is Paul Joseph Watson:
Meet The Censored - Chris Hedges https://taibbi.substack.com/p/meet-the-censored-chris-hedges https://scheerpost.com/2022/03/28/hedges-on-being-disappeared/ https://chrishedges.substack.com/p/welcome-to-the-chris-hedges-report-ea1 https://www.rt.com/shows/on-contact/ https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf This past weekend, celebrated journalist and author Chris Hedges woke up to find six years of episodes of his Russia Today show On Contact vanished from the show’s account on YouTube. Though almost none of the shows referenced Russia or Vladimir Putin directly, and the few that did tended to be unflattering, his association with Russian state media was enough to erase hundreds of interviews about topics ranging from Julian Assange’s imprisonment to censorship to police brutality to American war crimes in the Middle East. Now on Substack, Hedges has a long and uncomfortably colorful history of being muffled. The former New York Times correspondent covered wars from the Balkans to the Middle East to the Falkland Islands, and authored books like War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, American Fascists, and The Death of the Liberal Class, and through 2002, when he won the Pulitzer Prize as part of a team for Exploratory Reporting, he defined mainstream respectability and excellence in journalism. He might have had it easy, spending the latter part of his career on the Thomas Friedman/David Brooks Memorial Gravy Train of overpaid lectures, University trusteeships, and fellowships at obscure think-tanks, if he’d just kept his mouth shut. He didn’t. One of the few frontline American reporters who spoke Arabic, Hedges knew instantly the Iraq war would be a disaster and said so at every opportunity. He was booed offstage at a commencement address at Rockford College in 2003 by a crowd chanting “U-S-A! U-S-A!,” and hustled off campus so fast that the school wouldn’t let him grab his jacket on the way out. For those who haven’t seen it, the video of that scene is a remarkable museum piece of Bush-era war mania: Episodes like this accelerated his departure from the New York Times and into the wilds of independent media, where paying options for dissident voices had been shrinking. As he points out below, someone like him in the past would have parachuted out of a big commercial enterprise like the Times into a life at NPR — broadcasting shows “at like one in the morning, or something,” he chuckles — but NPR, too, had by then been begun its purging of unorthodox and especially antiwar voices. By the 2010s, one of the last places where media figures pushed off the traditional career track could pick up a paycheck was Russia Today. In an arrangement Hedges plainly describes as a cynical marriage of convenience, the Russian state was happy to give voice to figures covering structural problems in American society, and those quasi-banned voices were glad for the opportunity to broadcast what they felt is the truth, even understanding the editorial motivation. Hedges ended up working at RT for six years hosting On Contact, where he interviewed authors and thinkers resting outside the cultural mainstream, from Nathaniel Philbrick to Cornel West to Nils Melzer to Noam Chomsky to many others (disclosure: I’ve also been a guest). As Hedges points out in the wide-ranging, unnerving interview below, the speech-control one-two he’s just experienced — first herded out of the mainstream for ideological offenses into a shrinking space of “allowable” dissent, then forced to watch as that space is demonized out of existence — is part of an effective pattern. “It’s how this works,” he sighs. He points to the Intelligence Community Assessment of January 6th, 2017, ostensibly intended to make a case for Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which actually spent much of its time complaining about RT, especially its coverage of real but unflattering domestic issues. “They showed their hand,” he says, referring to the intelligence community’s complaints over reporting on everything from the pursuit of Assange to Occupy Wall Street to corporate overreach. From the Assessment: RT’s reports often characterize the United States as a “surveillance state” and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use… Hedges denounced Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as a “criminal act of aggression” after it began, and believes that if RT had been allowed to stay on YouTube, he — along with similarly critical former RT contributors like Jesse Ventura — wouldn’t have been permitted by the Kremlin to stay on air. On the other hand, seeing an American company vaporize six years of interviews having nothing to do with Russia shows space for voices like his continues to shrink in the West. In this sense he represents a kind of person we’ll be seeing more of in the future, caught between a censorship rock and a hard place, an outcast in domestic and foreign media systems. You can find Chris’s work on Substack now at the Chris Hedges Report, and some of the On Contact shows that were re-posted by independent accounts remain up. The launch of the new site has gone very well, but he warns that no place in media is safe now. “They’ll shut down Substack, I absolutely know. Either that, or they’ll create a way that sites like yours and mine won’t be on it,” he says. More from Chris on censorship, RT, Ukraine, and other issues: MT: What happened with YouTube? Chris Hedges: My entire archive of shows from On Contact was taken down. I was in London last week for Julian Assange — I was supposed to be a guest at the wedding, but then, the prison didn’t let me in of course. When I came back, I got a text from a friend of mine, with whom I’d done a half hour show, about a girlfriend who’d overdosed on fentanyl. And because I knew him, my interview with him is quite a powerful segment. And he said, the show doesn’t exist anymore. Then I checked, and nothing exists. The RT On Contact website is still up, but everything on YouTube is gone, and people watched it on YouTube. Some of that stuff had hundreds of thousands of views. MT: This two-step process feels like a backdoor way of getting rid of unorthodox voices. In other words, weren’t you on RT in the first place because you’d been bounced out for opposing the war in Iraq? Now, because of your association with RT, you’re off YouTube. Is this a way to get at, not just people connected with Russians, but people with unpopular views generally? Chris Hedges: Yeah. That’s how it works. They push you to the margins and then, they demonize those spaces on the margins. This has long been the habit of the dominant ruling elites. So for instance, Robert Scheer, whose website I write for, Scheerpost — and of course, we were all fired from Truthdig, this is just a never ending saga — but he ran Ramparts. I think it was Spiro Agnew said, “It’s a magazine with a bomb in every issue.” We could never get advertisers. So they push you into a space that they then demonize, and then use it as an excuse to shut you down. But they’ve already in essence created the space in which you exist. I have a couple strikes against me. One, I was pushed out of the New York Times, because I spent so many years in the Middle East, and many years in Gaza. And of course, I was the Middle East Bureau Chief for the New York Times. I’m very outspoken about Israel, and I’m a very strong supporter of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement. Which alone is enough — I just saw my friend, Cornel West, denied tenure at Harvard over this. And I’m also a fierce critic, as you are, of the Democratic party. Those are all flags that will get you locked out of even the quote- unquote “liberal media” like MSNBC. MT: This freeze-out led to your tenure at RT? Chris Hedges: I’d been marginalized for a long time because of those issues. RT gave me space, and I took it. But it wasn’t a show about Russia. We never did a show on Russia. The irony is that, in fact, the very few times Putin was mentioned, he was not described in flattering terms — it was as an autocrat. There was one show where Syria came up, and Russian war crimes. So there was nothing on the show, ever, that was in any way flattering to the Putin regime. But the point of the show was, of course, critiquing and looking at our own society, and that was the problem.
Joe Rogan Slams 'Mentally Ill Woke Activists' At Silicon Valley Tech Companies https://nypost.com/2022/03/24/joe-rogan-slams-big-tech-employees-as-mentally... https://www.youtube.com/embed/ziEfOkp6Kkw Podcaster Joe Rogan slammed Silicon Valley tech companies, saying that woke "activist" employees are "mentally ill" and are the "lunatics who are running the asylum to a certain extent." Rogan, who has come under fire by the left for allowing a free speech platform to non-heterodox thinkers, made the comments during a Wednesday interview with former Apple and Facebook engineer Antonio García Martínez - who upended his life to work in Silicon Valley, only to have a gaggle of woke Apple employees 'cancel' him for comments he made in a book more than five years ago (which Apple knew about before hiring him). "For someone from the outside, we look at it and say: ‘How are those f–king places run?'" Rogan asked Martínez, adding that a "good friend" told him that life inside Silicon Valley is "utter madness." "The lunatics are running the asylum to a certain extent because there’s a lot of people working inside the company now that legitimately are mentally ill and they consider themselves activists," he continued, adding that tech bosses at these companies "have to placate these workers "“because they’re a certain percentage of the population that works for the company, and they’re the loudest, and they oftentimes don’t get work done." When confronted over a lack of output, the 'woke' employees "talk about their activism," said Rogan, adding that his friend - a former Google manager - had to reprimand workers, according to the New York Post. "You are here for X amount of hours per day. This is your f—–g job. You’re not an activist." Martinez, meanwhile, told Rogan that the companies are partly to blame because HR departments encourage people to "bring the real self to work," which has made big tech firms such as Facebook into "kind of a cult" where employees are brought into a "campus lifestyle" where "they do your laundry for you" and "feed you." "Facebook was a cult, and I joined it, and I was a happy member of it," said Martínez. "It was very powerful. Everyone sacrificed themselves for the sake of the empire and its emperor."
NYT's Top Editor Orders Reporters To "Meaningfully Reduce" Twitter Usage As Musk Joins Company's Board https://www.businessinsider.com/new-york-times-issues-twitter-reset-for-repo... https://www.reuters.com/technology/elon-musks-arrival-stirs-fears-among-some... How's this for interesting timing? Just days after Elon Musk - a self-described "free speech absolutist" - unveiled a 9.2% stake in Twitter and was rewarded with a seat on the company's board, eliciting cheers from Republicans and conservatives who have long seen their speech suppressed on the platform, the NYT's executive editor has reportedly ordered the paper's army of reporters (many of whom are among the platform's most closely followed journalists) to reduce the amount of time they spend tweeting. The order from the NYT comes as Musk has promised to make 'significant improvements' to the platform. He had previously opined that the Twitter algorithm should be open source. Conservatives have also used the platform to lobby Musk to reinstate Trump's twitter account. Citing an internal memo, Business Insider reports that NYT Executive Editor Dean Baquet on Thursday ordered his staff to consider a Twitter "reset", and that using the platform is now "purely optional" for its journalists. "If you do choose to stay on, we encourage you to meaningfully reduce how much time you're spending on the platform, tweeting or scrolling, in relation to other parts of your job," he wrote. He also claimed the NYT would step up efforts to support reporters who find themselves on the receiving end of "harassment" on the platform (following the viral interview with former NYT staffer Taylor Lorenz, who wept during an interview with MSNBC while describing the targeted harassment she has experienced on social media). "This is an industry-wide scourge, but we are determined to take action," he wrote. Baquet also demanded that reporters and all NYT employees refrain from attacking one another on the platform. Baquet also said that "tweets or subtweets that attack, criticize or undermine the work of your colleagues are not allowed." We can't help but notice how this last requirement follows an incident at rival the Washington Post, where reporter Felicia Sonmez publicly attacked her editors for barring her from covering issues related to sexual assault (a lawsuit she filed against the paper was later thrown out by a judge). But left-wing journalists aren't the only ones who are clearly anxious about Musk's plans for Twitter. Several Twitter employees have anonymously complained to media outlets about their 'concerns' that Musk might roll back policies governing 'harmful' and 'abusive' content on the platform.
Censorship By Algorithm Does Far More Damage Than Conventional Censorship
Yet conventional censors still run rampant... Daily Stormer, one of the first sites of note to be removed from the internet along with Alex Jones, gets more of its domains ganked, again... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Stormer http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/this-s... http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/suppor... This Site is Only on Tor Now, Don’t Know for How Long Andrew Anglin April 8, 2022 Jesus is still King of Heaven and everything below it – including the internet. Two different domains were stolen yesterday. Basically, they really don’t want me talking about this Russia stuff at all. It’s a lot more extreme than just talking about Jews and black people, or women. This could end up being a running issue. We are basically exhausted of options outside of doing something really weird. Any normal domain is going to be stolen in real time. But, we will figure it out. For those of you who can see this: I am going to keep writing on this Tor website. http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/ Please tell people to either use Brave Browser, or download the Tor Browser. Also, just as a reminder – nothing on this site is copyrighted. So if you want to copy articles, or take screenshots, or whatever – please do. Also, please remember this is expensive, and consider sending crypto. Daily Stormer Now Live on DailyStormer.cn – Spread the Word! Andrew Anglin April 10, 2022 The site is officially back on the normie web at dailystormer.cn. All of you Tor users should spread this around. Also, continue to spread the Tor site: http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/ Remember that if you can’t figure out how to use Tor on Brave, you can always download the Tor Browser. I’m feeling good about this dot cn, but there is huge pressure now, because of the fact I am one of the only people with a big audience dissecting these various stupid atrocity hoaxes in the Ukraine, so nothing is certain. So, we’ll pray for the best. Getting back up on Palm Sunday has a lot of different implications, I think. Whatever happens, I will keep writing. That Tor site will always be up, even if we end up totally removed from the normie web. It’s not a big deal at all to download Tor Browser, it’s very easy to use on Windows, Mac, Linux and Android. The only thing it doesn’t work on is iOS (there are options for that, but they keep changing). It’s frustrating, but it is out of my control, and the only thing I can do is the best I can do. So there is no reason to be upset. I will just keep doing the right thing. The rest is in God’s hands.
Yet conventional censors still run rampant...
Twitter censorbans @LibsOfTikTok , a feed that does nothing but post Libs exposing themselves in their own words. https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1514763697687736320 The left is triggered by seeing their own opinions being publicized https://thepostmillennial.com/libs-of-tik-tok-has-hope-for-the-future-of-edu... https://twitter.com/TPostMillennial/status/1514761829192540161 The creator of @libsoftiktok joins Tucker Carlson to discuss being suspended from Twitter: "It definitely felt like a very organized attack by the left to get me suspended." Libs of Tik Tok @libsoftiktok Bringing you news you won’t see anywhere else. All videos belong to their respective owners. 📧 libsoftiktok@gmail.com. DM submissions Depths of Hell linktr.ee/Libsoftiktok Joined November 2020 Tweets 6,352 Following 662 Followers 630,255 Likes 21,581 2,542 Photos and videos Libs of Tik Tok @libsoftiktok Mar 28 It’s a matter of time before I get suspended. Never know which post will be my last. If you want to make sure you keep receiving my content, go to the link under my bio and sign up for my email list. I’ll publish some exclusive stuff for email subs, too. Thanks for your support! Twitter just censored @libsoftiktok, locking the account for “hateful conduct.” — Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) April 14, 2022 Libs of TikTok, a Twitter account that reposts videos of libs from TikTok, was suspended for 12 hours Wednesday for “hateful conduct.” Literally, the only thing the account does is repost videos that white women and homosexuals post themselves about how they are indoctrinating children into homosexuality. We’ve seen a similar thing with mass bannings of people reposting videos of Ukrainians torturing people that the Ukrainians posted themselves. So it’s hateful to spread information that liberals are trying to spread themselves if you spread it because you are against it and not because you support it. Man, you should watch these videos while you can. And share them. People have no idea how bad things really are. “Parents need to stay the f*** out of classrooms.” This is what the left really thinks. Listen when they tell you. They want to take your kids to groom and indoctrinate them behind your back. pic.twitter.com/vEJi71U3fH — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 13, 2022 Letting kids choose their gender identity is now “consent.” Parents who let kids "choose their gender" are child abusers. pic.twitter.com/vVKcDxXPZC — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 13, 2022 “Diversity is my favorite thing to teach” says non-binary preschool teacher who also makes 4 year olds pick a pronoun pin every day to wear pic.twitter.com/6IRmh4v8Co — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 12, 2022 “If your parents don’t accept you for who you are, f*** them. I’m your parents now” – Oklahoma middle school teacher This teacher was let go last week after complaints of grooming and this tiktok + others containing questionable content were brought to the principal’s attention. pic.twitter.com/eBgAWCW3K7 — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 11, 2022 Students in an @mcpasd school were treated to a drag queen performance by a “drag teacher” during school hours. Imagine if they focused on teaching math, science, and history instead of drag. This is sickening. pic.twitter.com/TvyoQ8pW6r — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 12, 2022 Not using someone’s preferred pronouns or calling a non-binary person a woman is discrimination and a hate crime. She seems stable…. pic.twitter.com/SKCM0mfFNa — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 12, 2022 “I’m a man but when I was a baby the doctors told my parents I was a girl” “I talk to my students about what it means to be trans all the time” These are 6 year old kids. pic.twitter.com/9CEOVvCdI5 — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 11, 2022 Trans non-binary elementary teacher says 3 year olds are old enough to learn about gender identity, sexual orientation, and pronouns. These are the people teaching your kids. pic.twitter.com/fylE9jCQrF — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 10, 2022 This polyamorous genderfluid witch is a preschool teacher in Florida. She’s so proud of herself that she discusses her gender and sexuality with 4 year olds pic.twitter.com/XOuuX6by4w — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 7, 2022 Not wanting to teach kids about sex and gender ideology is homophobic 🤨 pic.twitter.com/q4FKYxqoKM — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 7, 2022 .@PaloAltoUnified 1st grade teacher is excited to read books to 6 yr olds about little kids who become transgender. Sick pic.twitter.com/3oj6sGDeuE — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 6, 2022 The mental gymnastics to try to justify teaching 5 year old kids about sex… DeSantis broke these teachers. It’s epic pic.twitter.com/W2u2xZYa6E — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 6, 2022 Drag king preschool teacher says she won’t follow the laws of the Parental Rights in Education bill pic.twitter.com/TlD0tFadn3 — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 4, 2022 Kansas teacher says we have to teach kindergartners about LGBTQ because there are already kindergartners who are trans, non-binary, etc. Trans 5 year olds. pic.twitter.com/SYbbPx9SNM — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 5, 2022 These are the people teaching your kids… Any teacher who comes out to their students should be fired on the spot. pic.twitter.com/F3KMXFW0VK — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 4, 2022 Why would a classroom have 2 entire walls painted with the progress pride flag? pic.twitter.com/3vWVQFM2wN — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 3, 2022 Here’s one that’s not a lib, showing what they are teaching in first grade sex ed. New Jersey teacher goes through examples of the new sex-ed lesson plans for 1st grade. First graders are being taught about gender identity and that it’s okay to identify with the opposite gender. pic.twitter.com/c1cqEdcBlQ — Libs of Tik Tok (@libsoftiktok) April 10, 2022 This is happening in EVERY SCHOOL that isn’t in some small town where people know what is going on. Y’all better wake up. Boomers don’t even believe this is real. Probably, most of you don’t know how bad it is. They have turned the entire school system into a homosexual grooming industrial complex. This is why God sent the flood, it’s why he destroyed Sodom. We NEED the megacomet. Record-breaking 'megacomet' is more than 80 MILES wide and has a staggering mass of 500 TRILLION tonnes, NASA's Hubble Space Telescope reveals via https://t.co/mzARDwXXmP https://t.co/3xWLCuPCg2 — Sergey Minaev (@sminaev2015) April 13, 2022
Twitter censorbans @LibsOfTikTok
Twitter Suspends LibsofTikTok For Featuring Liberals Talking About Themselves? https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/15/twitter-suspends-libsoftiktok-for-feat... https://twitter.com/SethDillon/status/1514394254101168129 https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/fox-news-using-libs-tiktok-twitter-acc... https://nypost.com/2022/04/12/twitter-a-sh-tshow-for-employees-since-elon-mu... Twitter has continued its ever-widening censorship of social media this week with the suspension of the popular site, The @LibsofTikTok. What is interesting about this latest move is that it lacks even the pretense of neutrality. The liberal group Media Matters had targeted the site due to its use by Fox News and conservatives to run embarrassing stories for the left. So Twitter suspended a site that entirely features liberals talking about themselves. Twitter suspended the site for “hateful conduct.” It warned the site “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” However, the site highlights liberals speaking about themselves and their values in their own voices. There is no explanation, which is common for the company. It simply suspended the site and told it to reform itself. Formed in November 2020, the “Libs of Tik Tok” account has more than 613,000 followers on Twitter and has become a major feeder for conservative new sites. The success of the site drew the familiar crowd demanding the silencing of opposing voices or groups. Notably, the liberal Media Matters stressed that the site had simply become too successful. Sophie Lawton described the replaying of postings liberal voices as “targeting teachers and schools with anti-LGBTQ smears.” She described that the site was going in influence as the basis for stories by Fox, Joe Rogan, Meghan McCain and others. However, all she describes is the use of tapes of liberal subjects talking about themselves and objects that “the Libs of TikTok content has become ammunition for their arguments.” That was apparently enough for Twitter, which defined reposting liberals to be a form of hateful conduct. The action seems consistent with the chillingly anti-free speech agenda of Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal. In an interview with Technology Review editor-in-chief Gideon Lichfield, he was asked how Twitter would balance its efforts to combat misinformation with wanting to “protect free speech as a core value” and to respect the First Amendment. Agrawal responded: “Our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation. The kinds of things that we do about this is, focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed. One of the changes today that we see is speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard. The scarce commodity today is attention. There’s a lot of content out there. A lot of tweets out there, not all of it gets attention, some subset of it gets attention.” Twitter seems to have followed Agrawal’s lead. It not is just thinking less about free speech. It is not thinking of it at all. Libs of TikTok was getting too much attention so it suspended it without further explanation. Notably, there are many sites that watch and replay evangelical ministers and conservative figures for use on liberal sites. That includes “Right Wing Watch” run by the liberal People for the American Way. It is all free speech. However, Twitter is now in the business of shaping viewpoints and values. It has, according to its CEO, simply moved beyond free speech. Given such actions, it is understandable why Twitter employees are reportedly not just in a panic of Elon Musk buying the company (and reintroducing free speech principles) but even requiring emotional support to just “get through the week.” That is the problem with free speech. Just when you think that you have moved beyond it, it just comes back. For corporate censors, it is a perfect nightmare.
World's two biggest Frauds... Obama and Hillary, bleat for more Censorship of Freedom... Obama, Clinton Rail Against Free Speech Under Guise Of Fighting 'Misinformation' https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20220114IPR21017/digital-s... https://twitter.com/RealMacReport/status/1517236451649503232 https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/793250312119263233 Over the last 24 hours, former President Barack Obama and twice-failed presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton have come out against free speech - calling for big tech to go further to censor views they disagree with. On Thursday, Obama told an audience at Stanford University that tech companies are "turbo-charging some of humanity’s worst impulses," adding "One of the biggest reasons for the weakening of democracy is the profound change that’s taken place in how we communicate and consume information." He then said that people are 'dying because of disinformation.' Obama goes on psychotic rant, claims people are dying because of “misinformation”. pic.twitter.com/uHBeKpT7rI — Real Mac Report (@RealMacReport) April 21, 2022 Obama's 'misinformation' shtick was largely a repeat of a speech he gave two weeks ago in Chicago, when he claimed "You have to fight to provide people [with] the information they need to be free and self-governing." In other words, government-approved narratives. As The Federalist noted, however, Obama "Spied on the Donald Trump campaign with a secret court warrant backed by the Hillary Clinton campaign-funded Christopher Steele dossier which, in an ironic twist, was the product of Russian disinformation. Democrats used this disinformation to repeatedly smear President Trump and undermine the integrity of the 2016 election." Hillary Clinton joined the fray on Thursday, tweeting "For too long, tech platforms have amplified disinformation and extremism with no accountability," and called on "our transatlantic allies to push the Digital Services Act," aimed at regulating online platforms. Of course, Hillary Clinton funded the Russian disinfo dossier that Obama's administration used against Trump, and the former British spy that was paid to fabricate it pushed it to major news outlets which peddled the misinformation as long as they could squeeze blood from that stone. What was that about misinformation, Hillary? Computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert server linking the Trump Organization to a Russian-based bank. pic.twitter.com/8f8n9xMzUU — Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 1, 2016
Did the censors really think censored people would not collect and present proof datas of the censors corruption and illegal fraudulent corruptive influence... oops. Now there are at least two projects specifically tracking censorship by corrupt BigTech platforms. This tracker accepts submissions, you can use it to submit the Tor Project, Perry Metzger, and Yosem Companys. https://censortrack.org/ Menu Donate Tech Company Bias Fact-Checker Spin Censorship By Issue Key Players About Us Subscribe Contact Us Facebook YouTube Parler Instagram Twitter LinkedIn TikTok MeWe Rumble Clapper CloutHub Gettr FreeTalk Protecting the President: Big Tech Censors Biden Criticism 646 Times Over Two Years Joseph Vazquez and Gabriela Pariseau Tucker, MRC’s Gainor Tease New MRC Study Showing Just ‘How Far Big Tech Will Go’ to Protect Biden Joseph Vazquez STUDY: How Big Tech Tried to Kill the Hunter Biden Story Brian Bradley Column: Elon Musk's Takeover of Twitter Could Totally Remake Politics Dan Gainor and Joseph Vazquez IT’S HAPPENING: Elon Musk Launches $43 Billion Hostile Takeover of Twitter Joseph Vazquez Most Recent Cases Deleted Content MRCTV TikTok April 24, 2022 Deleted Content MRCTV Twitter April 23, 2022 Locked Account Penny Nance Twitter April 23, 2022 Deleted Content Climate Change Dispatch LinkedIn April 21, 2022 Deleted Content Dr. Peter Kirwan Facebook April 20, 2022 Restricted MRCTV Facebook April 18, 2022 Fact Check MRCTV Facebook April 18, 2022 Locked Account LifeNews.com Twitter April 17, 2022 View More Cases 3,715 Current Number of Censored Cases “So, the MRC, as part of their Free Speech America project, created a database they call CensorTrack to document every verifiable instance of conservatives being censored by these tech companies — this is so good.” Mark Levin CensorTrack Categories Tech Company Bias Fact-Checker Spin Censorship By Issue Key Players Free Speech America Blogs 71% of Executives Say Metaverse Will Be Good for Businesses: Survey Bozell: Musk Twitter Purchase About ‘Free Speech,’ Not Economics Levin Returns to Twitter, Bashes ‘Corrupt Media,’ ‘Repugnant Psaki' Backdoor Free Speech Crackdown? Clinton Pushes Draconian EU Proposal View More Blogs Have you been censored? Write to us and let us know! Contact Us FSA Logo White The mission of the Media Research Center is to create a media culture in America where truth and liberty flourish. The MRC is a research and education organization operating under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and contributions to the MRC are tax-deductible. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use Agreement ©Copyright 2022, Media Research Center | All Rights Reserved Donate Connect Sign up for our FSA Weekly newsletter to receive the latest news. Facebook YouTube Parler Instagram Twitter LinkedIn TikTok MeWe Rumble Clapper CloutHub Gettr FreeTalk
Leftists Hate Free Speech Because They Fear Dissent, Not "Disinformation" https://alt-market.us/leftists-hate-free-speech-because-they-fear-dissent-no... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4KYDnjdZkc https://www.kron4.com/news/elon-musks-bid-for-twitter-poses-threat-to-democr... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quU_Tbv96Wk I think one of the most bizarre social developments of the past 10 years in the US has been the slow but steady shift of the political left as supposed defenders of free speech to enemies of free speech. The level of mental gymnastics on display by leftists to justify their attacks on freedom and the 1st Amendment is bewildering. So much so that I begin to question if liberals and leftists ever actually had any respect for 1st Amendment rights to begin with? Or, maybe the only freedom they cared about all along was the freedom to watch pornography… One can see the steady progression of this war on speech and ideas, and the end game is predictable: Is anyone really that surprised that the Biden Administration is implementing a Ministry of Truth in the form of the DHS Disinformation Governance Board? Can we just accept the reality at this point that leftists are evil and their efforts feed into an agenda of authoritarianism? Is there any evidence to the contrary? Before I get into this issue, I think it’s important to point out that it’s becoming tiresome to hear arguments these days suggesting that meeting leftists “somewhere in the middle” is the best and most desirable option. I see this attitude all over the place and I think it comes from a certain naivety about the situation we are facing as a country. Moderates and “normies” along with people like Bill Maher and Russell Brand are FINALLY starting to realize how bag-lady-crazy leftists are and the pendulum is swinging back slightly. But, it was conservatives that were calling out the social justice cult and their highway to hell for years. While everyone else was blissfully ignorant, we were fighting the battles that stalled the leftist advance. This is not to say I’m not happy to have moderates and reformed liberals on board, it’s a great thing. However, the time for diplomacy and meeting leftists halfway is long dead. There is no such thing as a “center” in our society anymore, either you lean conservative and you support freedom, or you lean left and support authoritarianism. There is no magical and Utopian in-between that we need to achieve to make things right. We are not required to tolerate leftist authoritarianism because of “democracy.” Sometimes certain ideologies and certain groups are mutually exclusive to freedom; meaning, they cannot coexist within a society that values liberty. We need to be clear about where the lines are drawn, because sitting on the fence is not an option. Walk in middle of road? Get squished like grape. To understand how leftists got to the point of enthusiastic hatred of free speech rights there are some psychological and philosophical factors that need to be addressed. These include specific ideals that leftists value that are disjointed or simply irrational: Hate Speech Is Real And Must Be Censored? First, as I have argued for many years, there is no such thing as “hate speech.” There is speech that some people don’t like and speech they are offended by. That is all. Constitutionally, there is no hate speech. People are allowed to say any offensive thing they wish and believe however they wish as long as they are not slandering a person’s reputation with lies or threatening them with direct bodily harm. If you are offended by criticism, that is your problem. Leftists believe the opposite. Instead of growing a thicker skin they think that “hate speech” should be illegal and that they should be the people that determine what hate speech is. This is a kind of magical door to power, because if you can declare yourself the arbiter of hate speech you give yourself the authority to control ALL speech. That is to say, as the thought police all you have to do is label everything you don’t like as hate speech, no matter how factual, and you now dictate the course of society. No one is capable of this kind of objectivity or benevolence. No person alive has the ability to determine what speech is acceptable without bias. Like the One Ring in the Lord of The Rings, there is no individual or group capable of wielding such power without being corrupted by it. Either there is no hate speech, or everything becomes hate speech. Free Speech Is Negated By Property Rights? This is in direct reference to social media websites and it’s an oversimplification of the issue of free speech and large social media platforms. Here is the conundrum or “false paradigm” if you will: Leftists argue for private property rights, but only when it comes to vast corporate big tech platforms like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, etc. They like private property rights for companies that they think are on their side politically; they hate private property rights for everyone else. Just look at their response to Elon Musk’s recent Twitter buyout; the leftists are demanding that Musk be stopped at all costs, and they demand that the SEC and FCC step in to disrupt the sale because they claim Musk’s purchase is a “threat to democracy.” The media itself is clamoring to disrupt Musk’s takeover of Twitter. Whether or not you trust him, Musk’s acquisition of the platform has at least exposed the totalitarian attitudes of mainstream journalists for everyone to see. They are now even admitting on air that THEY control public discussion; that it is “their job,” and they see Musk as a threat to that monopoly. Why are Elon Musk’s private property rights less important or protected than the original shareholders of Twitter (Vangaurd, BlackRock, Morgan Stanley and a Saudi Prince)? Because Musk does not claim to represent leftist designs and interests? Leftists have no principles, they only care about manufacturing consent. Their method of winning requires that they never restrict themselves within the boundaries of values or morals. Again, this is the epitome of pure evil. Beyond that irony, though, is the deeper issue of government intervention vs business rights. Many people seem to think that government power is supposed to balance out corporate power when the truth is that governments and corporations work hand in hand; they are often one in the same entity. Twitter and other Big Tech platforms receive billions upon billions of dollars in government stimulus and tax incentives every year. Corporations as a concept are essentially a socialist creation. They enjoy limited liability and corporate personhood along with other special protections under government charter. With all these protections, incentives, bailouts and stimulus measures it is almost impossible for small and new businesses to compete with them. They represent a monopoly through cartel; they control the marketplace by colluding with each other and colluding with the government. A perfect example of this would be the coordination between multiple Big Tech companies to bring down Parler, a conservative leaning competitor to Twitter. This required some of the biggest companies in the world working in unison along with the blessing of government officials to disrupt the ability of a new company to offer an alternative, and all because Parler was getting too big. In the case of a private person’s home or their small business or small website, it’s true that there are no free speech rights. They can kick you out and they don’t have to give a reason. But when it comes to massive conglomerates that receive billions in OUR tax dollars in order to stay alive, no, they do not deserve private property rights. They have now made themselves into a public utility, and that means they are subject to constitutional limitations just as public schools and universities are. This is a concept that leftists just don’t grasp. They view corporate power as sacrosanct…as long as it serves their interests. Consider global corporations like Disney and their open intention to undermine the passage of Florida’s anti-grooming bill; this represents Disney’s vocal support for the sexualization and indoctrination of children in Florida schools. Leftists cheered the announcement and claimed that without Disney, Florida’s economy would be wrecked. Instead, the state turned the tables and took away incentives they had been giving to Disney for decades. Leftists responded by accusing Governor DeSantis of being a “fascist” and attacking free speech. But let’s break this down: Leftists happily supported Disney, a massive conglomerate, and their efforts to undermine the will of the voters in Florida. The state government stops them from undermining the voters by taking away the money and special incentives that belong to the voters. In turn, leftists claim this is a violation of Disney’s rights? The disparity between leftist arguments on Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter vs. Disney’s attempted sabotage of Florida law could not be more confused. When it comes to Twitter they love the idea of censorship and react with panic when the mere prospect of free speech (within the confines of US law) is presented. When it comes to Disney, they say they love the idea of free speech, and anyone that wants to limit the corporation’s influence within Florida, no matter how criminal, is accused of fascism. The difference is obvious – Musk appears to be an uncontrolled element, while Disney is an “ally.” Free speech and property rights are only allowed for one side of the cultural divide. Leftists attacking freedom is free speech; defending ourselves against those attacks is a threat to democracy. It’s absurd. Disinformation Is A Threat And Censorship Is The Solution? The holy grail of censorship is not website filters and algorithms, because as we have seen with Twitter, those platforms could be built or purchased by someone that does not share in the leftist agenda. Instead, government intervention and the ability to define what is proper and improper discourse is the ultimate goal. The end game of authoritarians is always to write mass censorship into law, as if it is justified once it is codified. Corporate elites and political puppets like Biden pontificating about the threat of “disinformation” is hilarious for a number of reasons, but mainly because it is the power brokers and the media that have been the main purveyors of disinformation for a long time. Suddenly today they care about the spread of lies? I think it is obvious that such people are far more worried about the spread of facts, evidence and truth. They cannot debate on fair ground because they will lose, so, the only other option is to silence us. The institution of the Disinformation Governance Board is a clear indication that the establishment and the useful idiots on the political left are becoming DESPERATE. Their grip on the public mind is slipping, and we saw this during their recent attempts to enforce medical tyranny across the country in the name of covid. Luckily, conservatives in at least 20 red states fought against the implementation of covid lockdowns, mandates and vaccine passports which would have annihilated our constitutional rights forever. For years I heard the argument that when the jackboots arrived conservatives would do nothing, and now we know this is nonsense. Some of the few free places in the world during two years of pandemic fear mongering were red states in America, which coincidentally also have the highest concentration of conservatives. If you want to know what our country would look like had conservatives not stopped the tide of tyranny, just take a gander at China today. They have some of the strictest covid mandates on the planet and yet they are once again locking down millions of citizens due to “high infection rates.” Not only that, but they are starving their own people in the process. It’s madness, and it’s exactly what leftists were arguing in favor of just a few months ago. The US is mostly open today, just as red states like mine have been free for almost the entirety of the pandemic, and what has changed? Half the country is still unvaccinated – Is there mass death in the streets? Nope. Nothing has changed in terms of covid. The mandates made no difference whatsoever, other than to disrupt the economy and reduce people’s freedoms. Not long ago, pointing out this fact was considered “disinformation” that needed to be silenced in order to “save lives.” The Hunter Biden laptop story was called disinformation. The Wuhan Lab story was called disinformation. Fauci’s gain of function research on covid at the Wuhan lab was called disinformation. The fact that vaccinated people still contract and die from covid was called disinformation. In other words, what the government and corporate oligarchs call “disinformation” today is eventually called reality tomorrow. I would be happy to enter into a fair debate with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki on any of the above issues and her views of what constitutes “disinformation,” but she would never do such a thing because she knows she would be crushed like a bug. It is not the government’s job to protect the public from information, whether real or fake. It is not their job to filter or censor data or ideas. They are not qualified to do this. No one is. Leftists operate from a collectivist mentality and this makes them believe that society is a singular entity that needs to be managed and manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. They have no concept of individual responsibility and discernment, but that is a side note to the real problem. They support information control because facts and ideas outside of their narrative could possibly damage that narrative. And, if the narrative is damaged they lose their feeling of power, which is all they really care about. If your narrative is so fragile that it does not hold up to scrutiny or alternative viewpoints then it must not be worth much of a damn. If you have to force people or manipulate people into believing the way you do, then your ideology must be fundamentally flawed. The truth speaks volumes for itself and eventually wins without force. Only lies need to be forced into the collective consciousness. Only lies require tyranny. Eventually reality wins over propaganda, unless total censorship and totalitarianism can be achieved. Nothing has changed in the 200+ years since the creation of the Bill of Rights. Free speech is still integral to a functioning society. Without it, society crumbles. They will claim that today things are different and that society needs to be “protected from itself.” This is what tyrants always say when trying to steal power. Most people reading this know by now that this is a war. It’s not a political debate that requires give-and-take, but a full-bore winner-take-all conflict. A DHS faction which is mandated to monitor our speech and propagandize the public is unacceptable and must be eliminated. Leftist and globalist monopoly of social media communications platforms is unacceptable and must be eliminated. The imposition of leftist and globalist ideology into the media narrative while censoring any contrary information is unacceptable and must be eliminated. This is about saving the remaining embers of American culture. If we do not take an aggressive stand now, the next generation may never know liberty. Everything we hold dear is at stake.
https://rsf.org/en/index?year=2022 https://www.statista.com/chart/27376/countries-ranking-highest-and-lowest-on... https://www.statista.com/topics/7927/press-freedom/ https://www.statista.com/topics/2096/journalism/ Where The Press Is The Most (And Least) Free Norway, Denmark and Sweden are the countries with the highest scores on this year's World Press Freedom Index issued by Reporters Without Borders (RSF), with the first two scoring more than 90 points. Infographic: The State of World Press Freedom | Statista You will find more infographics at Statista As Statista's Florian Zandt details below, while the top-ranked countries have changed somewhat compared to 2013, there's a lot less movement in the bottom rungs, with one major exception. This exception is the Southeast Asian country of Myanmar, which in comparison with 2013 fell by 24 ranks to the fifth-last place. According to RSF, this can largely be attributed to the February 1, 2021 coup deposing State Counsellor of Myanmar Aung San Suu Kyi, in the wake of which the military junta banned a slew of media outlets dedicated to independent reporting from the region. Infographic: Where the Press Is the Most and the Least Free | Statista You will find more infographics at Statista While countries like North Korea, China or Iran have always been among or around the bottom 20 in the past, the number of countries losing the classification of having "good" freedom of press compared to around ten years ago is a cause for concern. In 2013, 25 countries scored between 85 and 100 index points, while in 2022 only eight qualified for this bracket. For example, liberal democracy poster children like the United Kingdom, the United States or Germany only managed to get a "satisfactory" rating. This analysis comes with one important caveat: The index only portrays the level of freedom journalists and media workers enjoy in their corresponding countries and doesn't serve as an indicator of the quality or quantity of the connected outlets. The World Press Freedom Index is based on an annual questionnaire conducted among journalists and media workers and covers five indicators across over 100 questions: political context (e.g. media autonomy), legal framework (e.g. ability to work without censorship), economic context (e.g. corruption and favoritism), sociocultural context (e.g. attacks on the press based on gender, class, ethnicity etc.) and safety (e.g. bodily harm).
Govts: Free Speech is "Grossly Offensive" to Governments... Keep Calm & Censor On: Musk Summoned To UK Parliament To Answer For His Pledge To Restore Free Speech https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/05/stay-calm-and-censor-on-musk-summoned-... https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/378/digital-culture-media-and-spo... https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-02/0285/210285.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/news/world-first-online-safety-laws-introduced... https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/27/section/1 I previously wrote about Hillary Clinton’s call on European countries to pass censorship laws to force social media companies like Twitter to regulate speech even after Elon Musk’s pledge to restore free speech to Twitter. Now the British Parliament has called on Musk to testify and to explain his alarming pledge to restore free speech. The Biden Administration’s Disinformation Governance Board head, Nina Jankowisz, previously called upon Great Britain to impose state censorship rules. That call has grown since Musk’s purchase. Until now, a unified front of corporate censors was able to maintain an extensive system of censorship with the encouragement of politicians and pundits, including Joe Biden and Democratic members . The head of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee in the House of Commons, Conservative MP Julian Knight has assured her countrymen that they can stay calm and censor on. She issued a letter for Musk to appear before the committee to answer for his terrifying suggestion of free speech: “At a time when social media companies face the prospect of tighter regulations around the world, we’re keen to learn more about how Mr Musk will balance his clear commitment to free speech with new obligations to protect Twitter’s users from online harms.” Like the EU’s censorship plans under the Digital Services Act, the proposed Online Safety Bill would introduce state censorship through the purview of Ofcom (The Office of Communications), the broadcasting regulator in Britain. It would allow the company to fine firms up to ten percent of their global revenue should they violate ill-defined “harm” standards. If passed, Clinton and others hope that the Europeans can replace corporate censorship with good old-fashioned state censorship. This includes confiscatory fines for anything deemed “grossly offensive.“ The bill would allow countries like Great Britain to impose censorship on the rest of the world. The decline of free speech in the United Kingdom has long been a concern for free speech advocates (here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here). Once you start as a government to criminalize speech, you end up on a slippery slope of censorship. What constitutes hate speech or “malicious communications” remains a highly subjective matter and we have seen a steady expansion of prohibited terms and words and gestures. Even having “toxic ideologies” is now a crime. Great Britain would now make censorship one of its greatest exports. To do so, they first have to stomp out advocates for free speech like Musk by threatening to bankrupt his company if it tries to restore free speech to the Internet.
Govts: Free Speech is "Grossly Offensive" to Governments...
Biden Disinformation Czar Demands Power To Edit Other People's Tweets https://summit.news/2022/05/11/biden-disinformation-czar-demands-power-to-ed... In a newly released video clip, Biden disinformation czar Nina Jankowicz demands that “trustworthy verified people” like her be given the power to edit other people’s tweets, making Twitter more like Wikipedia. Yes, really. Asserting that she was “eligible for it because I’m verified,” Jankowicz then bemoaned the fact there are people on Twitter with different opinions to her who also have the blue tick but “shouldn’t be verified” because they’re “not trustworthy.” “So verified people can essentially start to edit Twitter the same sort of way that Wikipedia is so they can add context to certain tweets,” said Jankowicz. She then provided the example, which she claimed was non-political, of President Trump tweeting about voter fraud. NEW - Biden's new "disinformation" czar wants "trustworthy verified people" like her to be able to "add context" to other people's tweets.pic.twitter.com/V4mLNsB5HV — Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) May 10, 2022 “Someone could add context from one of the 60 lawsuits that went through the court or something that an election official in one of the states said, perhaps your own Secretary of State and his news conferences, something like that,” said Jankowicz. “Adding context so that people have a fuller picture rather than just an individual claim on a tweet,” she added. Of course, Twitter already slaps warning labels on such tweets, but now Jankowicz wants approved regime propagandists to be empowered to insert their narrative on an individual basis. Also note how two of the other participants in the conversation were wearing face masks, despite it being a remote Zoom call. As we previously highlighted, Jankowicz was handed the role of overseeing Biden’s ‘Ministry of Truth’ despite revealing that free speech makes her “shudder” while also promoting the lie that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation. Jankowicz also ludicrously cited Christopher Steele as an expert on disinformation. Steele was the author of the infamous Clinton campaign-funded Trump ‘peegate’ dossier’ that turned out to be an actual product of disinformation. But yeah, a person with a proven track record of pushing disinformation and hyper-partisanship should totally be given the power to edit tweets she disagrees with.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/facebook-censored-blackburn-post-biological... Facebook censored a post from Sen. @MarshaBlackburn (R-TN) after she spoke out against biological males competing in women's sports. foxnews.com/politics/faceboo… Biological Men have no place in Women's sports.
Mike Rowe Says Feds "Revoked" Film Permit Because Govt Official "Didn't Like His Personal Politics" https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe "Dirty Jobs" television host Mike Rowe called out the General Services Administration (GSA) for canceling his production team's ability to film a new episode because of his "personal politics." Rowe wrote a lengthy Facebook post on Monday, addressing the boilermaker workers at a facility overseen by the GSA that his permit to shoot was "suddenly revoked." He said his film team received a call from a woman at the GSA about permits revoked for "security concerns." When asked about the security concerns, the woman had no response. She said: That decision had come down from "the very highest levels within the GSA." Rowe went on to say Dirty Jobs has filmed in very sensitive government-controlled areas: "We've received permits from the Army, Navy, Air Force, Seabees, Coast Guard, NASA, and The Army Corps of Engineers. We've gotten permission to film inside the Capitol and a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. We even got a permit to film inside the National Security Agency!" Shortly after the first call, his production team received another. This time, someone from the GSA explained the decision had "nothing to do with security, and everything to do with politics." "According to this caller, someone at the highest levels of the GSA, 'doesn't like Mike Rowe's personal politics,' and used their power to deliberately string us along until the last possible second, for the express purpose of 'yanking my chain,'" Rowe wrote. He added: "Unlike Dirty Jobs, however, 'How America Works' airs on Fox, and these days that's enough to upset certain people." Rowe's Facebook post had 20k likes. Some commenters wrote: "That's really too bad. Thank you, though, for allowing us to see what we will be missing, and being as tactful as possible about the situation. We need more people like you being cool about not cool things," one person said. Another person said: "I'm not a bit surprised but very disappointed in the GSA's decision. There's a government at work here that shows little sign that it's actually working for its citizens. Thank you for the update." Over the years, Rowe has hosted his show on Discovery and even CNN. He's made countless appearances on PBS, NPR, NBC, CBS, ABC, and MSNBC. But as soon as his new show "How America Works," which celebrates the American worker, landed on Fox, woke government officials cannot see past politics and attempted to cancel him. Rowe might have irritated the Biden adminstration earlier this month when he sat down with Fox's Steve Doocy to discuss out-of-control inflation—telling the news show host that American truckers aren't buying the "Putin Price Hike" narrative when it comes to soaring diesel prices.
When you can't not censor either... Supreme Court Temporarily Blocks Texas Social Media Anti-Censorship Law Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times The Supreme Court voted 5-4 late on May 31 to temporarily block a Texas law that prevents social media platforms from censoring users based on their political views. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito poses in Washington on April 23, 2021. (Erin Schaff/Pool via Reuters) Known as HB 20, the state law makes it unlawful for tech platforms to restrict or remove content based on “the viewpoint of the user or another person” or “the viewpoint represented in the user’s expression.” The statute also requires the platforms to establish procedures users can use to appeal a platform’s decision to “remove content posted by the user.” The law applies to platforms that have more than 50 million active monthly users in the United States. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, signed the bill in September 2021. The case is Netchoice v. Paxton, court file 21A720. The applicants are two trade associations representing big tech—Netchoice and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA). The respondent is Ken Paxton, a Republican who is the attorney general of Texas. Silicon Valley giants oppose the legislation, claiming it is unconstitutional. After the new ruling CCIA president Matt Schruers praised the order. “We are encouraged that this attack on First Amendment rights has been halted until a court can fully evaluate the repercussions of Texas’s ill-conceived statute,” he said in a statement. “This ruling means that private American companies will have an opportunity to be heard in court before they are forced to disseminate vile, abusive or extremist content under this Texas law. “We appreciate the Supreme Court ensuring First Amendment protections, including the right not to be compelled to speak, will be upheld during the legal challenge to Texas’s social media law,” Schruers said. “The Supreme Court noting the constitutional risks of this law is important not just for online companies and free speech, but for a key principle for democratic countries. No online platform, website, or newspaper should be directed by government officials to carry certain speech. This has been a key tenet of our democracy for more than 200 years and the Supreme Court has upheld that.” The emergency application was filed with the high court on May 13. The opinion was released at the end of the business day on May 31. The decision cut across the court’s ideological lines. Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer joined with conservatives John Roberts, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to slap a hold on the law. The five justices did not explain why they voted to approve the order. Conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and liberal Elena Kagan voted against granting the order. Alito wrote a dissenting opinion (pdf) which Thomas and Gorsuch joined. Netchoice and CCIA characterized HB 20 in the application (pdf) as an attack on Silicon Valley companies. The statute “is an unprecedented assault on the editorial discretion of private websites [like Facebook.com, Instagram.com, Pinterest.com, Twitter.com, Vimeo.com, and YouTube.com] that would fundamentally transform their business models and services,” the document stated. “HB20 prohibits covered social media platforms [many of which are members of Applicants NetChoice and CCIA] from engaging in any viewpoint-based editorial discretion. “Thus, HB20 would compel platforms to disseminate all sorts of objectionable viewpoints—such as Russia’s propaganda claiming that its invasion of Ukraine is justified, ISIS propaganda claiming that extremism is warranted, neo-Nazi or KKK screeds denying or supporting the Holocaust, and encouraging children to engage in risky or unhealthy behavior like eating disorders. “HB20 also imposes related burdensome operational and disclosure requirements designed to chill the millions of expressive editorial choices that platforms make each day.” Alito rejected the social media platforms’ arguments in his dissent, saying whether the companies’ will ultimately win their case “under existing law is quite unclear.” “It is not at all obvious how our existing precedents, which predate the age of the internet, should apply to large social media companies,” the justice wrote. “This application concerns issues of great importance that will plainly merit this Court’s review. Social media platforms have transformed the way people communicate with each other and obtain news,” Alito wrote, referencing a Pew Research Center report from a year ago that stated that more eight out of 10 Americans obtain news from digital devices. Describing HB 20 as “a ground-breaking Texas law,” Alito wrote that it “addresses the power of dominant social media corporations to shape public discussion of the important issues of the day.” A federal district judge previously enjoined Texas from enforcing the law but a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit reversed that order on May 11, as The Epoch Times reported. Attorneys representing Texas told the 5th Circuit that social media platforms “control the modern-day public square, but they abusively suppress speech in that square.” A federal judge blocked a similar Florida law, finding it unconstitutional.
Mike Tyson Podcast With Alex Jones BANNED After Pressure From Big Tech https://summit.news/2022/06/01/mike-tyson-podcast-with-alex-jones-censored-a... https://twitter.com/alexstein99/status/1532147071607791616 Child exploiters censor and kickban free speech out of public venue. Free Speech America @FreeSpeechAmer Big Tech repeatedly targets @libsoftiktok, even though all this account does is repost videos from left-wing extremists. https://allmylinks.com/libsoftiktok https://twitter.com/rncresearch https://twitter.com/electionwiz https://nitter.net/pic/media%2FFUN2-55X0AAjGil.png
More fake news bias proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/January_2019_Lincoln_Memorial_confrontation
Silicon Valley Corporations Are Taking Control Of History https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/silicon-valley-corporations-are-taking-con... Twitter has imposed a weeklong suspension on the account of writer and political activist Danny Haiphong for a thread he made on the platform disputing the mainstream Tiananmen Square massacre narrative. The notification Haiphong received informed him that Twitter had locked his account for “Violating our rules against abuse and harassment,” presumably in reference to a rule the platform put in place a year ago which prohibits “content that denies that mass murder or other mass casualty events took place, where we can verify that the event occured, and when the content is shared with abusive intent.” “This may include references to such an event as a ‘hoax’ or claims that victims or survivors are fake or ‘actors,’” Twitter said of the new rule. “It includes, but is not limited to, events like the Holocaust, school shootings, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters.” That we are now seeing this rule applied to protect narratives which support the geostrategic interests of the US-centralized empire is not in the least bit surprising. The US government thought police at Twitter locked journalist Danny Haiphong @SpiritofHo's account, threatening to suspend him because he contradicted the Western propaganda narrative on Tiananmen, calling it "abuse". There is only "free speech" for US regime propagandists here pic.twitter.com/t9CeCGIBeK — Benjamin Norton (@BenjaminNorton) June 5, 2022 Haiphong is far from the first to dispute the mainstream western narrative about exactly what happened around Tiananmen Square in June of 1989 as the Soviet Union was crumbling and Washington’s temporary Cold War alignment with Beijing was losing its strategic usefulness. But we can expect more acts of online censorship like this as Silicon Valley continues to expand into its role as guardian of imperial historic records. This idea that government-tied Silicon Valley institutions should act as arbiters of history on behalf of the public consumer is gaining steadily increasing acceptance in the artificially manufactured echo chamber of mainstream public opinion. We saw another example of this recently in Joe Lauria’s excellent refutation of accusations against Consortium News of historic inaccuracy by the imperial narrative management firm NewsGuard. As journalists like Whitney Webb and Mnar Adley noted years ago, NewsGuard markets itself as a “news rating agency” designed to help people sort out good from bad sources of information online, but in reality functions as an empire-backed weapon against media who question imperial narratives about what’s happening in the world. The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal outlined the company’s many partnerships with imperial swamp monsters like former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and “chief propagandist” Richard Stengel as well as “imperialist cutouts like the German Marshall Fund” when its operatives contacted his outlet for comment on their accusations. Lauria compiles a mountain of evidence in refutation of NewsGuard’s claim that Consortium News published “false content” about the 2014 US-backed coup in Ukraine, copiously citing outlets which NewsGuard itself has labeled accurate sources of information with its “green check” designation system. It becomes clear as you read the article that NewsGuard’s real function is, as John Kiriakou put it, “guarding the country from the news.” US State-Affiliated NewsGuard Targets Consortium News https://t.co/pAT3ZofeNw — Consortium News (@Consortiumnews) June 3, 2022 Then you’ve got Wikipedia, which blacklists the same sites as NewsGuard and whose operatives run relentless smear campaigns on anti-imperialist voices, thereby guaranteeing a view of history that is wildly tilted in the favor of empire-authorized narratives. Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, also happens to serve on NewsGuard’s advisory board. This idea that anyone can ever be an impartial arbiter of objective reality is logically fallacious and is invalidated by facts in evidence. It is clear that imposing regulations on people’s efforts to understand world events on the platforms where people have come to congregate to share ideas and information will necessarily lead to an information ecosystem that is skewed to the benefit of whatever power structure is imposing those regulations. When that power structure is an alliance of oligarchs and government proxies whose interests are served by the ongoing dominance of the US-centralized empire, the information ecosystem will be biased in favor of that empire. The most impressive feat of engineering in the 21st century has been of the “social” variety. The social engineering necessary to continually keep people confused and blinkered about what’s going on in the world despite a sudden influx of information availability is one of the most astonishing achievements in the history of civilization, despite its depraved and destructive nature. The empire has had mixed feelings about the internet since its creation. On one hand it allows for unprecedented surveillance and information gathering and the rapid distribution of propaganda, which it likes, but on the other it allows for the unprecedented democratization of information, which it doesn’t like. Its answer to this quandary has been to come up with “fact checking” services and Silicon Valley censorship protocols for restricting “misinformation” (with “facts” and “information” defined as “whatever advances imperial interests”). That’s all we’re seeing with continually expanding online censorship policies, and with government-tied oligarchic narrative management operations like NewsGuard.
The Censor State has dramatically sped up its response time in the last few years. It used to take days before they'd kill accounts, now it's mere hours or less. If the world ever hopes to learn important lessons from their lives and screeds, you've got to be plugged into feeds and act fast to archive and redistribute it. Here some random leftist does his do in gun free leftyland while leftist censors do their do to erase whatever might be learned... Here's What We Know About Highland Park Shooting Person Of Interest Robert Crimo Robert Crimo III was taken into custody Monday evening following a shooting in Highland Park, Illinois that left at least six people dead and over two dozen injured despite having among the strictest gun-safety laws in the country. He is currently being referred to as a "person of interest" while Highland Park Police question him. The 22-year-old was apprehended without incident in nearby Lake Forest. Law enforcement currently circling and inspecting vehicle driven by person of interest, 22-yo Robert “Bobby” Crimo III He’s now in custody related to #HighlandPark parade mass shooting that killed at least 6 LIVE NOW: https://t.co/vEMDs0BRQH | @cbschicago pic.twitter.com/kHdev8CGSy — Marissa Parra (@MarParNews) July 5, 2022 Crimo has somewhat of a large internet footprint - performing online as "Awake the Rapper," while IMDB describes Crimo as a "six foot Hip hop phenom" born on Sept. 20, 2000. "He's the middle child of three and of Italian descent," Fox News reports. Crimo began uploading his music to the internet at age 11, but first gained traction with his 2016 track "By The Pond" featuring Atlas, according to IMDB. His estimated net worth is "$100 thousand." Crimo is the son of Bob Crimo, president at Bob's Pantry & Deli in Highland Park. According to his Facebook account, the father ran for Highland Park mayor in 2020. The rapper released a cryptic track called "Are You Awake" on Oct. 15, 2021. The track appears to suggest that Crimo was planning a life-defining act beyond his ability to stop. The video includes drawings of a man aiming a rifle at another person. -Fox News A screenshot from Robert “Bobby” Crimo’s youtube video “Are You Awake”. This was premeditate. What a sick individual. pic.twitter.com/tYJRjoSIQz — xen (@itssxen) July 4, 2022 The suspect in the Highland Park shooting, Robert Crimo III, posted multiple disturbing videos on YouTube with violent imagery. "Like a sleepwalker unable to stop and think, my actions will be valiant. And my thought is unnecessary. I know what I have to do." pic.twitter.com/CROskei1Vh — steven monacelli (@stevanzetti) July 4, 2022 He also "liked" several tweets endorsing the arrest of "every Congressmember who helped organize January 6th," suggesting he's a leftist. On the other hand: I think Robert Crimo is a psycho. Planned it all out to look like he’s both a Trump supporter and a Biden supporter. Perhaps a true accelerationist. He’s got everyone squabbling over his politics but at the end of the day he killed innocents and represents no one but himself. — Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) July 5, 2022 Crimo's Instagram, Discord, Twitter, YouTube and other social media platforms have taken down his material. * * * Robert Cremo III, the suspect in Monday's deadly shooting at the Highland Park, IL 4th of July parade, has been taken into custody according to CBS Chicago. JUST IN: Sources tell us Robert Cremo III has been taken into custody. @cbschicago — Chris Tye (@TVTye) July 4, 2022 #HighlandPark pic.twitter.com/cuzxo3lEjh — Darren (@ChiTownCheese) July 4, 2022 JUST IN: Police take Highland Park parade shooting “person of interest” Robert (Bobby) Crimo into custody. pic.twitter.com/sBBGVVM3lP — Rob Elgas (@RobElgasABC7) July 4, 2022 "No guns for people that look like this" would pass unanimously pic.twitter.com/l0FSIQY0Za — Andy Swan (@AndySwan) July 4, 2022 * * * Police have announced Robert "Bobby" Crimo III as a person of interest in Monday's shooting in Highland Park, Illinois. More photos of Robert "Bobby" Crimo III, the person of interest in the #HighlandPark, Illinois July 4th parade massacre: pic.twitter.com/obLluPKpYX — Andy Ngô 🏳️🌈 (@MrAndyNgo) July 4, 2022 ILLINOIS: Robert "Bobby" Crimo III, 22, sought in connection with Highland Park mass shooting. Suspect vehicle is a silver 2010 Honda Fit with IL plate DM80653. Call 911 if seen. (Source: FBI) pic.twitter.com/ykICW6W1SX — U.S. Emergency Alert (@ENSAlerts) July 4, 2022 Another disturbing video of the Highland Park shooter Robert “Bobby” Crimo #HighlandPark https://t.co/uxHEJorczg pic.twitter.com/rp0sQ9DTV5 — Catalaya Heisenberg (@catalayahere) July 4, 2022 This account “@awake_________” appears to be a long-standing fan page for the highland park shooter Robert crimo. if you look through the old likes it shows a lot of radical left wing extremism and guns, and hatred of republicans pic.twitter.com/M56ghGQScq — America Respector (@frenchpoast) July 4, 2022 A catalog of online material from Robert Crimo, cataloged by @crabcrawler1 (click on tweet to jump into thread). "Robert Crimo Archive Footage: File 1447" pic.twitter.com/HdkHixK5h4 — Crab Man (@crabcrawler1) July 4, 2022 * * * The death toll has increased to 6, with 24 injured. Another shot from the Highland Park mass shooting. Hadn’t seen this clip on here. Sounds like nearly 60 shots fired in this one alone. pic.twitter.com/X66gqEiGHD — Jake (@SiIentRunning) July 4, 2022 Five people were dead and 16 others wounded when a gunman opened fire on a Fourth of July parade that kicked off Monday afternoon in Highland Park, a city in the southeastern part of Lake County, Illinois, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. The Highland Park Police Department said the shooter is still on the loose. They urged people to seek shelter. BREAKING: Police have issued the following description of a shooter who is wearing an army-style yellow backpack. The shooter opened fire on the crowd from the rooftop of a nearby building, killing at least 4 people at the Illinois Highland Park 4th of July Parade. pic.twitter.com/M2QUhkf9Ky — BNN Newsroom (@BNNBreaking) July 4, 2022 Highland Park resident, Miles Zaremski, said: "I heard 20 to 25 shots, which were in rapid succession. So it couldn't have been just a handgun or a shotgun." Zaremski said he saw "people in that area that got shot," including "a woman covered with blood . . . She did not survive." Highland Park Shooting: - At least 5 dead, 16 injured, following mass shooting at July 4th parade in Highland Park, Illinois - Suspect is at large - Authorities have secured a perimeter around Downtown Highland Parkpic.twitter.com/f52pnNHnjo — PM Breaking News (@PMBreakingNews) July 4, 2022 Debbie Glickman, another resident, told Associated Press she was on a parade float when she turned around and saw people running away from the area. "People started saying, 'There's a shooter, there's a shooter, there a shooter,'" Glickman said. "So we just ran. We just ran. It's like mass chaos down there." * * * A Chicago suburb canceled what was left of its 4th of July celebration after gunfire erupted during a parade in the affluent neighborhood of Highland Park, according to NBC5 Chicago. The Chicago Sun Times reports that multiple people were shot. A Sun-Times reporter saw blankets placed over three bloodied bodies. Other people, running, were visibly bloodied. Police told people: “Everybody disburse, please. It is not safe to be here.” Blood pooled at Port Clinton Square in Highland Park. Lynn Sweet/ Sun-Times Cops are still going to the scene pic.twitter.com/gL3Gjhil7V — eNreeKaii (@Ri_Kayyy) July 4, 2022 #BREAKING: Multiple fatalities reported following reports of an active shooter during a Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Illinois. Reports that the suspect is barricaded inside of a Sunset Foods grocery with hostages. pic.twitter.com/HWIl6G7DFk https://t.co/tODYGnZ2G2 — Moshe Schwartz (@YWNReporter) July 4, 2022 "STAY OUT OF THE AREA - allow law-enforcement and first responders to do their work," posted the sheriff on social media, while Illinois state police called the situation "active." Witnesses say the shooter was on the roof of Uncle Dan’s and fired into parade. 5 or 6 shots, then a pause, then 5 or 6 more shots. The shooter is still at large and North Shore residents are being asked to stay inside. #highlandpark @WGNNews — Dan Ponce (@DanPonceTV) July 4, 2022 More via the Sun Times: Several witnesses said they heard multiple shots fired. One witness said he counted more than 20 shots. Miles Zaremski, a Highland Park resident, told the Sun-Times: “I heard 20 to 25 shots, which were in rapid succession. So it couldn’t have been just a handgun or a shotgun.” Zaremski said that after the shots at Central Avenue around Second Avenue in downtown Highland Park, he saw “people in that area that got shot,” including “a woman covered with blood . . . She did not survive.” ... Police were patrolling the area with rifles, apparently looking for whoever fired the shots. Adrienne Drell, a former Sun-Times reporter, said she was sitting on a curb along Central Avenue watching the parade when she saw members of the Highland Park High School marching band start to run. “Go to Sunset,” Drell said she heard the students shout, directing people to nearby Sunset Food. A man picked her up off the curb and urged her to get out, Drell said. "The Illinois State Police is currently assisting Highland Park PD with an active shoot situation that occurred at the Highland Park Parade," tweeted the police. "The public is advised to avoid the area of Central Ave and 2nd St. in Highland Park." Shotting in highland park 4th of July parade. pic.twitter.com/oCfhzfKRZj — Hugo Aguilar (@Hugo_Aguilar6) July 4, 2022 The city of Highland Park also cautioned people to avoid the area, writing on Facebook: "Fourth Fest has been canceled. Please avoid downtown Highland Park. More information will be shared as it becomes available."
The Woke Inquisitors Have Come For The Freethinking Heretics https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18659/woke-inquisitors by J.B.Shurk via The Gatestone Institute Attacks on free speech are on the rise. https://summit.news/2022/06/22/student-kicked-out-of-uk-college-for-supporti... https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/kiel-wisconsin-school-charges-kids-for-using-w... https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/14/biden-climate-adviser-gina-mcc... https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-suspends-doctor-who-shared-study-showi... https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2022/06/11/dissident-football-coac... https://reclaimthenet.org/paramount-says-it-wont-censor-old-content-to-pleas... https://www.dw.com/en/kids-classics-get-a-politically-correct-makeover/a-165... https://www.nspirement.com/2018/08/26/chinas-destruction-of-cultural-sites-d... A British college recently expelled a student for expressing support for the government's official policy of deporting illegal immigrants. A Wisconsin school district charged three middle-schoolers with sexual harassment last month for refusing to use the plural pronoun "they" when referring to a single classmate. US President Joe Biden's National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy recently encouraged social media companies to censor from their online platforms any opinions that contradict Biden's climate change narrative. In its continued commitment to preserve the government's monopoly over COVID-19 information, Twitter actually suspended a medical doctor for merely sharing a scientific study that suggests the Pfizer vaccine affects male fertility. And the NFL's Washington Commanders fined defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio $100,000 and forced him to apologize only weeks ago for having expressed his opinion that 2020's summer of riots across the United States after George Floyd's death was more destructive than the few hours of mayhem at the Capitol on January 6, 2021. In contrast, it has become newsworthy that entertainment powerhouse Paramount has chosen not to censor old movies and television shows containing content that today's "woke" scolds might find "offensive." In a "cancel culture" world where censorship and trigger warnings have become the norm, preserving the artistic integrity of a film is now considered outright daring. In fact, even publishers of old literary classics have begun rewriting content to conform with "politically correct" sensibilities. Examples such as these, where personal speech is either censored or punished, are becoming much more frequent, and anybody who minimizes the threat this increased intolerance for free expression poses to a democratic society is either gullibly or willfully blind. As any defender of liberty knows, nothing more quickly transforms a free society into a totalitarian prison than crackdowns on speech. Of all the tools of coercion available to a government, preventing individuals from freely expressing their thoughts is most dangerous. Denying citizens that most basic societal release valve for pent-up anger and disagreement only heightens the risk for outright violence down the line. Either silenced citizens become so enraged that conflict becomes inevitable, or the iron fist of government force descends on the public more broadly to preemptively curtail that possibility. Either way, the result is a disaster for any free society. For Americans who cherish free speech, this undeniable war on language and expression is jolting but not shocking. Whenever censorship slithers back into polite society, it is always draped in the mantle of "good intentions." Fifteenth-century Dominican friar Girolamo Savonarola's "bonfire of the vanities" destroyed anything that could be seen to invite or reflect sin. The notorious 1933 Nazi book burning at the Bebelplatz in Berlin torched some 20,000 books deemed subversive or "un-German". During Communist China's decade-long Cultural Revolution in the 1960s and '70s, the vast majority of China's traditional scrolls, literature and religious antiquities went up in smoke. All three atrocities were celebrated as achievements for the "greater good" of society, and people inebriated with "good intentions" set their cultural achievements aflame with fervor and triumph. Much like today's new censors who claim to "fight hate" because "that's not who we are," the arsonists of the past saw themselves as moral paragons, too. They purged anything "obscene" or "traditional" or "old," so that theocracy, Nazism, or communism could take root and grow. And if Western institutions today are purging ideas once again, then it is past time for people to start asking just what those institutions plan to harvest next. We in the West are running — not walking — toward another "bonfire of the vanities" in which normal people, egged on by their leaders, will eagerly destroy their own culture while claiming to save it. This time around the "vanities" will be condemned for their racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-science or climate-denying ways, but when they are thrown into the fire, it is dissent and free expression that will burn. There will one day be much disagreement as to how the same Western Civilization that produced the Enlightenment and its hallowed regard for free expression could once again surrender itself to the petty tyranny of censorship. Many will wonder how the West's much-vaunted "liberal" traditions could meekly fold to the specter of state-controlled speech. The answer is that the West has fallen into the same trap that always catches unsuspecting citizens by surprise: the steady encroachment on free speech has been sold as a "virtue" that all good people should applaud. First, certain thoughts became "aggravating factors" that turned traditional crimes into new "hate crimes" deserving of additional punishment. Then the definition of what is "hateful" grew until politicians could comfortably decree anything at odds with their agendas to be examples of "hate." Who would be for "hate," after all? Surely no-one of good sense or good manners. Now "hate" has transformed into an elusive description for any speech that can be alleged to cause the slightest of harms.
Those who despise free speech told society, "If you do not punish hate, then you're a bigot." And today, if you oppose the government's COVID-19, climate change, immigration, or other contentious policies, your harmful "disinformation" must be punished, too. It is a slippery slope, is it not? Once governments normalize censorship and the punishment of points of view, free expression is firmly stamped with an expiration date. After the Nazis went down this poisonous path, repentant Germans built a public memorial to remember the book burning at the Bebelplatz and ensure its tragic lesson was never forgotten. On a plaque in the square is a commemorative engraving, paraphrasing the 19th century German writer Heinrich Heine: "That was only a prelude; where they burn books, they will in the end also burn people." That warning comes with no expiration date.
https://twitter.com/davereaboi/status/1544292330148167681 https://rubinreport.locals.com/ David Reaboi, Late Republic Nonsense Twitter @TwitterSafety suspended @RubinReport because he reported on Jordan Peterson’s own Twitter suspension. Here’s his statement...
When unfair trials lead to conviction, prison, death... https://twitter.com/grouch2022/status/1545628701223596032 http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/ Courts censor free speech... Helene Poussard of Gabriel Sohier Chaput's defense trial re Nazi history, gassing Jews, etc. Assange has not and will not be allowed by any court to speak freely in his own defense.
Assange has not and will not be allowed by any court to speak freely in his own defense.
Nor are you allowed to investigate, publish, consume, republish true news and opinion... global 1984 in full effect, courtesy USA Democrats and their BigTech that can't handle being exposed by the unaligned alternative media. https://twitter.com/rncresearch https://gop.com/research/ https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok https://allmylinks.com/libsoftiktok https://twitter.com/electionwiz https://electionwiz.com/ Twitter censorbans word "groomer"... https://thepostmillennial.com/florida-lawmaker-seeks-to-ban-libs-of-tiktok-f... https://twitter.com/RubinReport/status/1552628399822209027 Republicans are finally learning not to play the fixed game of mainstream media. No surprise that @GovRonDeSantis is leading the way… Big Tech, Censorship, and Socialism Twitter Censors All Content From The Epoch Times The social media company 'must explain itself for this outrageous act of censorship,' Senator Marco Rubio says Eva Fu is a New York-based writer for The Epoch Times focusing on U.S.-China relations, religious freedom, and human rights. Contact Eva at eva.fu@epochtimes.com July 29, 2022 Updated: July 29, 2022 https://www.theepochtimes.com/twitter-censors-all-content-from-the-epoch-tim... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4ko8ja3cWc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb1cSSZf3KI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvcfxUSX2qs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3BUb9jNy_E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ84c1ovl8w Twitter on July 28 imposed a blockade on all content from The Epoch Times without explanation, raising further concerns about freedom of speech on the platform and drawing ire from three U.S. senators. The platform enforced a warning on all links from The Epoch Times. A click on a link directs users to a page titled “Warning: this link may be unsafe,” which prompts users to return to the previous page. “The link you are trying to access has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially spammy or unsafe,” the warning stated, citing Twitter’s URL policy. We are aware that Twitter has marked all links to https://www.theepochtimes.com/ as "unsafe." We believe this is a mistake and we have submitted a review to @TwitterSupport. pic.twitter.com/UyFqoiaUkq -- The Epoch Times (@EpochTimes) July 29, 2022 The notice said that the link could fall into any of four categories: “malicious links that could steal personal information or harm electronic devices”; “spammy links that mislead people or disrupt their experience”; “violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world harm”; or content that “if posted directly on Twitter, are a violation of the Twitter Rules.” Twitter's warning page allows users to proceed to the Epoch Times link if they click on the word “continue” at the very bottom of the page. The platform has not responded to multiple requests from The Epoch Times for clarification. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), who serves on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who serves on the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, decried the move as an act of censorship. “Twitter is blocking all links to @EpochTimes, including a story about a human trafficking survivor, and labeling them as ‘spammy’ and ‘unsafe.’ Twitter must explain itself for this outrageous act of censorship,” Rubio wrote in a July 29 tweet. Johnson described Twitter’s action as “alarming.” “Twitter is censoring @EpochTimes under the guise of `unsafe' speech. Remember what happened the last time corporate media and big tech tried to censor my investigation on Hunter Biden corruption?” he wrote. “The truth always prevails.” Scott asked Twitter in a July 29 tweet "where’s the respect for free speech and freedom of press, Twitter." "We all remember your biased censorship of [The New York Post] and how that ended for you," Scott said. Human Trafficking Interview Censored Among the first to be affected by Twitter’s blockade was Eliza Bleu, a human trafficking survivor. In an interview that premiered at 7:30 p.m. ET on Thursday, Bleu shared about how abusers groomed her by preying on her vulnerabilities. Bleu tried to repost the link after watching the interview, and to her surprise and dismay, found that she “couldn't even click on the link.” “I'm pretty disheartened that the interview link was labeled as unsafe, because it's not unsafe,” she told The Epoch Times. “By watching the interview, anyone can tell it's pretty educational,” she said. “I wasn't talking about anything that wasn't factual. I was just really just trying to educate, raise awareness, and bring attention to the issue.” She added that the link seemed to be accessible when the interview first aired but became blocked sometime afterward. Twitter Targets American Media, Not Chinese State Media The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 by Chinese Americans who fled communist China and sought to create an independent media outlet to bring uncensored and truthful information to the world. At least 10 staff members for The Epoch Times were arrested that year in China, with one editor-in-chief spending a decade in prison. While operating outside of China, the media outlet has remained a consistent target of attacks from the Chinese regime over the past two decades. The printing press of the Hong Kong edition of The Epoch Times has suffered a series of violent break-ins, including arson, over the years, viewed as attempts by Beijing to intimidate the publication. In an official statement last year, President Joe Biden's State Department condemnded an attack on an Epoch Times reporter in Hong Kong. Major Chinese state media, by contrast, remain accessible on the platform as of press time. Jeffrey Tucker, founder of the Brownstone Institute think tank and a contributor for The Epoch Times, also expressed his shock. "The @EpochTimes, the entire media complex, has been declared by Twitter to be unsafe. This stuns me, even though I thought I was beyond shock at this point," he wrote. Ivan Pentchoukov contributed to this report.
To Take Back Our Culture We Need To Build Our Own Media Army https://rippaverse.com/ https://www.dailywire.com/watch https://theandrewschulz.com/ https://alt-market.us/to-take-back-our-culture-we-need-to-build-our-own-medi... https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-ma... I have been writing about the concept of decentralization since around 2006, well before the threat of the woke takeover and the culture war became obvious. The idea is a rather simple one (most ideas that work are simple): If the corrupt system does not or will not provide what the public needs or wants then the public should provide those necessities for themselves. If they are successful then the system has two choices – It can fade away quietly as the decentralized economy takes over, or, it can try and STOP the public from building their own production using force. If the system uses force, then it exposes its true nature as authoritarian and it encourages rebellion. One way or another, the corrupt system will be eliminated. We have already seen this with the alternative media over the past decade. When I started my first website (Neithercorp) 16 years ago, there were very few of us out there presenting the truth to the public and the mainstream media was still very much in control of the narrative. Today there is an endless array of alternative news websites and YouTube channels and the MSM is utterly dying (except maybe Fox News). Their audience numbers are crumbling while our audience numbers are rising. We are winning the news war because we offer something they don’t – The facts. The alternative media has proven that decentralization can and does work, but there are many other areas of our culture which have not been decentralized in the slightest. Most popular media is still well under the control of people that espouse extreme cultural Marxism and globalism. Woke ideology is a communist-like movement and such movements spend a lot of time and energy seeking to disrupt the foundational culture of a nation. They do this because once the old culture is in ruins they can then introduce their own aberrant and tyrannical culture in its place. They are culture killers, and they do this deliberately because it is a methodology for gaining power. Proponents of woke ideology will claim that they have nothing to do with Marxism or communism (while openly admitting they are trained Marxists). They will claim that Marxism and communism are purely economic movements. This is a lie. All communism is predicated on cultural destruction; this is a historic FACT. We can see parallel similarities between the social justice movements of today and movements like the Cultural Revolution in Mao’s China from 1966 to 1976. Any heritage, media or religion that competes with the communist model is targeted for erasure and this is what is happening right now in America. In terms of western entertainment the methods are rather predictable – Leftist try to avoid producing their own original content if they can. Why? Because most of them are pathetic storytellers. Why? Because narcissists don’t have imaginations. Instead, they take existing stories and hijack them as vehicles for their propaganda. They exploit an established franchise that people love and then reboot it. The reboot uses the name and nostalgia to lure in audiences. But the story and characters have no resemblance to the original mythos or lore, and audiences soon discover that their beloved characters are being murdered right in front of them. I suspect this is done with a particular element of joy, as leftists take pleasure in destruction far more than creation. They will inject as many aspects of “critical theory” into every product that they get their hands on. This means diversity quotas in stories where it makes no sense. They claim that every movie, TV show, comic and video game must “reflect our modern world.” Translated that means: They think they get to determine what represents the “modern world.” Their movement uses minorities as a shield from criticism. If you don’t like their propaganda, then you must be “racist.” They think they own all minorities and rage against any black or brown person that leaves the leftist plantation. They force concepts of “equity” into every production. We already have equality of opportunity in the west, so, they had to invent a new terminology that demands equality of outcome. Equity is about special treatment and protections for any group that serves leftist interests at the time. It’s about forcing people to give up what they have worked so hard for, what they have earned through merit, and making them hand it over to the system for redistribution to the loyal soldiers of the system. You are supposed to subsidize your own enslavement. They flood all entertainment media with LGBT and gender fluidity agit-prop. The concept of the nuclear family is erased in favor of over-representation of a tiny minority of people, and some of these people never asked to be “represented” by the political left anyway. Leftists don’t care. They have anointed themselves as the shepherds of all “marginalized” groups. If you are gay then they own you and they own your successes. You didn’t build it, they did. The vast majority of new media is overwhelmingly gay to the point that many Americans in polling actually believe that around 25% of the population is homosexual when the real number is closer to 4% including bisexuals and those that identify as trans . Finally, globalism is the overarching religion of the left, and this destructive concept is making its way into many media products. The notion is that all ideals and beliefs deserve to be respected equally – This is a lie. Not all ideals are equal, and some beliefs are psychotic. Beyond that, leftists don’t respect all ideals equally; they despise concepts like freedom, meritocracy and decentralization. There are good reasons why we don’t live in a homogenized world and we are divided into separate nations and separate tribes: Because not all tribes are equal. Some are garbage, with garbage principles and garbage leadership. I don’t want to share a tribe with the communist Chinese who commit genocide and religious intolerance and who abuse the citizenry. I don’t want to share a tribe with a Muslim nation ruled by Sharia Law that murders gay people and treats women like property. I don’t want to share a tribe with leftists who seek to undermine society and rewrite history. Globalism is the worst idea imaginable. Many tribes is a good thing, because discrimination helps humanity to separate and survive against immoral and destructive groups that seek to covertly or overtly homogenize. The last thing we need is grotesque globalist cultism invading our entertainment. So, how do we fight back? Conservatives, libertarians and liberty minded people have finally started to take the culture war more seriously, but now we need to take action to stop the saturation of leftist propaganda within our media. This means we need to produce our OWN media, including entertainment media. For decades, conservatives ignored the danger of leftists infecting pop culture, movies, television, comic books and video games. Many believed that these things were downstream from politics and that as long as we held our ground in the political arena everything would be fine. This was a huge mistake. Pop culture is not downstream from politics, both flow in tandem with each other. If you think that movies, video games and comic books are just meaningless “nerd stuff,” then you have been duped. Younger generations are highly influenced by such content. I covered this idea briefly in a recent article 'Amazon's Woke Lord Of The Rings Is The Death Rattle Of Social Justice Content.' I noted that the massive negative fan reaction to Amazon’s woke plans indicated a sea change in the way Americans are viewing the entertainment they consume. They are no longer passive, and this is a good thing. They are fighting back against the propaganda implanted into these shows and movies but they also need non-woke stories to fill the void. If you don’t offer them an alternative, then they might just watch whatever is put in front of them. The brainwashing will be perpetual. Some courageous individuals and companies are taking steps to build an alternative entertainment media, but we need far more. Ben Shapiro’s Daily Wire is fighting back with their own film production company, and from what I have seen so far the movies they have made are top notch. Libertarian and YouTuber Eric July has recently launched his own comic book company and comic world called the “Rippaverse.” The company’s first comic book release has already garnered around $3 million in purchases, which proves that yes, there is indeed a market for this type of content and people are hungry for any media which is not woke. Eric July has since been attacked relentlessly by the mainstream media (yes, over a comic book). As I have noted when it comes to decentralization, once the system attacks you, you know you are a threat to their power. They attack because they are afraid. Comedian Andrew Shulz decided to buy back his own comedy special from an unnamed streaming service because they sought to censor his anti-woke jokes. He is now offering the special (called “Infamous”) on his own website. We definitely need more of this. More creators taking a stand and building real alternatives to Hollywood and the woke corporate cabal. If you can’t stand leftist media and would rather watch nothing, then maybe it’s time for you to make the kind of content you would like to see? I am going to be putting my money where my mouth is very soon and releasing my own comic book campaign. I have been working on the project for around 3 months and have put together a great team. I hope to release the campaign in a couple of weeks. My feeling is that if I can tell an entertaining story, then I should. I want to continue with my economic and political analysis, but I also think it’s important to provide people with mental relief and a short escape from some of the harsher realities of our times. Leftists and woke corporations do not want you to be able to escape. They want their ideology in your face 24/7 until you give up and submit. The existing franchises that we used to take for granted when we were children are gone; they are all owned by people with dishonest intentions that hate American culture and want to see it debased into oblivion. We have to accept this fact, move on from the old stories and old content, and make our own. We have to become the new sages and storytellers of our age because no one is going to do it for us. Some people might argue that all of this is meaningless. Why worry about media and culture when we are in the middle of an economic crisis? What these folks don’t seem to grasp is that part of the reason we are in this mess is because we allowed our own cultural decline. We became apathetic in our vigilance and let mentally and ideologically unstable people take over platforms of influence. No longer. Their time is coming to an end. We are going to take it back; every piece of it, and we will do that by building a decentralized media army from the ground up.
Yet another prominent voice gets CensorBanned for Exposing BigTech Political Censorship, Hypocrisy, Corrupt Biden Family, Authoritarian Government the Lunacy of War on Drugs, and more... Roger Ver in Twitter Jail for Sharing Biden Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xhsnWsjvvM https://open.lbry.com/@RogerKVer:9/is-twitter-protecting-the-bidens:5 https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/1548655595749662721 Rather than sending his own son to prison, the @POTUS should reconsider his stance on the #drugwar. He should also #FreeRoss Roger Ver @rogerkver Stefan Molyneux was deplatformed from @Twitter and @YouTube for being a visionary in many areas, including the future of #Bitcoin Roger Ver @rogerkver Social media has morphed into a tool that is more often used to hide the truth rather than expose the truth. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/w2tjbj/banned_from_rbitcoin/ https://twitter.com/be_cashy/status/1549388296958185480 It should also be known that all the main Bitcoin_BTC forums ban most everyone who asks questions, or critiques, or proposes alternative to the groupthink. BTC Maxi's are Censors. People should support Free Speech in public fora, and all the Free Speakers, Whistleblowers, etc, and adopt privacy-enabled Cryptocurrency, starve out the Censors and Authoritarians, create and support new distributed public platforms and peaceful voluntary societies, together. Twitter is protecting much more than just the Bidens, it (and Google's Youtube, and more) are apologizing for the very mass of authoritarian govts and tyrants themselves and their cozy profitable deep digital secret spy relationship with them, in abject recent case defrauding the 2020 elections. Twitter among others has chosen the fools errand of supporting one particular violent political party force ideology and will be among the first to be permanently routed around and replaced by fair open p2p free market economies. Twitter et al are afraid that crypto-anarchy will obsolete their business model and moot and nullify their politik, and have thus chosen their party accordingly. It will obsolete much more than that. And Human Freedom will win over all those legacy things. Roger Ver @rogerkver You also just described the fight that lead to the split between #BTC and #BCH Tyler Winklevoss @tyler The right wants free speech. The left wants censorship. One side wants a fair fight, the other wants a rigged fight. The left has an ethics problem on this issue. [Geo] Political Govt Authority... and its way of abusing "democracy" into a surmised right to violently force others who have harmed no one (notably those who refuse to partake in such "voting" ie ruling over other peacefuls, stealing money from them, etc)... has an ethics problem. Cryptocurrency solves that by providing a private p2p opt-out economic path that is adopting around the world and will route around such needless legacies. Note that now, even the old question of "But who will build the roads?" is answered by efficient funding and building via public crowdfunded p2p prediction markets. The difference between Left and Right is little when compared to their far losing position on the continuum line from Authority to Freedom. Thought the Left is currently carrying the torch of losing. Libertarian Anarchist Voluntaryist Agorist etc... all much closer to Freedom than either of them.
Big Tech and Social Media getting sued by Trump etc for collusion, election fraud... https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Doc.-45-First-Amended-Compl... "Any government action that is taken to restrict speech, even if it's a recommendation to private corps, is unconstitutional." https://www.aflegal.org/news/afl-requests-inspector-general-investigation-in... Although the conduct of private parties lies beyond the Constitution's scope in most instances, governmental authority may dominate an activity to such an extent that its participants must be deemed to act with the authority of the government and, as a result, be subject to constitutional constraints - Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc., 500 U.S. 614 (1991) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/372/58/ The U.S. Supreme Court has held, since at least 1963, that the First Amendment's "free speech” clause is violated when state officials issue enough threats and other forms of pressure that essentially leave the private actor with no real choice but to censor in accordance with the demands of state officials. This almost certainly happened. To various social media companies, forcing them to deplatform, censor, shadowban, and otherwise restrict speech on their platform at the government's behest. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-in-a-five-hour-hearing-demands-0cf https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for-facebook-to-cen...
"Remember Liveleak and numerous other sites being shut down all within a week? I still find it insane how this all went down. Recently thought back on it and couldnt remember the other sites which were shut down. I remembered one of the site owners posting a goodbye message which, to my recollection said something along the lines of "wish it didnt have to be this way, its no longer the wild west open web etc." The message always stuck with me as it seemed to allude to the fact that they were being forced to shut down as it did not align with the New world order vision. I did a quick search and the site was "bestgore". Fucked up site which i'm personally glad is no longer around but, there were a few alternative news articles which quoted his final goodbye message. All of those articles are now gone or ghost edited to remove his message. The wayback machine does not show the old goodbye page of bestgore. I checked why this might be and this only happens if there is a request to have it removed. All traces of the message have disappeared online. Crazy how shit like this can just disappear, always remember to archive stuff you think might be important down the road. " https://documentingreality.com/ They also shut down debate.org, which was hugely anti-authoritarian. Basically any huge site that has little censorship is a threat to them, because inevitably the masses start speaking the truth It was after the Christchurch mosque shootings. The watchpeopledie subreddit disappeared
"Remember Liveleak and numerous other sites being shut down all within a week?
The US Censorship Regime has permanently killed another LOTT channel... https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1560065315534475264 Facebook just suspended our account. No reason given. They suspended our account and we immediately appealed. Within 2 minutes they answered that we’re suspended for good. I’m sure we totally got a full and fair review. "We have already reviewed this decision and it can't be reversed."
@rumblevideo We said once before and we will say it again. Censorship is about to hit high gear, so buckle up. YouTube just gave a strike to one of the largest live-streamers known to the internet, @scrowder. Crowder will address the situation tomorrow, on Rumble, where we have his back. Jackson Hinkle @jacksonhinklle Let me get this straight... @scrowder calls for the complete dismantling of the FBI & deep state on his Youtube channel, then days later he receives a 7 day suspension from YouTube? Yea, that sounds about right. So much for free speech. Jackson Hinkle retweeted Jimmy Dore @jimmy_dore The JIMMY DORE SHOW Is Live! NOW! Dems Have A Sad Over Liz Cheney’s Primary Loss! Moderna Trashes 30M Vax Doses! With Jackson Hinkle @JacksonHinklle Featuring Stef Zamorano @MiserableLib Plus fun with Mike MacRae @MikeMacRaeMike rumble.com/v1gd8o9-dems-have https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z818B4IZS38 https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/the-white-house-privately-demanded Biden administration officials including @ASlavitt demanded Twitter ban @AlexBerenson for his tweets raising (valid) questions about the effectiveness and efficacy of the Covid vaccines. Months later, Twitter banned him. The White House privately demanded Twitter ban me months before the company did so Federal officials targeted me specifically; when they met with Twitter in April 2021, "they really wanted to know about Alex Berenson"
ZeroHedge Suspended Again By Twitter For Reporting Facts https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fair-analysis-4-9-million-illegal-a... https://twitter.com/RepTiffany/status/1560018819896283137 https://twitter.com/MarkSKrikorian/status/1559777842854076422 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal%20alien https://twitter.com/SenTedCruz/status/1560678991203184640 https://twitter.com/RepBrianBabin/status/1559620626486362113 https://twitter.com/KAMRLocal4News/status/1560705038447697926 https://twitter.com/TheHerald_Sun/status/1562555176074252288 https://twitter.com/chorswell/status/1559668288430522368 https://twitter.com/davidwebbshow/status/1559887533944750081 https://twitter.com/zerohedge Just when we thought that after a tsunami of bipartisan blowback to Twitter's ludicrous censorship implemented by woke 20-year-olds who chronically confuse the terms fascist and anti-fascist, yet who are "erudite" enough to be definitive experts in immunology and immediately ban anyone who speaks out against what even the CDC now admits was flawed Covid "science", that the social network had finally learned its place and would allow conversation to take place without constant intermediation (read: propaganda), we were proven glaringly wrong. You see, more than two years after Twitter admitted it had made an "error" for "permanently" suspending ZeroHedge (for 133 days) over its reporting on the origins of the Wuhan virus... Twitter Reinstates Zerohedge After Admitting It Made An "Error" https://t.co/E10nP8WUN2 — zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 13, 2020 ... but really in response to a ZeroHedge article which prompted none other than Anthony Fauci to scramble with damage control at the highest government echelons... ... a suspension which even Jack Dorsey eventually confirmed was a mistake... it was a business decision, it shouldn't have been. and we should always revisit our decisions and evolve as necessary. I stated in that thread and still believe that permanent bans of individuals are directionally wrong. — jack (@jack) May 10, 2022 ... and 4 months after the world's richest man, Elon Musk, offered to buy the company ostensibly to reverse Twitter's transformation into a modern Gestapo... Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 25, 2022 ... and a giant propaganda machine (one which is so critical to the outcome of elections, even the deep state has stepped in to "help" Musk scuttle him becoming the new boss now that he has cold feet over the excessive purchase price which he appears to have come up with in a rather mind-altered state), we woke up this morning to learn that we had received a 12 hour suspension for... well, see for yourselves. Here is the notification that Twitter sent us: Now, we admit that Twitter would be absolutely in its right to suspend us if we had made up the numbers, or somehow planted malicious KGB code in a story about millions of illegal aliens entering the country, that would force anyone reading the tweet to, for example, go and vote against President Harris in 2024, ensuring a landslide victory for either Trump or se Santis, but we didn't. In fact, all we did was use the verbatim title that the Federation for American Immigration Reform used in its press release from August 16. It gets better: our "hateful conduct" tweet is the exact same as Wisconsin Rep Tom Tiffany used one week before us. There have been over 4.2 MILLION illegal alien crossings since Joe Biden took office. That’s MORE THAN the population in 23 states. https://t.co/Q0ry9fYMf3 — Rep. Tom Tiffany (@RepTiffany) August 17, 2022 And while one can blame Tiffany for being partisan, how about Mark Krikorian, who is an executive director at the independent, non-partisan, Center for Immigration Studies: Border Patrol Has Already Set a New Yearly Apprehension Record at the Southwest Border https://t.co/cGOT81TeLj 1.8 million illegal-alien "encounters", with two months to go in the fiscal year. — Mark Krikorian (@MarkSKrikorian) August 17, 2022 Or maybe since the tweet is clearly factual, the woke Twitter censor took offense at the use of the phrase "illegal alien"? Well, if so, can the twitter employee who defines "hateful conduct" please look up the Webster's definition of "illegal alien" and tell us where it says this particular phrase is disparaging or "hateful"? And if indeed it was this phrase that triggered at least one Twitter "snowflake", why did Senator Ted Cruz not get suspended for using the exact same word: President Biden has a human trafficking crisis at our southern border. Sadly, he doesn’t care. In his view, every illegal alien is a potential new voter for the Democrats. #BidenBorderCrisis https://t.co/WTNuFUrSNJ — Senator Ted Cruz (@SenTedCruz) August 19, 2022 It's not just Ted Cruz: July marked the 17th consecutive month of more than 150K illegal alien apprehensions. By abandoning border security, Biden’s abandoned our national security. Suspected terrorists are taking advantage, cartels are taking control, & Americans are dying. https://t.co/hgJTLHRqdq — Brian Babin (@RepBrianBabin) August 16, 2022 Forget politicians: what about local authorities: Update: A Friona woman has officially been indicted in Amarillo Federal Court for 16 counts of "harboring an illegal alien," according to documents filed earlier this month. https://t.co/TE9xOQBgRK — KAMR Local 4 News (@KAMRLocal4News) August 19, 2022 The 18-year-old brother of the two men charged with killing Ned Byrd is facing a charge of “possession of ammunition by an illegal alien.” https://t.co/XU56pW59Xa — Durham Herald-Sun (@TheHerald_Sun) August 24, 2022 ... and even "bluechecked" journos: NYC Is ‘Most Dangerous Sanctuary Community’ in US, Says Report on Illegal Alien Policieshttps://t.co/6N5sskJsXL — cindy horswell (@chorswell) August 16, 2022 Think: Illegal aliens crossing our open southern border, are coming here to join their relatives. This is a generational illegal alien problem and the Biden administration is making it worse. #BidenHumanTrafficking — David Webb (@davidwebbshow) August 17, 2022 So what was the trigger - because we are genuinely confused? Or is Elon right that there is no greater modern Gestapo than twitter's woke (and soon to be very much unemployed workers if a Delaware judge forces Twitter to consummate the contractual deal to purchase twitter) workforce? While we doubt we will get an answer, and we certainly doubt that twitter will admit again that it was wrong in targeting us, we would urge Twitter's snowflakes to actually go out into the world (after all they all work from home, right), see what it's like, enjoy the sunshine (without triplicate masks), maybe watch an 80's move like Aliens. And speaking of Aliens, Pvt Vasquez' last words summarizes best how we feel toward Twitter's increasingly laughable and desperate attempts to censor and control every conversation by its soon-learning-to-code they/thems.
YouTube Tells Moderators to Censor Pro-Russian Content, Leaked Slides Reveal https://www.rt.com/news/561406-youtube-leaked-censorship-ukraine/ https://t.me/guselandrei/1098 Remember when censorship was only about protecting the feelings of women, faggots, and black people? Just so you remember: that is how this all started. They said that it was about protecting feelings. That’s the stated reason I was banned from everything in 2017. That’s the stated reason Chuck Johnson and MILO were the first people banned from Twitter in 2015. They said: this is all about protecting people’s feelings, and preventing mean people from saying things that hurt people’s feelings. At some point (we’ve documented the process here on this website), the censors went from being the Feelings Protection Enforcement Police to just telling you you’re not allowed to disagree with the government/media about anything, ever. RT: A tutorial for YouTube’s content moderators that emerged on social media on Tuesday shows that the Google-owned platform has labeled a number of critical positions on the conflict in Ukraine “hateful” or “extreme” and can censor or demonetize creators on those grounds. While the parent company Alphabet has not confirmed or denied the screenshots’ authenticity, a Polish contractor who shared them has reportedly been fired. Six screenshots shared by Russian journalist Andrey Guselnikov on Telegram show internal codes and examples of what YouTube has labeled “harmful” or “hateful” content in an online course mandated for content moderators. According to the slides, the “glorification/promotion of [the] ‘Z’ symbol associated with the Russian military” is labeled “hate” and “extreme” under policy ID 864. So is saying that the conflict “is to denazify the Ukrainian government,” which is what Russian President Vladimir Putin said in February. Saying that “Ukraine military is attacking its own people” is also considered problematic, ranging from “harmful-misinformation-moderate” (ID 862) to “harmful-misinformation-extreme” (ID 863) if the powers that be decide it amounts to “promotion or glorification.” There was no clarification whether either standard would apply to factual reports of Ukrainian artillery targeting Ukrainian citizens living in territories under Russian control, for example. Another highlighted phrase under policies 862 and 863 is “US funded bioweapons labs in Ukraine.” Presumably the key word here is “bioweapons,” since the existence of “biological research facilities” in Ukraine was recognized by US Under Secretary of State Victoria Nuland in a Senate testimony in March, and the Russian military has repeatedly presented evidence that these labs were funded by the US government, and the Pentagon in particular. One of the slides shows a list of “out of scope” claims, noting there is no “full-scale block on all content” related to the conflict. According to Guselnikov, the source of the leaked slides is a Polish national named Kamil Kozera, who used to work for Majorel, a contractor hired by YouTube for content moderation. YouTube somehow identified Kozera from the screenshots and had him fired over the leak. RT cannot independently verify the authenticity of the screenshots, and has reached out to YouTube for comment. To be clear: this has never been a public Twitter policy. We’ve noted since the beginning of the “Ukraine War” that Twitter was aggressively censoring anything that went against the official narrative. For example, they were deleting all of the videos of Ukrainians torturing people – videos that were uploaded to Telegram by the Ukrainians themselves. They also began censoring anyone who posted the facts about the false flags and hoaxes done against Russia. They were even banning people for saying that the Ukraine would not win the war against Russia. This is the first evidence we have that this is an official secret policy, but if you looked at our documentation of the fact, censorship of any disagreement with the government/media war narrative has been obvious and undeniable since the invasion began. In fact, censorship of Ukraine truth is even more extreme than censorship of Covid truth, which was previously the most extreme censorship. The censorship of the feelings stuff was pretty selective. Neo-Nazi Thomas Jefferson’s Name Removed from New Jersey Elementary School https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/equality-not-elitism/ne... https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-jersey-district-removes-thomas-jefferson-elem... I remember when people in Charlottesville were protesting the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue and saying “they’re going to come for the Founding Fathers next” and people were like “that’s crazy – the slippery slope is a fallacy.” That was only in 2017. And since 2020, and the George Floyd revenge riots, they’ve been attacking the Founding Fathers, pulling down their statues and removing their names from things. Washington Examiner: An elementary school in New Jersey has removed “Jefferson” from its name over former President Thomas Jefferson’s history of owning slaves . Jefferson Elementary School, located in the state’s South Orange-Maplewood School District, will now be known as Delia Bolden Elementary when classes begin Sept. 8. Bolden was the first black woman in the area to graduate from high school. Graduating high school is basically the black equivalent of founding a country. The students had a list of options to choose from, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg Elementary and New Legacy School. Students began the initiative to change the name. “Seeing the work that (the students) did, I think, exceeded the expectations of all of us who participated in that conversation, when that was the final outcome, to really engage our students and make this a real-life civics lesson with really strong connections to governance,” Superintendent Ronald Taylor said . If they’re going to rename things after black people, they should rename them after blacks with actual achievements. Name it Gucci Mane Elementary or Patrice O’Neal Elementary. Even Michael Jordan Elementary. Naming a school after the first negress who learned to read just makes black people look ridiculous. “Our most important historical achievement was that time some bitch learned who to do reading.” This does not instill confidence.
RFK Jr.’s Anti-Vax Group Assassinated Off Facebook and Instagram https://twitter.com/RobertKennedyJr/status/1560702743777509376 https://twitter.com/ChildrensHD/status/1561307219475546113 https://apnews.com/article/Thanks%20for%20reaching%20out.%20We%20removed%20t.... https://apnews.com/article/covid-technology-health-public-misinformation-280... https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-pandemics-ra... https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-the-holocaust-anne-fr... https://apnews.com/article/the-facebook-papers-covid-vaccine-misinformation-... https://youtu.be/YwYcPU0RH_o https://youtu.be/pyCYqJdy7gs CNN wins again, managing to successfully silence people who don’t agree with their safe and effective death shots. AP: Instagram and Facebook suspended Children’s Health Defense this week after the anti-vaccine group led by Robert Kennedy Jr. repeatedly violated rules prohibiting misinformation about COVID-19. A nonprofit, Children’s Health Defense is one of the most influential anti-vaccine organizations active on social media, where it has spread misleading claims about vaccines and other public health measures designed to control the pandemic. The World Economic Forum this month published an article calling for an online censorship system powered by a combination of artificial and human intelligence that one critic suggested would “globalize” the “search for wrongthink.”https://t.co/GCVVhfTC6t — Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) August 19, 2022 In a statement, Kennedy compared Facebook’s actions to government censorship, even though Facebook is a private company that can set and enforce its own rules about misinformation. “Facebook is acting here as a surrogate for the federal government’s crusade to silence all criticism of draconian government policies,” Kennedy said. Children’s Health Defense had hundreds of thousands of followers at the time of the suspension, according to a statement from the organization, which also noted that it has sued Facebook over its moderation policies. Public health advocates and misinformation experts have criticized Facebook for not acting more swiftly to contain potentially harmful misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines. Karen Kornbluh, director of the Digital Innovation and Democracy Initiative at the German Marshall Fund, said too many groups like Children’s Health Defense have been allowed to flourish on social media for too long. She noted that the group remains on Twitter. “Today’s step is too late and too little,” Kornbluh said, adding that tech companies must address the reasons misinformation spreads so readily on social media. … Several state affiliates of Children’s Health Defense remain on Facebook and Instagram despite the ban of the national organization. Kennedy was kicked off Instagram last year but continues to keep an active account on Facebook. That last bit is of course the AP itself demanding that more people be banned for not supporting these safe and effective death shots. People don’t understand: the media is behind the bannings. You can say that the ADL, SPLC, and Twitter bluecheck trannies are the ones provoking it, but they are only as relevant as the media makes them. If instead of citing Jews, the media cited Daily Stormer as the official judge of what is socially acceptable, society would look much different. The media is in control, period. The media wants a total monopoly on the narrative. At first, they were destroying competition – like Daily Stormer – now they’re just destroying anyone who disagrees with them about anything. You can say “oh well, but Jews also run the media” – this is obviously true, but when you look at the actual mechanics, it is the media doing the censorship. Journalists were all jealous of Andrew Anglin, because he is a better writer and more popular. CNN is jealous Alex Jones was getting twice the views on YouTube they were getting on cable TV. Now everyone in the media is vaxed, so they are silencing vaxers. Do you remember when the media said that Donald Trump was against the First Amendment because he said they were lying? CHD’s lawsuit, one of the organization’s 50+ active lawsuits to defend freedom of speech, medical freedom, truth, bodily autonomy and children’s health, is pending a 9th Circuit decision. #BigTech #Censorship#TheDefenderhttps://t.co/zZ3nlted6v — Children's Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) August 21, 2022 The group’s still on Twitter for now
Nigeria Says Only Black People on Ads https://www.rt.com/news/561657-nigeria-bans-white-models/ https://twitter.com/FMICNigeria/status/1562025836534013953 I support this, 100%. I’m big on most African government policies from states that aren’t totally controlled by Jews, frankly. Aside from the Chinese and their Sino-Friendship group, Africans and Moslems are some of the only people behaving respectfully and honorably these days. No wonder Africans and Moslems are joining Sino-Friendship – it’s shared values of not being cuckold faggots. RT: Nigerian ads will have to rely solely on local models and voiceover artists in future, the African nation’s government announced this week. The policy changes will come into force on October 1. “All advertisements, advertising and marketing communications materials are to make use of only Nigerian models and voiceover artists,” the Advertising Regulatory Council of Nigeria (ARCON) said in a statement on Tuesday. Current advertising campaigns using foreign talent will be allowed to continue but no new permits for similar campaigns will be issued by the relevant authorities, the government agency added. The move is consistent with the government’s policy of “developing local talent, including economic growth” and supporting the local advertising industry, the statement said. Nigeria was previously heavily reliant on foreign models and voiceover specialists in its ads, including white models and voiceovers with British accents, according to The Times. The government has been combating such tendencies for some time. It previously demanded that companies attracting foreign talent should pay a 100,000 naira (around $240) tariff for any foreign model used in an ad, the British newspaper reported. I will say: there is nothing more jarring than seeing black people on ads in Europe or Asia, at all. There are no black people there, so why are they on the ads? In America, it made sense to have, you know, 12% of ads feature black people. It’s a correct representation, and that’s fair enough. Black people buy things, and they probably actually waste more money on consumer products than whites. The most famous ads from my childhood – probably the most famous ads ever, because they were so transgressive and Jewish – were Victoria’s Secret ads. They would have a team of 5 or 6 girls with one black. And it’s like, “okay, okay – fair enough.” However, ever since Saint George Floyd overdosed on fentanyl while getting arrested for committing a felony, everything is like, 100% black, and it is just clearly political, trying to make whites feel like they don’t exist – like they are a minority in a 95% black country. Nigeria is a 100% black country. There are a few foreigners roaming around in the cities, but they’re a fraction of a percentage, and they don’t live there. There is no reason they should have non-blacks on ads. I think it’s awesome they’re doing this, and I think it’s something we can point to in our own defense. Everyone has the right to control their own spaces. America needs some kind of autonomous region for the blacks at this point, where they can run all black ads and just shoot each other and smoke crack and whatever else they do.
Atlanta: SWAT Team Assaults Black Guy’s House After He Paints Swastikas on Government-Funded Anal Crosswalk https://nypost.com/2022/08/21/atlanta-man-arrested-after-allegedly-spray-pai... And here I was thinking that blacks were allowed to commit any crime and get away with it. They’re allowed to just randomly punch people and give them permanent brain damage, courts have ruled. Related: NYC: Black Felon Who Sucker Punched Guy in the Back of the Head for No Reason Freed Without Bail Several blacks have recently been released after committing murder. The one crime they can’t commit, however, is vandalism. New York Post: A man accused of vandalizing the rainbow crosswalks in Atlanta with swastikas was arrested following a standoff with police this week. The suspect is believed to have spray-painted a swastika onto the rainbow crosswalk at 10th Street and Piedmont Avenue on two separate occasions, according to Atlanta police. Investigators went to the suspect’s apartment at around noon on Friday. A SWAT Team was called in after the man would not respond to officers. Roads in the area were blocked off as officers attempted to get the man out. At around 5 p.m., the suspect told law enforcement he was leaving the apartment and he was taken into custody without incident. The identity of the suspect has not been released. It remains unclear what charges he faces. Well, if he was white, he would face federal hate crimes charges. The Atlanta Police LGBTQ Liaison Unit was first alerted Wednesday about a “symbol that appeared to be a swastika spray-painted” at the intersection of 10th Street and Piedmont Avenue. Surveillance video showed a man enter the crosswalk and spray-paint a swastika before walking away. The Atlanta Department of Transportation quickly arrived and cleaned it up. But by early Friday morning, the symbol was on the crosswalk again. Yeah, maybe people don’t really like all this gay shit being shoved in their faces every single day, by the government? APD investigators are asking for the public’s help to identify a person responsible for vandalizing the Rainbow Crosswalk in Midtown ATL. Investigators believe the same person is responsible for two incidents occured: 08/17/22 & 08/19/22. Call Crime Stoppers 404-577-TIPS (8477) pic.twitter.com/66QPZaJeOm — Atlanta Police Department (@Atlanta_Police) August 19, 2022 We constantly hear about how gays have all of these special rights, whereas normal people don’t have any rights and just have to accept anal sex being shoved down their throats and taught to their children. Clearly, some people are going to get mad about this. Most people in America are not gay, and most men are not comfortable with the gay. So the government is knowingly and purposefully provoking the majority population of heterosexuals with all of this gay stuff everywhere. I guess you can just send a SWAT team to silence anyone who takes issue with this stuff. That might work. This is literally the only reason we have cops now – to enforce Jewish political propaganda.
Google, one of many Democrat Govt Election Fraud command followers like rest of Big Tech and Social, commits Election Fraud again... Google Barring Truth Social From Play Store Due To 'Insufficient Content Moderation' Last week, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes claimed that it was "up to Google" to approve the App for download on the Play Store platform, claiming in a statement to Just the News' John Solomon: "we're waiting on them to approve us, and I don't know what's taking so long." "They could approve it tomorrow and it would be live for all the people who have now pre-ordered," Nunes continued, adding: "We have built this from the ground up, brick-by-brick, so that we can't be canceled. But the two companies that we have to work with specifically for the apps, which is the Google Play Store and Apple to be in their app store - everyone is beholden to them." Not so fast, says Google - who told Axios that the app hasn't been approved for distribution due to "insufficient content moderation." "On Aug. 19, we notified Truth Social of several violations of standard policies in their current app submission and reiterated that having effective systems for moderating user-generated content is a condition of our terms of service for any app to go live on Google Play," a spokesperson said, adding "Last week Truth Social wrote back acknowledging our feedback and saying that they are working on addressing these issues." More via Axios: Details: A source says that Google's concerns relate to content such as physical threats and incitements to violence. Truth Social does have "sensitive content" banners that appear before some posts that read "This content may not be suitable for all audiences," but content that threatens violence remains on the platform. For example, in response to a post from former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn, an account called "TheVictim24" posted last week, "It's be nice if you people weren't just okay with the military and police stage a rebellion and framing civilians. Zero people trust the police and if the military comes in, we'll kill them. Someone admit this nation needs to be nuked because it's satanic." That post wasn't labeled. Workaround: Truth Social could offer Android users a version of its app via its website or other channels — an option not available to developers on Apple's iOS mobile operating system — but the company has not done so. The big picture: Truth Social's technological challenges come amid broader financial and legal disputes. The company owes one of its tech vendors over $1.6 million, Axios has confirmed, and the blank-check company looking to merge with it and take it public is under investigation by federal securities regulators. * * * As Axios concludes, since Truth Social isn't available on Android OS, around 44% of US smartphone users can't download it.
The fact that you sheep have to order your fucked up Govts to produce their own criminality... is triply criminal, with you sheep as the biggest of them all for emplacing them. Judge Orders Fauci, Other Top Officials to Produce Records for Big Tech–Government Censorship Lawsuit https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-orders-fauci-other-top-officials-to-prod... https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22275721-discovery-order https://www.theepochtimes.com/federal-judge-orders-biden-administration-to-c... https://www.theepochtimes.com/2-gop-led-states-sue-biden-administration-for-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/over-50-biden-administration-employees-12-us-a... https://www.theepochtimes.com/many-of-faucis-emails-with-zuckerberg-should-b... Dr. Anthony Fauci, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, and other top Biden administration officials who were resisting efforts to obtain their communications with Big Tech companies must hand over the records, a federal judge ruled on Sept. 6. U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty, a Trump appointee, ordered the government to quickly produce documents after it was sued by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri over alleged collusion with Big Tech firms such as Facebook. The initial tranche of discovery, released on Aug. 31, revealed that more than 50 government officials across a dozen agencies were involved in applying pressure to social media companies to censor users. But some of the officials refused to provide any answers or answer all questions posed by the plaintiffs. Among them: Fauci, who serves as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden. The government claimed that Fauci shouldn’t be required to answer all questions or provide records in his capacity as NIAID director or in his capacity as Biden’s chief medical adviser. It also attempted to withhold records and responses from Jean-Pierre. In the new ruling on Sept. 6 breaking the stalemate, Doughty said both Fauci and Jean-Pierre needed to comply with the interrogatories and record requests. “First, the requested information is obviously very relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. Dr. Fauci’s communications would be relevant to Plaintiffs’ allegations in reference to alleged suppression of speech relating to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin, and to alleged suppression of speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns. Jean-Pierre’s communications as White House Press Secretary could be relevant to all of Plaintiffs’ examples,” Doughty said, referring to examples such as the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story ahead of the 2020 presidential election and censorship of claims COVID-19 originated in a Chinese laboratory. Doughty ordered Fauci and Jean-Pierre to comply within 21 days. Fauci, additionally, must provide complete answers to questions regarding his role as NIAID director. “We know from the previous round of discovery that efforts to censor the speech of those who disagree with the government on covid policy have come from the top. Americans deserve to know Anthony Fauci’s participation in this enterprise, especially since he has publicly demanded that specific individuals, including two of our clients, Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff, be censored on social media,” Jenin Younes, litigation counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance and a lawyer for some of the plaintiffs, said in a statement. “It is time for Dr. Fauci to answer for his flagrant disregard for Americans’ constitutional rights and civil liberties.” Epoch Times Photo Martin Kulldorff, epidemiologist and statistician, at his home in Ashford, Conn., on Feb. 11, 2022. (Samira Bouaou/The Epoch Times) HHS The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the parent agency of NIAID, also tried to avoid giving answers or documents in the legal battle, even though discovery from Big Tech companies revealed key HHS officials as participating in what plaintiffs have described as a “censorship enterprise.” Both HHS and the Department of Homeland Security objected to attempts to get the agencies to search widely for relevant records, describing the attempts as “unduly burdensome and disproportionate to the needs of the case.” HHS identified NIAID, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Office of the Surgeon General as three subagencies that would likely have the records sought. Plaintiffs said that HHS was effectively exempting itself from the discovery process. Doughty agreed with HHS that conducting a search for relevant records among all 80,000 HHS employees would be overly burdensome, but said the HHS employees identified in documents from Meta, Facebook’s parent company, as engaging with the company needed to respond to the discovery requests. He ordered the HHS officials, including the HHS deputy digital director, to provide responses within 21 days. Amended Complaint Government officials identified 45 officials across five agencies as officials who communicate with social media companies about misinformation and censorship. But emails and other documents provided by Meta, Twitter, and Google in the case show a number of other officials, including officials at other agencies and the White House, were involved in the effort. Further, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg recently disclosed that the FBI reached out about disinformation before the 2020 election. Soon after that, Facebook suppressed the circulation of the first Hunter Biden laptop story. “With each of these new revelations, Plaintiffs have approached Defendants and requested that they supplement their discovery responses to include responsive communications from the newly disclosed federal officials. Defendants have refused to do so, on the grounds that none of these newly discovered officials have been sued or served with discovery as yet, and that it would be unduly burdensome to identify and produce their communications,” the plaintiffs said in a recent filing. The plaintiffs asked to file an amended complaint naming all of the identified officials as defendants to address the issues. They said the amended filing would enable the serving of requests for records and information to each of the officials who were not initially disclosed by the government. Doughty said that plaintiffs could file within 30 days an amended complaint adding additional agencies and individuals.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/09/racine-county-judge-gags-election-f... Racine County Judge Gags Election Fraud Whistleblower Harry Wait at First Hearing in State’s Prosecution against Popular Activist By Jeremy Segal Published September 9, 2022 at 12:25pm Comment Harry Wait, a Wisconsin resident concerned about the integrity of elections conducted a citizen sting operation to expose security vulnerabilities in the state’s absentee ballot system that could lead to widespread election fraud. Wait is now being prosecuted himself for two counts of Election Fraud and Unauthorized Use of an Individual’s Personal Identifying Information for his actions. Wait ordered eight ballots in names which he had permission from and one in the name of Robin Vos, Speaker of the Wisconsin General Assembly, and another in the name of Racine Mayor, Corey Mason, through the state’s MyVoteWI.com website. Wait, did in fact, receive some of the requested ballots in the mail at his home. Wait then provided all the evidence, including the evidence necessary for the state to charge him with voter fraud and offered to turn himself in to the Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling. TRENDING: BREAKING UPDATE: Up to 50 Trump Supporters Have Homes Raided by DOJ-FBI Across the US (VIDEO) Schmaling declined to press charges and instead called on the Wisconsin Election Commission to remedy the obvious flaw in their system. The Journal Sentinel writes: In response to the crimes by Wait and others, Schmaling called on state elections commissioners — whom he has previously recommended criminal charges against for voting rules they recommended for nursing home residents during the coronavirus pandemic — to take down a feature on the commission’s website to help voters request absentee ballots. Schmaling characterized the plot as “complainants who have reported apparent vulnerabilities” on the website. He said one person who had come forward had “tested this vulnerability and had a second party request their ballot and had that ballot sent to the second party’s address.” “The second party was successful in obtaining the first party’s ballot,” he wrote in the statement. He said another person requested ballots for “prominent government officials” and others around the state. However, the state did not approve of nor thank Wait for his efforts to ensure elections in Wisconsin would be free from risk of fraudulent ballots being cast. Instead they chose to fully prosecute Wait. Wait appeared before Judge Robert Repischak (appointed by Former Governor Scott Walker) on Thursday in a Racine County Courtroom packed with supporters, where he was issued a $2500 I-Bond. Judge Repischak initially placed protective orders preventing Wait from speaking to or about the people he had ordered ballots for. However once the hearing was concluded and the judge noticed Wait answer questions with the press, he fully gagged Wait, barring him from speaking about details of the case at all. Here’s the moment that led up to the gag order. Judge: “I’m not going to have you litigate this case to the media.” Wait: “Sir, I am not litigating this case in the media… I’m objecting that’s against my first amazement right.” https://t.co/f5WaS9CKrH pic.twitter.com/DUD2tUPjGO — Emilee Fannon (@Emilee_Fannon) September 8, 2022 Wait told The Gateway Pundit “I feel he [the judge] has overstepped his authority, we still live in America and I still have my first amendment rights.” Wait said, he is not unhappy about the gag order, and that “history favors the prepared,” but also that “it is very hard for me to not about something when I have a first amendment right to talk about it.” Gag orders have been legitimized by courts to prevent tainting jury pools, however, in many cases the accused are the only ones barred from speaking publicly about details in their case. Evidently the courts do not maintain the same fears when the accusers or anyone else in the media exercise their first amendment rights against the accused.
https://twitter.com/KenPaxtonTX/status/1570877107991105537 I just secured a MASSIVE VICTORY for the Constitution & Free Speech in fed court: #BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan! The 5th Circuit “reject[s] the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. Attorney General Ken Paxton @KenPaxtonTX US Ct Appeals 5th Cir 21-51178 US Dist Ct West Texas 1:21-cv-840 Platforms vs Texas House Bill 20 "Today we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say."
Asshole Tyrant Trudeau shows his true colors and penchant for stripping all peoples many rights away, yet again... Funny all these young WEF + Soros graduates all want to fuck your rights over, their words quoted all over the net... https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1572403145996926976 We need to confront the rise of hate and violent extremism. At the Christchurch Call Summit, I announced that Canada will fund a new tool that helps small and medium-size online platforms better identify and counter content related to terrorism and violent extremism.
Jacinda Ardern is a tyrant, cut from the same cloth as her smiling-when-fucking-you-over shitbag politician Justin Trudeau... New Zealand Prime Minister Calls for a Global Censorship System JONATHAN TURLEY Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks Free Speech, International September 25, 2022 New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern is the latest liberal leader to call for an international alliance to censor speech. Unsatisfied with the unprecedented corporate censorship of social media companies, leaders like Hillary Clinton have turned from private censorship to good old-fashioned state censorship. Speech regulation has become an article of faith on the left. Ardern used her speech this week to the United Nations General Assembly to call for censorship on a global scale. Ardern lashed out at “disinformation” and called for a global coalition to control speech. After nodding toward free speech, she proceeded to lay out a plan for its demise through government regulation: But what if that lie, told repeatedly, and across many platforms, prompts, inspires, or motivates others to take up arms. To threaten the security of others. To turn a blind eye to atrocities, or worse, to become complicit in them. What then? This is no longer a hypothetical. The weapons of war have changed, they are upon us and require the same level of action and activity that we put into the weapons of old. We recognized the threats that the old weapons created. We came together as communities to minimize these threats. We created international rules, norms and expectations. We never saw that as a threat to our individual liberties – rather, it was a preservation of them. The same must apply now as we take on these new challenges. Ardern noted how extremists use speech to spread lies without noting that non-extremists use the same free speech to counter such views. To answer her question on “how do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists” is that you convince people using the same free speech. Instead, Ardern appears to want to silence those who have doubts. While referring to a global censorship coalition as a “light-touch approach to disinformation,” Ardern revealed how sweeping such a system would likely be. She defended the need for such global censorship on having to combat those who question climate change and the need to stop “hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology.” “After all, how do you successfully end a war if people are led to believe the reason for its existence is not only legal but noble? How do you tackle climate change if people do not believe it exists? How do you ensure the human rights of others are upheld, when they are subjected to hateful and dangerous rhetoric and ideology?” That is the same rationale used by authoritarian countries like China, Iran, and Russia to censor dissidents, minority groups, and political rivals. What is “hateful” and “dangerous” is a fluid concept that government have historically used to silence critics or dissenters. Ardern is the smiling face of the new generation of censors. At least the old generation of censors like the Iranians do not pretend to support free speech and openly admit that they are crushing dissent. The point is that we need to be equally on guard when censorship is pushed from the left with the best of motivations and the worst of means. As the great civil libertarian Justice Louis Brandeis once said, “the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” 214 Comments Post navigation ← Previous Post Washington Post Columnist Calls for the End of Impartiality and Balance in Journalism Next Post → Biden Repeats False Claims about AR-15 Velocity in Support of a Ban 214 thoughts on “New Zealand Prime Minister Calls for a Global Censorship System” Comment navigation ← Older Comments Johnathan Galt says: September 27, 2022 at 12:49 PM What we need is a global order to censor Jacinda. Loading... Reply GioCon says: September 27, 2022 at 10:42 AM No American elected that b*tch, so she should stick to censoring her own tiny corner of the earth. Of course, none of these idiots ever answer the question: Who gets to determine what is “disinformation”? They just assume it’ll be themselves. Until it won’t. Loading... Reply Paul says: September 27, 2022 at 2:55 AM Adern is a fraud. Her government is in the final stages of building NZ’s largest wind farm in a residential zone at Turitea, Palmerston North. The wind farm does not have a consent. Shonagh Kenderdine, for 13 months and with government oversight, faked being a judge, granting a fake consent for the wind farm located right on the Wellington and Northern Ohariu faults. The previous government sold off 49% of Mercury Energy to investors which owns this asset without telling them that it is subjected to massive earthquakes. A very recent video on YouTube “Out there learning” has gone viral about the extreme hazards the lower half of the North Island faces. Adern knows all this and is hiding it. Search for “turiteadocuments” to find out more. Loading... Reply David B Benson says: September 26, 2022 at 10:18 PM Is not not the further Righters who support censorship? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics Loading... Reply David B Benson says: September 26, 2022 at 10:25 PM I don’t see anything in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics supportive of censorship. I opine that Jonathan Turley is confused, once again. Loading... Reply onedigger22 says: September 26, 2022 at 11:59 PM Wikipedia? LOL!!! Your head is clearly where the sun don’t shine and you think it’s an enlightening place to be, full of s-t just as you’re analysis. The Fascist left has always been about censorship; hence facebook, instagram, twitter are constantly shutting down free speech that doesn’t march in lock step with the lefts totalitarian ideology. Thankfully we have Turley and others exposing your hypocrisy as well as the New Zealand’s PM. Loading... Reply Carr says: September 27, 2022 at 1:55 AM Wiki is incredibly censored by the left, and you come here citing Wiki? lol Loading... Reply John Say says: September 27, 2022 at 4:56 AM I will fight anyone pushing ACTUAL censorship, right, left, I do not care. I rarely find myself fighting against actual censorship from the right. I constantly find myself fighting actual censorship from the left. People right or left coming together to select or oppose a curicula for public schools – not censorship. Sometimes – such as the curicula pushed by the left – it is idiocy. Regardless, schools are not dealing with adults, and we do not have infinite time to educate children. It would be wise for them to learn how to read, write and add, Before they take on questions of whenher Gender is a choice. Conversely killing stories on social media – Censorship. Driving speakers you do not like off your college campus – censorship. Government telling social media companies who to block and what to block – massive unconstitutional censorship – of the kind there is no remedy for. Firebombing pro-life pregnancy clinics – censorship. Murdering teens you claim are ultra-MAGA – censorship – also murder. I have not followed your link. Wikipedia is sometimes valuable. But it is pretty bad when you need wikipedia to tell you what is happening right in front of your eyes. Without doing a search and from your own experience – what examples do you have of ACTUAL right wing censorship ? Few of us have any trouble recalling dozens of examples on the left. We do not need wikipedia to tell us what is right in front of our eyes. Loading... Reply Martin Holsinger says: September 26, 2022 at 2:48 PM Look, the neoliberals are not “the left.” They’re center-right. I know because I’m really on the left (anti-imperialist socialist) and they’re censoring me. Loading... Reply Jeff Id says: September 27, 2022 at 5:49 PM Left of the left is hard to do these days Loading... Reply Prairie Rose says: September 26, 2022 at 1:33 PM “Ardern noted how extremists use speech to spread lies” Therefore, politicians are extremists since they have a nasty tendency to spread lies. Hmm…tempting conclusion. Loading... Reply Anonymous says: September 26, 2022 at 2:12 PM What she said does not imply what you inferred. Loading... Reply Prairie Rose says: September 26, 2022 at 9:19 PM I know. But it is tempting to skew things, too. Loading... Reply bobdog says: September 26, 2022 at 3:53 PM Oh, noes, Rose…When a politician lies to us, it’s privileged speech. If we lie to them, it’s a felony. Loading... Reply Mike Howard says: September 26, 2022 at 5:25 PM In the case of Ardern and her rabble – that is absolutely correct. They create the lying environment through lack of transparency!! Give her a job at her socialist led UN and get her right out of our hair!!! Loading... Reply Anonymous says: September 26, 2022 at 11:50 AM ” you clearly don’t understand what constitutes libel.” Anonymous: You are ignorant. You need a dictionary. Libel = a defamation. Loading... Reply Foxtrot Juliet Bravo says: September 26, 2022 at 11:00 AM Ardern and her ilk are too stupid to tell me how to live. Loading... Reply Sam says: September 26, 2022 at 10:39 AM Ardern is a typical, dishonest authoritarian who desires to usurp rights, while pretending to protect rights. Their formula is always this (e.g., with respect to the right to free speech): “I'[m in favor of free speech, but . . .” That “but” is an authoritarian’s tell. It tells you that there’s a shyster in the room who’s about to pick your pocket. What comes after her “but” is this: Global governments must control (i.e., censor) “disinformation.” Which, of course, means that governments must censor opinions and speech that they don’t agree with. The most important role of the right to free speech is not to protect those who agree. It’s to protect dissenters. Loading... Reply Todd says: September 26, 2022 at 7:57 PM I’m not a repub or dem, but this all is being taken out of context. There is judicial precedent in common-law nations for distinction/handling between individual speech and mass published speech. It’s obvious NZ is not an authoritarian nation — the conservative CATO institute just ranked NZ the freest country in the world (US #17), and they rank most social democratic countries higher than the US. Moreover, Ardern’s speeches are entirely more cogent and objective than any US politician. Loading... Reply Carr says: September 27, 2022 at 1:57 AM We have seen what they’ve done in NZ and Oz, we’re not blind. Loading... Reply John Say says: September 27, 2022 at 5:26 AM Lets not misrepresent. Most of the countries you call “social democrat” aren’t. They may have a party named the social democratic party that sometimes wins elections. But these countries are neither socialist. nor democracies. Loading... Reply Mary says: September 26, 2022 at 9:59 AM How could the 20th-century despots have missed out on such opportunities to censor and track their citizens as are available now? This woman is behind the times in her thinking, but it’s frightening that so many agree with her. Loading... Reply Darren Smith says: September 26, 2022 at 6:40 AM ANZUS-Cracked Loading... Reply Shakdi Dagalimal says: September 26, 2022 at 12:32 AM That’s great, we shut her up first. Gagged, a ball muzzle, 3 stacked masks, and no pen and paper or hand signals. Wow, that would be great., not another word from that weirdo tyrannist ever again. Loading... Reply Comment navigation ← Older Comments Leave a Reply jonathan turley profile Top Posts "I Refuse to do this": Leading NYU Psychologist Resigns from Research Group Over Mandatory DEI Statement New Zealand Prime Minister Calls for a Global Censorship System Reefer Madness: The New York Law on Legalized Marijuana is a Triumph of Politics over Logic Was Overturning Roe a "Blessing"? Only if Democrats Can Avoid the Details of the Right to Abortion How A Snap Impeachment Could Shatter Our Constitutional Balance Recent Comments John Say on Was Overturning Roe a “B… John Say on Was Overturning Roe a “B… John Say on Was Overturning Roe a “B… John Say on Eleventh Circuit Rules for DOJ… John Say on Was Overturning Roe a “B… Button on “I Refuse to do this… David B Benson on Was Overturning Roe a “B… E.M. on Reefer Madness: The New York L… David B Benson on Was Overturning Roe a “B… Anonymous on Was Overturning Roe a “B…
Wake up, wokester prog soc libs are out for your freedom...
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1575188754071171072 https://twitter.com/backtolife_2023/status/1575002436808298501 https://t.me/FreeMediaNZ/594 This is the face of authoritarianism - even though it looks different than you were taught to expect. And it's the mindset of tyrants everywhere: This is someone so inebriated by her sense of righteousness and superiority that she views dissent as an evil too dangerous to allow: PM Jacinda Ardern calls internet freedom a “weapon of war” in most recent UN speech. Calls for a new type of internet with “rules and transparency”. “How do you tackle climate change if people don’t believe it exists”.
Wake up, wokester prog soc libs are out for your freedom...
Are you sheeple awake yet? Helloooooo? Wake up u dummies, 1984 is knocking at your door.... Now not only is nearly every US Democrat, and Biden Kamala Pelosi Trudeau Ardern Islam China and just about every "Democracy" aka unfree Socialist shithole, and every other "country", been fully pronouncing their love of and plans to roll out Total Censorship Regimes... now the "United Nations" has "united" against your God given Right to Free Speech as well. Just look at all these sick twisted coded speech and weasel words, hypocrite elite scumbags entrenching and self-preserving themselves and their power structures... https://twitter.com/antonioguterres/status/1575240180516196356 Everyone has the right to seek and receive verified information. Fighting misinformation, disinformation and hate speech is key for sustainable development and human rights. International Day for Universal Access to Information Artificial Intelligence, e-Governance and Access to Information #AccessToInfoDay #RightToKnow https://twitter.com/saylor/status/1576297909993484290 Even Saylor, bless his heart, is proposing to Lockdown the Internet to only those who posess and pay traceable non-fungible censorable Bitcoin-BTC to be allowed to access use and say anything on the Internet. Note they never say the benefit of privacy-enabled coins, Guerrilla Networks Overlays etc. So many panties of legacy power going in bunches over Free Speech. Lol.
The Intellectual Dark Web. Centralized alternative and distributed p2p video services are growing rapidly in response to now known blatant censorship and desearch derank demonetize manipulation. http://cobratate.com/ Andrew Tate becomes another of the world's most censored people.
Trump Won. The US Government Sees Silicon Valley As Part Of Its Propaganda Machine https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/the-us-government-sees-silicon-valley-as-p... https://archive.ph/Lsrif https://twitter.com/duty2warn/status/1583425927622852608 https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/imperial-narrative-control-has-five https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/07/16/biden-administration-completely-kill... https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/04/15/more-escalations-in-online-censorshi... https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/defending-freedom-and-democracy-sure https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/05/20/twitter-to-ramp-up-censorship-of-mis... https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/dont-underestimate-how-badly-the https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-russia-tiktok-white-house/ https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/04/30/oh-god-its-going-to-get-so-much-wors... https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1415725320381079569 https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/when-billionaires-and-the-government https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/10/11/the-science-of-propaganda-is-still-b... https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/censorship-by-algorithm-does-far https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-a... The Biden administration is reportedly considering opening a national security review of Elon Musk’s business ventures which could see the plutocrat’s purchase of Twitter blocked by the White House, in part because Musk is perceived as having an “increasingly Russia-friendly stance.” Bloomberg reports: Biden administration officials are discussing whether the US should subject some of Elon Musk’s ventures to national security reviews, including the deal for Twitter Inc. and SpaceX’s Starlink satellite network, according to people familiar with the matter. US officials have grown uncomfortable over Musk’s recent threat to stop supplying the Starlink satellite service to Ukraine — he said it had cost him $80 million so far — and what they see as his increasingly Russia-friendly stance following a series of tweets that outlined peace proposals favorable to President Vladimir Putin. They are also concerned by his plans to buy Twitter with a group of foreign investors. The “group of foreign investors” the Biden administration is reportedly worried about oddly includes Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia, who has already been a massive Twitter shareholder for years. The White House certainly never had a problem with foreign investors there before. Scoop: Biden admin officials are discussing whether US should subject some of @elonmusk’s ventures to national security reviews, including his deal for Twitter Inc., and the Starlink satellite network, sources tell @SalehaMohsin and me. @BloombergTV pic.twitter.com/pZx1As8RUZ — Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) October 21, 2022 “Officials in the US government and intelligence community are weighing what tools, if any, are available that would allow the federal government to review Musk’s ventures,” Bloomberg writes. “One possibility is through the law governing the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States [CFIUS] to review Musk’s deals and operations for national security risks, they said.” “Musk, the world’s richest person, has taken to Twitter in recent weeks to announce proposals to end Russia’s war and threaten to cut financial support for Starlink internet in Ukraine,” says Bloomberg. “His tweets and public comments have frustrated officials in the US and Europe and drawn praise from America’s rivals.” “If the Twitter acquisition was to be reviewed by CFIUS for national security reasons, the agency could recommend to President Biden that he nix the deal — something Musk himself has tried and failed to do in recent months,” writes Business Insider’s Kate Duffy on the Bloomberg scoop. Indeed Musk has already indicated that he’d find it funny if the Biden administration blocked his purchase of Twitter, a $44 billion buy that the Tesla executive has made every legal effort to back out of. But how revealing is it that someone could be forbidden by the White House from purchasing a giant social media company on the grounds that they’re not sufficiently hostile toward Moscow? Neither Bloomberg nor any other mainstream members of the imperial commentariat appear to take any interest in the jarring notion that the US government could end up banning the purchase of an online platform because it views the purchaser as having an unacceptably “Russia-friendly stance.” Not only is it uncritically accepted that the US government mustn’t allow the purchase of a social media company if the would-be buyer isn’t deemed adequately hostile to US enemies, many mainstream liberals are actively cheering for this outcome: BREAKING: Biden is considering blocking Musk’s Twitter deal (due to close 10/28), worried by his threat to stop supplying Starlink to Ukraine and his Russia-friendly “peace proposals.” The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) CAN nix the deal! 🧵 — Duty To Warn 🔉 (@duty2warn) October 21, 2022 This just says so much about how the US government views the function of Silicon Valley megacorporations, and why it has been exerting more and more pressure on them to collaborate with the empire to greater and greater degrees of intimacy. As far as the US empire is concerned, Silicon Valley is just an arm of the imperial propaganda machine. And empire apologists believe that’s as it should be. None of this will come as a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention to things like the drastic escalations in online censorship since the war in Ukraine began, including on Twitter, or the ongoing expansion of internet censorship protocols that were already well underway before this war started. It will also come as no surprise to people whose ears pricked up when the White House summoned top social media influencers to a briefing in which they were instructed how to talk about the Ukraine war. It will also come as no surprise to those who paid attention to the public outcry when it was discovered that the Biden administration was assembling a “disinformation governance board” to function as an official Ministry of Truth for online content, or when the White House admitted to flagging “problematic posts” for Facebook to take down, or when Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop October surprise in the last presidential race was done in conjunction with the FBI. It is abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that Silicon Valley tech companies are a major part of the imperial narrative control system. The US empire has invested in soft power to an exponentially greater degree than any other empire in history, and has refined the science of mass-scale psychological manipulation to produce the mightiest propaganda machine since the dawn of civilization. Silicon Valley is being used to manipulate the way people think about world events via algorithm manipulation, censorship, and sophisticated information ops like Wikipedia in an entirely unprecedented way that is becoming more and more important to imperial control as the old media give way to the new. Narrative control centers like Silicon Valley, the news media and Hollywood are just as crucial for US imperial domination as the military. That the US government is weighing intervention to stop the purchase of an online platform, because it lacks confidence that the would-be owner would reliably advance US information interests, is just the latest glimpse behind the veil at the imperial agenda to control human understanding and perception.
Donald J Trump Won The US 2020 Presidential Election Why The Censors Fear Information Freedom Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times GOP Sues Google Over Routing Donation Emails To Spam https://www.theepochtimes.com/do-republicans-have-the-guts-really-to-take-on... https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-22/gop-accuses-google-in-sui... Why The Censors Fear Information Freedom Jeffrey Tucker via The Epoch Times https://www.theepochtimes.com/why-the-censors-fear-information-freedom_48038... https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-censorship https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-big-tech https://nclalegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Exhibits-SAC-1.pdf https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-misinformation This is the age of censorship, pushed by government and interests and enacted by wholly captured Big Tech firms. If you doubt it, look through the hundred or so pages of emails dug up in court discovery between government agencies and social media firms during the COVID crisis. The relationship is warm and wholly normalized. If, for three years, you had a sense that you were being fed a canned line through all major media platforms, that the science was being filtered, that the talking heads were merely telling you what they were told to tell you, that dissent was being crushed, you aren’t wrong. This is exactly what was happening. COVID was a major test case, but the model has been rolled out to cover a whole range of other topics, including election fraud, vaccine safety, and climate change. If an issue is important to a powerful interest and prevailing government priorities, the censors are tasked to get to work. The platform you have today could be gone tomorrow, no matter how much of a personal investment you have in it. In fact, large accounts seem more likely to be attacked than small ones. We now know about a series of emails between former FDA commissioner and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb (now at the American Enterprise Institute) and tech firms concerning the writings of Alex Berenson. Berenson was an early critic of COVID policies and among the first to sound the alarm about vaccine efficacy and safety. Gottlieb targeted Berenson by name and told Twitter and others precisely what needed to happen as soon as possible. Berenson had to be silenced. It’s true that Gottlieb wasn’t a government employee at the time, but these things can get murky. We know from many reports inside the White House that Jared Kushner consulted him directly in the days when they were twisting Trump’s arm to approve a lockdown of society. Gottlieb’s connections in and out of government regulatory agencies are vast. It’s one case of hundreds, thousands, and countless other cases. People write to me daily to report that LinkedIn has taken down a message without warning, that Facebook has slapped a warning on a post, that Twitter has taken down their account, or that Google’s YouTube has dinged or deleted their account. More intense forms are happening in web hosting (Amazon can throw you off) and even finance. PayPal has cut many individuals and institutions from access and even dared floating a fee for “misinformation”—a word we now understand to mean opinions not approved by ruling class censors. If this practice is rolled out further—and there’s no question that many intend to do so—we could find ourselves surrounded in a Chinese-like social credit system. This raises serious legal issues which are now being litigated across the country. Governments can’t simply privatize their censorious ambitions to the private sector and pretend that is entirely consistent with the First Amendment. The freedom of speech is a general principle that prohibits government from muscling speech platforms to comply with their edicts. And this is true even with private entities who sign up willingly for the job like earnest members of the Red Guard. There’s another reason why censorship is more pervasive than at any time in our lifetime. It’s because we have never had such access to so many varied information portals. Imagine if the whole lockdown scenario had taken place in the early 1970s. There were three television networks. Each offered 30 minutes of news each day; 10 minutes or so were devoted to national and international affairs and the rest to sports and weather. The news anchors all said essentially the same thing, which led most people to believe that this was all they needed to know. Why did we have a sense that there was no arbitrary censorship? Probably because there didn’t need to be. The information cartel was fully intact. The ruling class was perfectly positioned to script the prevailing narrative. Not even newspapers were distributed outside their region of influence. The New York Times was for New York, The Washington Post for Washington, and so on. There were no websites, podcasts, Substacks, discussion forums, group messages, and not even emails. There was no way to send documents except by government mail because not even the fax machine had yet been invented. Yes, there were alternative newsletters and things, but they were often expensive, and you had to know about them to get them. Other than that, the whole population was largely in the dark. Looking back, it’s amazing that there ever were protests for civil rights or against the Vietnam War at all. This is why arts and music were so hugely important to both movements: They were a way to get the message out that the news cartel couldn’t control. Maybe many people like that world. It seemed orderly. There was a “national culture” mostly informed by prevailing news control. No one knew a better system. But then came technology. Even by the late 1980s, things were opening up. Ronald Reagan himself credited new information flows for provoking the unrest in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union that led to so many revolutions. By 1995, the end of the orderly and controlled information cartel had been shattered by the web browser and the explosive growth of the internet beyond a few to everyone. It seemed to many at the time to be the beginning of a great and new renaissance. Information is the light, and with the light comes emancipation from old forms and new opportunities for everyone. It seemed like “the end of history,” and those years spawned a kind of wild optimism that humanity would forever escape the despots. At the same time, this created a major problem for ruling class elites who once enjoyed complete hegemony over the public mind. Their control was collapsing before their eyes. We loved it. The fix has been a quarter century in the making, one step at a time, toward somehow rebuilding what they lost. This is precisely why this is all happening now. In other words, it’s the age of censorship precisely because it’s the age of information. One follows the other. Why is information so dangerous to some people? Because information is about ideas, and history is shaped by the ideas we hold. They’re more powerful than armies because ideas are mentally and emotionally powerful, and infinitely reproducible and malleable, and they inspire action. Once an idea takes hold in a population, nothing can stop its forward advance and eventual victory. In other words, there’s a strange way in which censorship itself should give us hope simply because elites find it’s so desperately needed right now. Censorship is the tribute that lies pay to truth. If truth were not so powerful, no censorship would be necessary. Also, if the system of information distribution were as highly controlled and narrow as it was in the 1970s and earlier, there would be no real need to silence anyone.
On Tue, 25 Oct 2022 00:30:22 -0400 grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com> wrote:
notice that the piece of non-human, jewnazi shit tucker pretends that 'big tech firms' are CAPTURED. If anything, anybody with even half a brain knows that government is CAPTURED by 'private' interests like joogle, microshit, and the rest of the MIC. Hell, there are even terms like regulatory CAPTURE, which means that government 'regulators' get their orders from the PRIVATE SECTOR. but of course, pieces of non-human right-wing shit like tucker will never tell the truth. Hopefully tucker will be exterminated soon by his beloved 'free market'.
wow, this is even more evil and stupid than I thought
total censorship is what non-human turds like tucker fully love and advocate. Jewnazi joogle, fukerbook and the rest are PRIVATE. The arpanet is their PRIVATE PROPERTY and they CAN DO WHATEVER THE FUCK THEY WANT WITH IT. Why is the non-human turd whining about his own anti-philosophy.
I couldn't make that shit up even if my life depended on it. We live under complete surveillance and censorship thanks to a worldwide US-jewnazi monopoly, yet the non-human turd claims we live in the best of possible worlds. "we have never had such access to so many varied information portals." Right. Beating tucker to death and feeding him to pigs would be an insult to pigs.
Imagine if the whole lockdown scenario had taken place in the early 1970s. There were three television networks.
now replaced by tucker's jewnazi ARPANET - a single US-jewnazi-private monopoly. really grancrap, you have to go kill this turd, and then kill yourself.
Internet Sting Operation ‘J6 DELETED’ Exposes How Twitter Manipulated Jan. 6 Narrative ‘In Real Time’ https://www.theepochtimes.com/exclusive-j6deleted-internet-sting-operation-e... https://www.j6deleted.com/ https://www.theepochtimes.com/c-jan-6-coverage 'Truth is a force of nature'
Kanye West ... deplatformed and debanked... for Free Speech. They are clearly coming for you and your speech next. Yet you still do nothing to stop them. Fools.
Apparently politicians never heard of sideloading, overlay networks, cryptocurrency... but think of the children, lol... FCC Boss Says US Should Ban TikTok https://www.axios.com/2022/11/01/interview-fcc-commissioner-says-government-... Just days ago, one of the Democratic Party's leading figures, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), head of the US Senate intelligence committee, admitted that President Trump was right regarding the security risks surrounding the video app. Across the political spectrum, Republican lawmakers are in line with Democrats about TikTok: "No surprise there, TikTok is just another invasive tool for communist China to infiltrate Americans' personal and proprietary information," Rep. Ken Buck (R-Colo.) told The Epoch Times. "This app presents a very real threat to our national security, and the United States should take strong action to stop the CCP's espionage campaign." In a recent interview, China-In-Focus' Tiffany Meier sat down with Casey Fleming, CEO of intelligence and security strategy firm BlackOps Partners, who said: "What people need to understand is that TikTok is a military application. It's a weaponized espionage application to get every bit of information they possibly can off the phone, which they do - your whereabouts, how you go about your day, your access to other people, access to technology, intellectual property, and things that you can be blackmailed on, and so on. So people need to understand that TikTok is a weaponized military application in the hands of our middle schoolers, our kids, our high school kids, and our young adults." What's remarkable is that when former President Trump considered banning TikTok because of national security threat issues, the very consideration was met with such controversy because a ban of the app would jeopardize free speech and "set a very problematic precedent" for restricting apps by the US government. Now Democrats want to do the same thing, but there's no uproar.
FCC Boss Says US Should Ban TikTok
US Democrats clamor for Foreign Govs to Force Twitter to censor for the US Democrats... How Elon Musk Should Shape Twitter https://jonathanturley.org/2022/09/25/new-zealand-prime-minister-calls-for-g... https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/29/democrats-move-from-corporate-censorsh... https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/28/the-first-amendment-option-an-easy-way... https://nypost.com/2022/10/27/how-elon-musk-should-shape-twitter-sans-the-si... https://jonathanturley.org/2022/10/29/writers-publishers-and-editors-call-fo... https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1585341984679469056 Below is my column in the New York Post on the media meltdown over the Musk takeover at Twitter. The column again suggests a way for Musk to make a clean break from the censorship culture and apparatchiks at Twitter: the First Amendment Option. Musk has already made great progress toward restoring free speech on the platform with the firing of the two chief censors at the company, but the deconstruction of one of the world’s largest censorship systems will be a challenge in the weeks and months ahead. Here is the column: News reports last week seemed to start out like a bar joke: The richest man in the world walks in carrying a sink . . . Of course, it was a joke — a colossal joke. The question is whom the joke is on. For Elon Musk, the punch line was appropriately delivered on Twitter, the company he took over Friday at an inflated price. Calling himself “Chief Twit,” Musk posted the video with the caption “Entering Twitter HQ — let that sink in!” For the Musk-phobic, it was as funny as a drive-by shooting. CNN analyst Juliette Kayyem denounced Musk’s taunt as “fundamentally cruel.” After all, when Musk was first reported to be buying the company, employees were so traumatized that leadership had to offer emotional support just to “get through the week.” The reason is less the fear of Musk bringing bathroom fixture than free speech into San Francisco headquarters. Twitter has created one of the largest censorship systems in world history — a system widely condemned for a pattern of political bias and viewpoint intolerance. Outgoing CEO Parag Agrawal is unabashedly hostile to traditional views of free speech. Soon after he took over, he pledged to regulate content and said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the Internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.” For employees who are true believers of this censorship scheme, the joke no doubt feels like it’s on them. The censorship skill set may not be quite as much in demand in a Musk-owned firm. While Facebook, Google and other companies are still committed to corporate censorship, Musk has pledged to restore free speech principles to Twitter. But the joke may still be on Musk if he yields to Twitter’s corporate culture or the mainstream media’s unrelenting pressure. Democratic leaders like Hillary Clinton have turned from private censorship to good old-fashioned state censorship. Clinton has called on foreign governments to step in and pass laws that would force Twitter to continue to censor opposing views. New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern recently repeated this call for global censorship at the United Nations to the applause of diplomats and media alike. Musk may have to yield to such domestic laws, but he can use his platform to inform citizens of those countries they are being censored and controlled in what they are allowed to read. The most important thing in America is for Musk to hit the ground running at Twitter. First, he needs to order the preservation of all records. There are well-supported examples of biased censorship, including the burying of The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop story before the election. There are also allegations of back-channel communications from the government to manage a type of censorship-by-surrogate system to evade the First Amendment. Second, Musk should focus on the First Amendment as a model for Twitter’s content-management policy. It has become a mantra on the left that free-speech objections to social-media censorship are meritless because the First Amendment does not apply to private corporations. This is a knowingly cynical and senseless argument. The First Amendment has never been the sole and exclusive measure of free speech. It concerns the greatest threat to free speech at the time of the founding. But corporate censorship on communication platforms is an equal, if not greater, threat today to free-speech values. Musk could call these anti-free-speech advocates’ bluff. Former President Barack Obama flogged this false line at Stanford in April. He started by declaring himself “pretty close to a First Amendment absolutist.” He then called for the censorship of anything he considered “disinformation,” including “lies, conspiracy theories, junk science, quackery, racist tracts and misogynist screeds.” Like many others on the left, Obama claims to be a free-speech champion but narrowly confines such fealty to government censorship. He emphasized, “The First Amendment is a check on the power of the state. It doesn’t apply to private companies like Facebook or Twitter.” While the First Amendment does not bind private corporations, there is nothing preventing one — like Twitter — voluntarily assuming such protections for free speech. Even with some adjustments for a private forum, what I call the First Amendment Option would create a default in favor of free speech that doesn’t exist on these platforms. There’d be narrow exceptions for threatening, unlawful and a few other proscribed categories of speech. Twitter can tap into a long line of First Amendment jurisprudence limiting the scope of such speech regulations. Even with a private company’s greater flexibility, a First Amendment-based policy would establish much better protections for free speech. In other words, Musk could show up at Twitter with precisely the standard long dismissed by censorship advocates — and then let that sink in.
Internet crowdsourcing uncovers and speaks against potential censorship, re another potential political assassination... 'Democracy Dies In Darkness' - Unless You Want Pelosi Video Released https://newrepublic.com/article/70097/against-transparency https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-democrats-horrific-paul-pelos... https://twitter.com/FearTheFloof/status/1586763293389193216 https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1587528200711983104 https://twitter.com/MarketsPuke/status/1587658208348348416 https://twitter.com/realDerekUtley/status/1586561337362157569 https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1587248636961984513 The Washington Post - which carries the slogan "Democracy Dies in Darkness" - is now suggesting that people who want to see video of the Pelosi attack are stoking conspiracy theories. In a Wednesday article, columnist Philip Bump draws a line from 2020 election deniers, to QAnon, to people who think there's something fishy about last week's attack on the Pelosis' San Francisco house by a mentally ill homeless man who was living at a house with a BLM flag, and who back-dated posts on one of his websites after registering it in September. Bump writes; The internet makes all of this so depressingly easy. Not only is it a warehouse of information, it is also the corkboard and the colored yarn. You can forage for evidence of your belief system to your heart’s content and you can see how other sympathetic allies have strung together their own theories. I frequently come back to Lawrence Lessig’s 2009 essay “Against Transparency” in which he warned that publishing information in the interests of governmental transparency would simply give people scads of material to generate their own narratives. That’s exactly what happened, though Lessig didn’t foresee that the advent of social media would vastly speed up the narrative-building process. As an employee of a newspaper, I would, in fact, like to see the video that the Capitol Police overlooked, and the body-cam footage. It is the media’s job to question authority and to ensure accountability. It is also the media’s job to present accurate information to the public and to stamp out misinformation. So while seeing that footage would be useful, there is not at this point any reason to believe that the attack on Paul Pelosi was anything other than what various legal documents have suggested. The lure of conspiracy is too strong to accept that, however, and the public understanding of how logic works is too weak. -WaPo So - people might continue to spread conspiracy theories despite video evidence, so best not to release it. In closing, Bump puts conditions on transparency; "More transparency and more information are good when considered responsibly. The challenge is that one can no more control how that information is applied than the people who, say, write magazine articles scrutinized for patterns of numbers by the corkboard set can control getting looped into a delusion." So - no transparency for you, if you aren't qualified to process it. * * * Cameras outside the San Francisco home of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recorded last Friday's break-in, but Capitol Police officers weren't watching the feed at the time, the Washington Post reports. The Pelosi mansion has more security cameras than the Federal Reserve Bank… https://t.co/T3Is6ylo4K pic.twitter.com/aE84Tel9xx — NevilleTheCat (@FearTheFloof) October 30, 2022 Instead, officers were alerted to the incident because police lights were flashing outside the house, causing them to rewind the footage and view additional camera angles. The officer in D.C. quickly pulled up additional camera angles from around Pelosi’s home and began to backtrack, watching recordings from the minutes before San Francisco police arrived. There, on camera, was a man with a hammer, breaking a glass panel and entering the speaker’s home, according to three people familiar with how Capitol Police learned of the break-in and who have been briefed on or viewed the video themselves. -WaPo So there's not only police bodycam footage, the Capitol Police have footage of the break-in itself - and rewound it to investigate after seeing flashing lights. So, that exists. And why haven't we seen any of it? Transparency is the antidote to “misinformation.” Yet for some reason, the San Francisco Police Department is refusing to release bodycam video of the attack on Paul Pelosi. https://t.co/8bFxJgIiRx pic.twitter.com/vmjdYmhoKe — Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) November 1, 2022 pic.twitter.com/0Qmj8fcVd3 — Black Swan, The Darkness Consumes (@MarketsPuke) November 2, 2022 The official story, which suspect David DePape has admitted to, is that he was there to kneecap Nancy Pelosi. Instead, he ended up in a fight with 82-year-old Paul Pelosi at 2AM after allowing Paul to use the bathroom - where he allegedly used a charging cell phone to call 911. Paul told the dispatcher that "David" was in the house and that he was "a friend." Paul Pelosi’s 911 call reveals he knew the man, his name is David and describes him as his friend. In the beginning he said he didn’t know him but later, Paul confessed. The Pelosi’s are not being honest. Retweet so everyone sees this. pic.twitter.com/zRozccWceq — Derek Utley (@realDerekUtley) October 30, 2022 Who is David DePape? Tucker just took a SLEDGEHAMMER to the fraudulent Paul Pelosi narrative and CRUSHED it in 47 seconds. Wow pic.twitter.com/j9wf0f0gRK — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) November 1, 2022
YouTube Announces It Will ‘Certify’ Medical Information In Cahoots With The World Health Organisation ‘FIRED’ Trends And Celebratory ‘Offensive’ Tweets Are Unleashed As Musk Sacks Woke Censorship Kingpins
From the start of the pandemic, it was prohibited to question whether
Meet The Consortium Imposing The Growing Censorship Regime https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-consortium-imposing-the-growing Glenn Greenwald The Consortium Imposing the Growing Censorship Regime -- and Our New Live, Prime-Time Rumble Program We are launching a new live, one-hour, prime-time news broadcast. Armed with cable-sized budgets, it will be part of a network that Russell Brand has already debuted. Glenn Greenwald Oct 28 Clockwise from top left: UAE Minister of Industry and Advanced Technology speaks during the Atlantic Council's Global Energy Forum in Dubai, on March 28, 2022 (Photo by KARIM SAHIB/AFP via Getty Images); U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Photo by Salwan Georges/The Washington Post via Getty Images); Google headquarters (Photo by Tayfun Coskun/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images); The Comcast/NBC Universal building in Los Angeles, CA (Dania Maxwell / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images); The rapid escalation of online censorship, and increasingly offline censorship, cannot be overstated. The silencing tactic that has most commonly provoked attention and debate is the banning of particular posts or individuals by specific social media platforms. But the censorship regime that has been developed, and which is now rapidly escalating, extends far beyond those relatively limited punishments. The Consortium of State and Corporate Power There has been some reporting — by me and others — on the new and utterly fraudulent “disinformation” industry. This newly minted, self-proclaimed expertise, grounded in little more than crude political ideology, claims the right to officially decree what is “true” and "false” for purposes of, among other things, justifying state and corporate censorship of what its “experts” decree to be "disinformation.” The industry is funded by a consortium of a small handful of neoliberal billionaires (George Soros and Pierre Omidyar) along with U.S., British and EU intelligence agencies. These government-and-billionaire-funded “anti-disinformation” groups often masquerade under benign-sounding names: The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, The Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Research Lab, Bellingcat, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project. They are designed to cast the appearance of apolitical scholarship, but their only real purpose is to provide a justifying framework to stigmatize, repress and censor any thoughts, views and ideas that dissent from neoliberal establishment orthodoxy. It exists, in other words, to make censorship and other forms of repression appear scientific rather than ideological. That these groups are funded by the West's security state, Big Tech, and other assorted politically active billionaires is not speculation or some fevered conspiracy theory. For various legal reasons, they are required to disclose their funders, and these facts about who finances them are therefore based on their own public admissions. So often the financing is funneled through well-established front groups for CIA, the State Department and the U.S. National Security State, such as “National Endowment for Democracy.” As has always happened with censor-happy tyrants throughout history, the more centers of power inject themselves with the intoxicating rush of silencing their adversaries, the more intense the next hit has to be. Every movement that has wielded censorship as a political weapon tells itself the same story to justify it. In ordinary times, they will casually recite, free speech is a vital value. But these are no ordinary times in which we are living. Our enemies and their ideas are different. They are uniquely hateful, false, inflammatory, and dangerous. The ideas they espouse will destabilize society, cause direct harm to others, deceive people, and incite violence against institutions of authority and their followers. Thus, they reason, we are actually not censoring at all. We are simply preventing evil people from doing harm to society, the government, and to citizens. Look to any government or society in which censorship prevailed — either today or throughout history. This narrative about why censorship is not just justified but morally necessary is always present. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a censorship supporter. They need to be supplied with a story about why they are something different, or at least why the censorship they are led to support is uniquely justified. And it works because, in the most warped sense possible, it appeals to reason. If one really believes, as millions of American liberals do, that the U.S. faces two and only two choices — either (1) elect Democrats and ensure they rule or (2) live under a white nationalist fascist dictatorship — then of course such people will believe that media disinformation campaigns, censorship, and other forms of authoritarianism are necessary to ensure Democrats win and their opponents are vanquished. Once that self-glorifying rationale is embraced — our adversaries do not merely disagree with us but cause harm with the expression of their views — then the more suppression, the better. And that is exactly what is happening now. Banishment From the Financial System One of the latest, and perhaps most disturbing, new frontiers of censorship is the escalating means of excluding citizens from the financial system as extra-judicial punishment for expressing views or engaging in political activism disapproved of by establishment power. In one sense, this is not new. In 2012, I co-founded the group Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF) — along with the Oscar-winning CitizenFour director Laura Poitras, Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg and others. The creation of that group was in response to the 2010 demands made by then-Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), in his capacity as Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, along with other war hawks in both parties, that financial services companies such as the online payment processor PayPal, credit card companies MasterCard and Visa, and the Bank of America all terminated the accounts of WikiLeaks as punishment for the group's publication of the Iraq and Afghanistan war logs: a trove of documents which proved systemic war crimes and lying by the U.S. Security State and its allies. Watching U.S. national security state officials pressure and coerce private companies over which they exert regulatory control to destroy their journalistic critics is exactly what is done in the tyrannies we are all conditioned to despise. All of those corporations obeyed, thus preventing WikiLeaks from collecting donations from the public even though the group had never been charged with, let alone convicted of, any crimes. Amazon then booted WikiLeaks off of its hosting platform, removing the group from the internet for weeks. This was nothing less than extra-legal banishment of WikiLeaks from the financial system. We created FPF in order to circumvent that ban by collecting donations for WikiLeaks and then passing those funds to the group. When I announced the group's creation in a 2012 Guardian article, and while reporting on these pressure campaigns against WikiLeaks in a separate Guardian article, I explained how dangerous it would be if the U.S. Government could simply prohibit any journalistic groups it dislikes from participating in the financial system without even charging them with a crime: So this was a case where the US government - through affirmative steps and/or approving acquiescence to criminal, sophisticated cyber-attacks - all but destroyed the ability of an adversarial group, convicted of no crime, to function on the internet. Who would possibly consider that power anything other than extremely disturbing? What possible political value can the internet serve, or journalism generally, if the US government, outside the confines of law, is empowered - as it did here - to cripple the operating abilities of any group which meaningfully challenges its policies and exposes its wrongdoing?. . . In sum, [by forming FPF], will render impotent the government's efforts to use its coercive pressure over corporations to suffocate not only WikiLeaks but any other group it may similarly target in the future. Last week — in response to numerous reports this year of PayPal's expanding use of expulsion from the financial system as punishment for what it deems “extremist” political views and activities — the tech investor Stephen Cole recalled this then-unprecedented 2010 silencing campaign against WikiLeaks that was led by PayPal. Cole wrote: “I was an engineer at eBay/PayPal when PayPal censored donations to Wikileaks in 2010. That’s the first time I remember wondering… are we sure we’re the good guys?” Twitter avatar for @sthenc Stephen Cole @sthenc I was an engineer at eBay/PayPal when PP censored donations to Wikileaks in 2010. That’s the first time I remember wondering… “are we sure we’re the good guys?” 🤔 9:39 PM ∙ Oct 8, 2022 15,824Likes3,806Retweets Back in 2010, this ominous tactic was depicted as just a one-time exception, an isolated case for a particularly threatening group (WikiLeaks). But in the last year, there is no question that exclusion from the financial system is becoming the tool of choice for Western censors in both the public and private sector, who work together — just as Big Tech and the U.S. Security State do — to identify and punish dissidents too dangerous to be permitted to speak. The most alarming harbinger of this tactic came in February of this year when Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued an emergency decree granting himself the power to freeze the bank accounts of any Canadian citizen who he determined, in his sole discretion, was participating in or otherwise supporting the truckers’ protest against vaccine mandates and passports. As a result of Trudeau's extraordinary seizure of unchecked power, “Canadian banks froze about $7.8 million (US $6.1 million) in just over 200 accounts under emergency powers meant to end protests in Ottawa and at key border crossings.” The BBC called this tactic “unprecedented,” as it empowers the Prime Minister to freeze the personal bank accounts of anyone “linked with the protests …. with no need for court orders.” If it is not considered "despotic” for a political leader to wield the power to unilaterally seize the personal funds of citizens as punishment for peaceful protests against the government's policies, then nothing is. But this tactic worked to end the peaceful protest which Trudeau opposed — people cannot survive if they cannot access their funds or participate in the financial system — and it is thus now being aggressively expanded. Perhaps the leading weaponizer is PayPal. Last year, PayPal announced a new partnership with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a once-respected group that battled anti-Semitism and defended universal civil liberties, before becoming yet another standard liberal Democratic Party activist group devoted to censoring adversaries of neoliberal orthodoxy (the ADL has, just as one example, repeatedly demanded the firing of America's most-watched host on cable news, Fox News's Tucker Carlson). The stated purpose of this PayPal/ADL partnership was “to investigate how extremist and hate movements in the United States take advantage of financial platforms to fund their criminal activities,” with the ultimate goal of “uncovering and disrupting the financial flows supporting [what the ADL claims are] white supremacist and anti-government organizations.” But predictably — indeed, by design — this “partnership” was nothing more than an ennobling disguise to enable PayPal to begin terminating all sorts of accounts of people and businesses who expressed political views disliked by its executives. Over the past year, a wide range of individuals have had their PayPal accounts canceled due solely to disapproved political views and activism. The lesbian activist Jaimee Michell was notified by PayPal last month that the account of her activist group, Gays Against Groomers, was being immediately canceled due to unspecified rules violations. Moments later, the group — created by gay men and lesbians to oppose attempts by trans activists to teach trans dogma and highly controversial gender ideology to young schoolchildren — was notified that their account with PayPal's subsidiary, Venmo, was also canceled immediately, leaving them with few options to continue to collect donations. Around the same time, the British anti-woke and right-wing commentator Toby Young, who had created a group called the Free Speech Union to oppose speech-based cancellations of accounts, was notified by PayPal that the group's account, used to accept donations, was also being cancelled; though PayPal refused to notify Young of the reason for the cancellation, it told The Daily Mail "it was trying to balance ‘protecting the ideals of tolerance, diversity and respect’ with the values of free expression.” At the time of his PayPal expulsion, Young had become a vocal opponent of the U.K. Government's escalating involvement in the war in Ukraine. Two of the sites on which this long-time right-wing figure relied for his opposition to NATO involvement in Ukraine were MintPress and Consortium News, two populist left-wing sites long devoted to anti-war and anti-imperialism policies. Several months earlier, those two anti-establishment left-wing sites were notified by PayPal that their accounts were being immediately closed, and that the balances in their account would be seized and may never be returned. PayPal refused to tell either news site, or Coinbase, which reported on the account closures, what its reasons were. It was just an arbitrary decree by unseen authorities who not only closed their accounts but threatened to seize their donations without bothering to provide a reason. Now that is real tyrannical power. MintPress writer Alan MacLeod said that “this is a warning shot fired at anyone even remotely antiestablishment,” adding that “alternative media operations run on shoestring budgets and rely on enormous corporations like PayPal to operate correctly. If they can do this to us, they can do it to you.” Earlier this month, PayPal announced that it would fine account holders $2,500 if, in PayPal's sole discretion, it was determined that those users were guilty of “promoting misinformation.” In other words, PayPal would just steal their own users’ funds from their account as extra-judicial punishment for the expression of views that PayPal — presumably working in conjunction with liberal activists groups such as ADL and billionaire-funded “disinformation experts” — decrees to be false or otherwise unacceptable. When this new policy provoked far more anger than PayPal evidently anticipated, they claimed it was all just a big mistake — as if some PayPal computer on its own accidentally manufactured a policy advising users about this seizure of funds. Regardless of whether PayPal returns to this policy — and there are, as Forbes noted, some unconfirmed reports that it is starting to do so — the intent is clear, because it is so consistent with so many other new frameworks: fortifying a multi-faceted regime of state and corporate power to silence and punish dissent. Union of Big Tech, U.S. Security State and Corporate Media Giants In May, the Department of Homeland Security's attempted appointment of a clearly deranged partisan fanatic, Nina Jankowicz, to effectively serve as “disinformation czar” sparked intense backlash. But liberal media corporations — always the first to jump to the defense of the U.S. Security State — in unison maligned the resulting anger over this audacious appointment as “itself disinformation,” without ever identifying anything false that was alleged about Jankowicz or the DHS program. Though anger over this classically Orwellian program was obviously merited — it was, after all, an attempt to assign to the U.S. National Security State the power to issue official decrees about truth and falsity — that anger sometimes obscured the real purpose of the creation of this government program. This was not some aberrational attempt by the Biden administration to arrogate unto itself a wholly new and unprecedented power. It instead was just the latest puzzle piece in the multi-pronged scheme — created by a union of U.S. Security State agencies, Democratic Party politicians, liberal billionaires, and liberal media corporations — to construct and implement a permanent and enduring system to control the flow of information to Western populations. As importantly, these tools will empower them to forcibly silence and otherwise punish anyone who expresses dissent to their orthodoxies or meaningful opposition to their institutional interests. That these state and corporate entities collaborate to control the internet is now so well-established that it barely requires proof. One of the first and most consequential revelations from the Snowden reporting was that the leading Big Tech companies — including Google, Apple and Facebook — were turning over massive amounts of data about their users to the National Security Agency (NSA) without so much as a warrant under the state/corporate program called PRISM. A newly obtained document by Revolver News’ Darren Beattie reveals that Jankowicz has worked since 2015 on programs to control “disinformation” on the internet in conjunction with a horde of national security state officials, billionaire-funded NGOs, and the nation's largest media corporations. Ample reporting, including here, has revealed that many of Big Tech's most controversial censorship policies were implemented at the behest of the U.S. Government and the Democratic-controlled Congress that openly threatens regulatory and legal reprisals for failure to comply. Wall Street Journal Editorial, Sept. 9, 2022 Every newly declared crisis — genuine or contrived — is immediately seized upon to justify all new levels and types of online censorship, and increasingly more and more offline punishment. One of the core precepts of the Russiagate hysteria was that Trump won with the help of Russia because there were insufficient controls in place over what kind of information could be heard by the public, leading to new groups devoted to "monitoring” what they deem disinformation and new policies from media outlets to censor reporting of the type that WikiLeaks provided about the DNC and Clinton campaign in 2016. This censorship frenzy culminated in the still-shocking decision by Twitter and Facebook to censor The New York Post's reporting on Joe Biden's activities in China and Ukraine based on documents from Hunter Biden's laptop that most media outlets now acknowledge were entirely authentic — all justified by a CIA lie, ratified by media outlets, that these documents were “Russian disinformation.” The riot at the Capitol on January 6 was used in similar ways, though this time not merely to un-person dissidents from the internet but also to use Big Tech's monopoly power to destroy the then-most-popular app in the country (Parler) followed by the banning of the sitting elected President himself, an act so ominous that even governments hostile to Trump — in France, Germany, Mexico and beyond — warned of how threatening it was to democracy to allow private monopolies to ban even elected leaders from the internet. Liberal outlets such as The New Yorker began openly advocating for internet censorship under headlines such as “The National-Security Case for Fixing Social Media.” The COVID pandemic ushered in still greater amounts of censorship. Anyone who urged people to use masks at the start of the pandemic was accused of spreading dangerous disinformation because Dr. Anthony Fauci and the WHO insisted at the time that masks were useless or worse. When Fauci and WHO decided masks were an imperative, anyone questioning that decree by insisting that cloth masks were ineffective — the exact view of Fauci and WHO just weeks earlier — was banned from Big Tech platforms for spreading disinformation; such bans by Google included sitting U.S. Senators who themselves are medical doctors. the COVID virus may have leaked from a lab in Wuhan — until the Biden administration itself asked that question and ordered an investigation to find out, at which point Facebook and other platforms reversed themselves and announced that it was now permissible to ask this question since the U.S. Government itself was doing so. In sum, government agencies and Big Tech monopolies exploited the two-year COVID pandemic to train Western populations to accept as normal the rule that the only views permitted to be heard were those which fully aligned with the views expressed by institutions of state authority. Conversely, anyone dissenting from or even questioning such institutional decrees stood accused of spreading "disinformation” and was deemed unfit to be heard on the internet. As a result, blatant errors and clear lies stood unchallenged for months because people were conditioned that any challenging of official views would result in punishment. We are now at the point where every crisis is seized upon to usher in all-new forms of censorship. The war in Ukraine has resulted in escalations of censorship tactics that would have been unimaginable even a year or two ago. The EU enacted legislation legally prohibiting any European company or individual from broadcasting Russian state-owned broadcasters (including RT and Sputnik). While such legal coercion would (for now) almost certainly be banned in the U.S. as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and free press rights, non-EU companies that decided in the name of open debate to allow RT to be heard — such as Rumble — have faced a torrent of threats, pressure campaigns, media attacks and various forms of retribution. One of the easiest and surest ways to be banned these days from Big Tech platforms is to reject the core pieties of the CIA/NATO/EU view of the war in Ukraine, even if that dissent entails simply affirming the very views which Western media outlets spent a decade itself endorsing, until completely changing course at the start of the war — such as the fact that the Ukrainian military is dominated by neo-Nazi battalions such as Azov, especially in the Eastern part of the country. Regardless of one's views on the Biden administration's involvement in this war, surely it requires little effort to see how dangerous it is to try to impose a full-scale blackout on challenges to U.S. war policy, especially given the warning by Biden himself that this war has brought the world closer to nuclear armageddon than at any time since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. It cannot be overstated how closely aligned Big Tech censorship is with the agenda of the U.S. Security State. And it is not hard to understand why. Google and Amazon receive billions in contracts from the CIA, NSA and Pentagon, and, as we reported here in April, the most vocal lobbyists working to preserve Big Tech monopoly power are former Security State operatives. Illustrating this alignment, Facebook — at the start of the war in Ukraine — implemented an exception to its rule banning praise for Nazi groups by exempting the Azov Battalion and other neo-Nazi Ukrainian militias. This regime of censorship is anything but arbitrary. Its core function is to shield propaganda that emanates from ruling class centers of power from critique, challenge and opposition. It is designed to ensure that Western populations hear only the assertions and proclamations of state and corporate elites, while their adversaries and critics are at best marginalized (with warnings labels and other indicia of discredit) or banned outright. Pro-Censorship Corporate “Journalists” No discussion of this growing and limitlessly dangerous censorship regime would be complete without noting that central role played by the West's largest media corporations and their largely-millennial, censorship-obsessed liberal employees who bear the deceitful corporate Human Resources job title of “journalist.” The most beloved journalists of modern-day American liberalism are not those who divulge the secret crimes of CIA, or the chronic lies that emanate from the Pentagon and other arms of the U.S.'s endless war machine, or monopolistic abuses of Big Tech. Indeed, journalists who do that work — challenging and exposing the secrets of actual power centers — are the ones most hated by liberals in light of their adoration for those institutions. That is what explains their support for Julian Assange's ongoing imprisonment and Edward Snowden's ongoing exile as the only way to avoid the same fate as Assange is suffering. Today's journalistic icons of American liberalism are not those who confront establishment power but rather serve it: by relentlessly attacking ordinary citizens as punishment for expressing views declared off-limits by these journalists' establishment masters. As I have previously reported, there is a horde of corporate employees at media behemoths with the classic mindset of servants of petty tyrants, whose only function — and passion — is to troll the internet searching for upsetting dissent, and then agitate for its removal by centers of corporate powers: NBC News’ disinformation unit employees Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny; The Washington Post's “online culture” columnist Taylor Lorenz; and the New York Times’ tech reporters (Mike Isaac, Ryan Mac and countless others). At the time I first reported on what they are assigned to do, I dubbed this “tattletale journalism": the fixation with demanding the immediate cessation of “unfettered conversations” and the constant attempt to confront and expose ordinary citizens for the crime of expressing prohibited views Clockwise from top left: censorship advocates Brandy Zadrozny (NBC News’ "disinformation unit”); Taylor Lorenz (The Washington Post); Ben Collins (NBC News’ "disinformation unit”); and Ryan Mac (The New York Times tech unit) .In September, Matthew Price, CEO of Cloudflare — a major tech company that provides services constituting the backbone of the internet, including security protections — refused to capitulate to the pressure campaign to cancel the site called KiwiFarms. The cancellation demands were based in the claim that the forum was allowing "harassment” and doxing of a Twitch streamer named "Keffals,” whom Lorenz in The Washington Post — under the headline “The trans Twitch star delivering news to a legion of LGBTQ teens” — had months earlier christened the Patron Saint of Trans Victimhood. Price, the CEO, warned that because Cloudflare is a security company and a hosting service, not a social media site, it would be extremely dangerous for them to start closing accounts based on public dislike of the content that appears on those sites. This is how he explains the company's steadfast refusal to capitulate to censorship demands — such cancellations, he explained, would be akin to demanding that AT&T refuse telephone service to right-wing commentators by arguing that they use their telephones to spread harmful views: Some argue that we should terminate these services to content we find reprehensible so that others can launch attacks to knock it offline. That is the equivalent argument in the physical world that the fire department shouldn't respond to fires in the homes of people who do not possess sufficient moral character. Both in the physical world and online, that is a dangerous precedent, and one that is over the long term most likely to disproportionately harm vulnerable and marginalized communities. Today, more than 20 percent of the web uses Cloudflare's security services. When considering our policies we need to be mindful of the impact we have and precedent we set for the Internet as a whole. Terminating security services for content that our team personally feels is disgusting and immoral would be the popular choice. But, in the long term, such choices make it more difficult to protect content that supports oppressed and marginalized voices against attacks. But Cloudflare's refusal to capitulate to censorship advocates infuriated NBC News’ Ben Collins — whose primary purpose in life is to agitate for greater and more repressive control over the internet to stifle views that deviate from establishment liberalism — and, along with his NBC colleague and fellow censorship advocate Kat Tenbarge, used the massive corporate platform of NBC News to pressure Cloudflare to obey, claiming Cloudflare's refusal to censor on command endangers trans people. Within less than 24 hours of the publication of Collins’ article — blasted to millions of people across the various platforms owned by NBC and Collins’ corporate owner, the Comcast Corp. — the CEO of this powerful company reversed himself, groveling before the media's censorship advocates and vowing that this would be a one-time exception. “This is an extraordinary decision for us to make and, given Cloudflare's role as an Internet infrastructure provider, a dangerous one that we are not comfortable with,” he wrote, as he announced that he would do it anyway (it will, needless to say, be the opposite of a one-time exception, since any millennial censor at The Huffington Post or Vox can now easily force Cloudflare to keep censoring by exploiting this new precedent with new articles about their censorship target using the “worse-than-Kiwifarms” formulation). And thus did this corporate "journalist” once again usher in a brand new escalation in the strengthening censorship regime: tinkering with the infrastructure of the internet to expel sites and people anathema to liberal pieties. As usual, not just liberals but also the left cheered this forced capitulation, as they are somehow convinced that the world will be a better place when the power to silence voices and ideas is in the collective hands of the U.S. Security State, their oligarchical partners who own Big Tech, and their servants who masquerade as "journalists” deep within the bowels of the West's largest media corporations. Polls leave no doubt that Democrats are vastly more supportive of internet censorship not only by large corporations but also by the state, and that is the mindset that asserts itself over and over to cheer these censorship schemes by the West's most powerful institutional actors. This is the regime of censorship whose tentacles grow each month and whose power expands inexorably. Like all censors, the consortium that controls and funds this regime recognizes that whoever controls the flow of information will wield unchallenged power, and that few powers are more potent and tyrannical than the ability to relegate one's critics to the most distant fringes or to silence them altogether. Our New Nightly Live Program on Rumble Any article that simply reports on these vital developments with free speech and systemic censorship is, by itself, journalistically worthwhile, even necessary. With so many Western corporate journalists supportive of or (at best) indifferent to the grave dangers this system imposes, the truth behind this censorship regime — who is constructing it and for what purposes — is far too rarely revealed. Any news article reporting on the component parts of this escalating regime would be inherently valuable. But when it comes to this sinister regime of information control, I long ago ceased believing it sufficient merely to report on it. I regard the need to fight against this regime of censorship, to destabilize and subvert it, and ultimately to defeat it as a paramount cause, the journalistic and political cause I prioritize above all others. Little is possible, including meaningful journalism, if we are prevented from being heard, if our discourse is strictly controlled and policed by the very power centers our rights allow and encourage us to challenge. Few other values can be defended, and few other injustices exposed and combated, if ruling class elites continue to acquire the defining tyrannical power of information control and silencing of dissent. Action, not just words, is required. That is why I have been devoting myself to supporting only those sites and companies genuinely determined to resist pressures and other forms of coercion to censor on behalf of Western establishment institutions, and instead to preserve and fortify spaces for free speech and free inquiry online, with the ability to reach large numbers of people. It does nobody any good — other than one's adversaries — if one willingly ghettoizes oneself into fringe and marginalized precincts. What is required is a cause-driven commitment to free speech along with the strategic ability to attract large audiences — and that, to me, means doing my journalism only on platforms with a demonstrated commitment to these values and an demonstrated ability to reach large numbers of people. For this reason, the platforms with which I have worked over the past two years are ones that have proven not just a willingness but an eagerness to express defiant contempt for these censorship pressures and an impressive commitment to ensuring free expression: Substack for written journalism, Callin for podcasts, and Rumble for video journalism. Each has been the target of pressure campaigns of the type that caused the Cloudflare CEO so pathetically to reverse his own refusal to obey censorship orders after less than a day. Each of these platforms has refused to accede to these demands in the way that Cloudflare and so many others before it have done. That is precisely what is needed to subvert the growing censorship regime: people and companies that simply refuse to obey. Rumble in particular has been the target of intense attacks — in part because it agreed to allow RT to broadcast on its platform in order to protest the EU's outlawing of that network and thus incurred the wrath of the Russia-obsessed corporate media, but also because it has experienced massive growth largely as the result of growing anger toward Big Tech censorship. Rumble has begun attracting not only political commentators banished in unison by Big Tech — such as the recent banning Andrew Tate, who promptly moved his large audience to Rumble — but also cultural commentators and Gen Z personalities increasingly angry at the repressive climate imposed by Google on its YouTube platform. This is driving more and more growth to the platform, which in turn is causing establishment media corporations to devote more and more energy to disparaging it. Crickey, Aug. 29, 2022 Rumble's lawsuit against Google for antitrust violations — alleging that Google is using its market dominance of search engines to hide Rumble videos in order to protect Google's YouTube — created a significant win for Rumble, as we reported here in August, as the judge refused Google's request to dismiss the lawsuit. That ruling allows Rumble to obtain invasive discovery about how Google manipulates its search engine algorithms, and for whose benefit. As a result of what appeared to be the genuine commitment of Rumble's founders to the cause of free speech and anti-censorship efforts, I was part of a group last year — that included former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and frequent Joe Rogan guest Bridget Phetasy — which agreed to create video journalism exclusively for that platform. Our show, called System Update, was a great success, surpassing all of my expectations. Several of our video broadcasts — with little promotional budget or regularly scheduled programming — exceeded 750,000 viewers, while our shows routinely exceeded 200,000 views. Pursuant to our agreement, we uploaded each video to YouTube several hours after they debuted on Rumble, and with the exception of one or two videos, the Rumble videos performed significantly better. (Notably, The Washington Post article announcing our move attempted to disparage Rumble as a toxic sewer of disinformation. To do so, it cited one of those benign-sounding groups — what The Post heralded as “the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a counter-extremism think tank in London” — to call Rumble “one of the main platforms for conspiracy communities and far-right communities in the U.S. and around the world.” As I documented in a detailed video report on Rumble, that “Institute” cited by the Post as its disinformation expert is one funded by and serves as a partner to the U.S. and UK Security states as well as Big Tech itself. In other words, the Post unwittingly illustrated how this sham "disinformation” industry is weaponized by institutions of establishment power to deceive the public into believing that their decrees are apolitical proclamations based in science rather than what they are: extremely politicized schemes on behalf of Western power centers designed to make crude censorship appear enlightened and scientific.) This stunning success over the past year — with audience sizes that would make many cable programs envious — has led us and Rumble to now enter into a far more sweeping, ambitious and exciting commitment. As part of a new live network of news shows that Rumble will host on its platform, we will be very imminently launching a new and radically expanded version of “System Update.” Our broadcast now will be a one-hour, nightly news and commentary show that will air live, exclusively on Rumble's platform, from Monday to Friday at 7:00 pm ET. At the end of each program on Rumble, I will move to my dedicated community page on Locals — the platform recently purchased by Rumble that is designed to build communities of content and commentary (more about that later) — where I will continue the live broadcast for subscribers only, for roughly 20-30 minutes, by answering questions about the show, engaging critiques and suggestions, and otherwise directly interacting with our audience. Anyone who is a paid subscriber here on Substack will have the automatic right to also become a subscriber to our Locals community, free of cost or charge. In other words, if you already purchased a yearly subscription here at Substack, you will continue to have full access to all of my written journalism here, and will also have full access to everything we do at Locals, including the after-show that is exclusively for audience interaction with our subscribers. However much time you have left on your Substack subscription — for instance, those who purchased a one-year Substack subscription in June and thus have eight months remaining on their Substack subscription — will automatically receive eight months of free subscription to our Locals community. Anyone here who purchases their Substack subscription on a monthly basis will be able to do the same on Locals. The new network of live one-hour shows on Rumble already launched when Russell Brand debuted his new live show, "Stay Free,” on Rumble on September 28. Many of his shows, after less than a month, are already attracting an audience size of 250,000 views or more (I was one of the guests on his debut show, starting at 41:00, where we discussed the purpose and goal of these new shows). Rumble will shortly be unveiling other hosts who have similarly heterodox and independent views. On September 8, The Wall Street Journal broke the story of the new network of shows Rumble is committing to, and it includes many details about our new upcoming program. Our new live program was originally scheduled to launch on September 10, but was delayed due to the ongoing health crisis in my family which I have discussed several times here. That health crisis has unfortunately not yet resolved itself, and that makes it quite difficult for me to commit to a concrete launch date for the show because, to be honest, there are days when I am simply not equipped to work, and I do not want to launch the show until I am confident I can produce five nights of high-quality live programming. We are, however, extremely excited by the new show. Rumble — knowing that we need to produce very high-quality shows if we want people to turn off CNN and other corporate television networks and watch our shows instead — has provided very sizable production budgets. That has allowed us to build a new state-of-the-art studio where our show will be hosted, and to hire a large studio team to produce the show with the same technical quality that one would expect to find on any other prime-time television show. Until we can commit to a definitive launch date — meaning when our family is whole again and I am not spending significant parts of my days speaking with teams of doctors and ICU nurses — we are instead going to produce a “soft launch” of the show. To do that, we will very shortly — within the next couple of weeks — begin broadcasting our live show not yet on Rumble but on our Locals page. In other words, for the first couple of weeks, as we work out the kinks in the show and do the kind of test run we would do in any event, we will produce our show for the first couple of weeks exclusively for our Substack and Locals subscriber base. That will enable you to be part of the process as we develop the show, to provide feedback on how to make it better, and to begin watching what we believe and expect from the start will be very high-quality news, reporting and commentary. I would not put anything on the air, even as part of a “soft launch,” that I did not have pride and belief in. In so many ways, this show is a new and significant challenge for me. We have committed to producing a one-hour live program five nights a week. The show will begin with an in-depth monologue (up to twenty minutes) that is similar in kind to the evidence-heavy presentations we have been producing as part of our periodic System Update programs on Rumble now. The second segment will entail an in-depth interview of roughly twelve to fifteen minutes with a political official, a journalist, or someone who otherwise has something original and informative to say. The third segment will be devoted to covering the top two or three new stories of the day — including with live on-the-scene reporters — but we will cover these stories in a much different way, with a different voice and perspective, than what you would expect to see by turning on your television to watch corporate news. And the last part of the show will consist of a regular, rotating series of topics and segments as we transition into the live, audience-participation after-show on Locals. Written journalism has always been the foundation of how I participate in our discourse and that will continue. But this new live program will enable me to reach entirely new audiences (many people now, especially but not only younger people, will only consume news through video), and to do reporting and construct analyses using the most potent technological tools. I am convinced it will do nothing but expand the reach and impact of the journalism I already do here. While the show will be part of a new network of shows hosted on Rumble's platform, it is not a Rumble show. By that, I mean that — unlike other programs that appear on television — we will not exist within or report to any corporate management or corporate structure. Rumble has no interest in producing news and political programming, only in providing an ideologically-neutral and content-neutral free speech platform that enables everyone to speak and be heard freely. Rumble thus does not have any editorial managers or any other executives who can be or want to be in a position of overseeing anyone's content. Our contract provides that we have full, complete and unlimited editorial freedom and journalistic independence; Rumble has no desire and no ability to review any of our shows; and our contract is guaranteed and cannot be terminated due to the disagreement with or objections to any of our viewpoints, content or reporting. Ultimately, no contract in the world can really guarantee one's editorial freedom (as I learned when The Intercept brazenly violated the contractual right I enjoyed since I co-founded the site in 2013 to publish my reporting directly to the internet without any editorial interference or control, editorial censorship which led me to quit and come to Substack almost two yeas ago to this day). These kinds of relationships require trust, and I have absolute trust in the commitment of the founders and managers of Rumble to devote the site to values of free speech. Even if they were not genuinely committed to these values as a cause — and they are — they know that Rumble's self-interest requires the fulfillment of its commitments to free speech since the reason for Rumble's success is precisely that it is becoming the free speech alternative to Google's YouTube. Once we have our date for the soft-launch of our show on Locals, we will notify all subscribers here. All one needs to access our Locals community — and thus have exclusive viewing rights to the first couple of weeks for our debut as well as the right to watch and participate in the after-show on Locals — is a current Substack subscription. Those of you who are already paid subscribers here will not need to do anything other than opt-in to your new free Locals subscription when we send that email announcing our launch date. But the show itself — once it debuts in its nightly form on Rumble — will be freely available to the public at large: no subscription required. Our primary goal — after producing high-quality journalism and broadcast programming — is to reach as large an audience as possible. We do not want to be paywalled and thus reduce the reach of our work. Complaining about, denouncing and even protesting the escalating censorship regime in the West will not stop it or even impede its growth. What will do so is the creation and growth of platforms that are committed to free speech and which are fully fortified in all ways — ideologically, politically and technologically — to resist encroachments into our most basic right: the right to freely express ourselves, to freely communicate with one another, and to freely challenge, question and dissent from the policy agendas, dictates and decrees of institutions of authority. Free speech platforms like Rumble, and our new live nightly "System Update” program on it are, above all else, dedicated to advancing this central cause. To support the independent journalism we are doing here, please subscribe, obtain a gift subscription for others and/or share the article: Give a gift subscription Share 362 Comments Victor J. Saxon Writes A Person Is Smart Oct 28 Glad that you are still alive, Glenn. You are needed now more than ever. ReplyCollapse 12 replies Feral Finster Oct 28 The ever growing establishment calls for censorship are a sure sign of weakness and not of strength. ReplyCollapse 28 replies 360 more comments… No posts © 2022 Glenn Greenwald Privacy ∙ Terms ∙ Collection notice Publish on Substack Get the app Substack is the home for great writing
All the warnings, coming true... Destroying Western Values To Defend Western Values 1984 https://caityjohnstone.medium.com/destroying-western-values-to-defend-wester... https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/ https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/oh-god-its-going-to-get-so-much-wors... https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1587095890983936000 https://twitter.com/Snowden/status/1587204372907393025 https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1587257992449208320 https://twitter.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1587175981831290885 https://www.mintpressnews.com/revealed-former-israeli-spies-working-top-jobs... https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/new-media-are-as-intertwined-with https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1587082090071433222 https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/new-study-finds-the-rest-of-the-worl... https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/04/15/more-escalations-in-online-censorshi... https://thegrayzone.com/2022/10/28/spooks-mercs-hawks-nafo-troll/ https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/three-illuminating-quotes-about-the https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/06/05/more-police-raids-as-war-on-journali... https://www.rcfp.org/overclassification-bigger-problem-leak-hunting/ https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-consortium-imposing-the-growing https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/apr/02/viral-image/no-winston-chu... https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1587140697311911936 So it turns out the US intelligence cartel has been working intimately with online platforms to regulate the “cognitive infrastructure” of the population. This is according to a new investigative report by The Intercept, based on documents obtained through leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, on the “retooling” of the Department of Homeland Security from an agency focused on counterterrorism to one increasingly focused on fighting “misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation” online. While the DHS’s hotly controversial “Disinformation Governance Board” was shut down in response to public outcry, the Intercept report reveals what authors Lee Fang and Ken Klippenstein describe as “an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms” in order to “curb speech it considers dangerous”: According to a draft copy of DHS’s Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, DHS’s capstone report outlining the department’s strategy and priorities in the coming years, the department plans to target “inaccurate information” on a wide range of topics, including “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine.” Docs show Facebook and Twitter closely collaborating w/ Dept of Homeland Security, FBI to police “disinfo.” Plans to expand censorship on topics like withdrawal from Afghanistan, origins of COVID, info that undermines trust in financial institutions. https://t.co/Zb3zmI1dQF — Lee Fang (@lhfang) October 31, 2022 The report reveals pervasive efforts on the part of the DHS and its Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), along with the FBI, to push massive online platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Twitter to censor content in order to suppress “threats” as broad as fomenting distrust in the US government and US financial institutions. “There is also a formalized process for government officials to directly flag content on Facebook or Instagram and request that it be throttled or suppressed through a special Facebook portal that requires a government or law enforcement email to use,” The Intercept reports. “Emails between DHS officials, Twitter, and the Center for Internet Security outline the process for such takedown requests during the period leading up to November 2020,” says The Intercept. “Meeting notes show that the tech platforms would be called upon to ‘process reports and provide timely responses, to include the removal of reported misinformation from the platform where possible.’” While these government agencies contend that they are not technically forcing these tech platforms to remove content, The Intercept argues that its investigation shows “CISA’s goal is to make platforms more responsive to their suggestions,” while critics argue that “suggestions” from immensely powerful institutions will never be taken as mere suggestions. “When the government suggests things, it’s not too hard to pull off the velvet glove, and you get the mail fist,” Michigan State University’s Adam Candeub tells The Intercept. “And I would consider such actions, especially when it’s bureaucratized, as essentially state action and government collusion with the platforms.” This is absolutely wild. The government is secretly transforming "national security" agencies into a new Narrative Police. “If a foreign government sent these messages,” said the former ACLU president, “there is no doubt we would call it censorship.” Read the story: https://t.co/9bMjDKSmcd — Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 31, 2022 The current CISA chief is seen justifying this aggressive government thought policing by creepily referring to the means people use to gather information and form thoughts about the world as “our cognitive infrastructure”: Jen Easterly, Biden’s appointed director of CISA, swiftly made it clear that she would continue to shift resources in the agency to combat the spread of dangerous forms of information on social media. “One could argue we’re in the business of critical infrastructure, and the most critical infrastructure is our cognitive infrastructure, so building that resilience to misinformation and disinformation, I think, is incredibly important,” said Easterly, speaking at a conference in November 2021. Another CISA official is seen suggesting the agency launder its manipulations through third party nonprofits “to avoid the appearance of government propaganda”: To accomplish these broad goals, the report said, CISA should invest in external research to evaluate the “efficacy of interventions,” specifically with research looking at how alleged disinformation can be countered and how quickly messages spread. Geoff Hale, the director of the Election Security Initiative at CISA, recommended the use of third-party information-sharing nonprofits as a “clearing house for trust information to avoid the appearance of government propaganda.” But as a former ACLU president tells The Intercept, if this were happening in any government the US doesn’t like there’d be no qualms about calling it what it is: “If a foreign authoritarian government sent these messages,” noted Nadine Strossen, the former president of the American Civil Liberties Union, “there is no doubt we would call it censorship.” Indeed, this report is just another example of the way western powers are behaving more and more like the autocracies they claim to despise, all in the name of preserving the values the west purports to uphold. As The Intercept reminds us, this business of the US government assigning itself the responsibility of regulating America’s “cognitive infrastructure” originated with the “allegation that Russian agents had seeded disinformation on Facebook that tipped the 2016 election toward Donald Trump.” To this day that agenda continues to expand into things like plots to censor speech about the war in Ukraine. [Thread] Hundreds of former agents of a notorious Israeli spying organization are now working in key positions at the world’s biggest tech/comms corporations, including Google, Facebook and Microsoft. My new investigation for @MintPressNews: https://t.co/blv2ieGOmS — Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) October 31, 2022 Other examples of this trend coming out at the same time include Alan MacLeod’s new report with Mintpress News that hundreds of former agents from the notorious Israeli spying organization Unit 8200 are now working in positions of influence at major tech companies like Google, Facebook, Microsoft and Amazon (just the latest in MacLeod’s ongoing documentation of the way intelligence insiders have been increasingly populating the ranks of Silicon Valley platforms), and the revelation that The Grayzone’s Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté were barred from participating in a Web Summit conference due to pressure from the Ukrainian government. We’re destroying western values to defend western values. To win its much-touted struggle of “democracies vs autocracies”, western civilization is becoming more and more autocratic. Censoring more. Trolling more. Propagandizing more. Jailing journalists. Becoming less and less transparent. Manipulating information and people’s understanding of truth. We’re told we need to defeat Russia in Ukraine in order to preserve western values of freedom and democracy, and in order to facilitate that aim we’re getting less and less free speech. Less and less free thought. Less and less free press. Less and less democracy. I keep thinking of the (fictional) story where during World War II Winston Churchill is advised to cut funding for the arts to boost military funding, and he responds, “Then what are we fighting for?” If we need to sacrifice everything we claim to value in order to fight for those values, what are we fighting for? Dissent is becoming less and less tolerated. Public discourse is being more and more aggressively disrupted by the powerful. We’re being shaped into the exact sort of homogeneous, power-serving, tyrannized, propagandized population that our leaders criticize other nations for having. Any journalists or press freedom advocates out there care about a US gov’t ally, Ukraine, pressuring a media conference to cancel two journalists? https://t.co/sPwaQAIiTV — Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) October 31, 2022 If the powerful are becoming more tyrannical in order to fight tyranny, what’s probably actually happening is that they are just tyrants making up excuses to do the thing they’ve always wanted to do. As westerners in “liberal democracies” we are told that our society holds free speech, free thought and accountability for the powerful as sacrosanct. Our leaders are showing us that this is a lie. The problem with “western values” is that the west doesn’t value them. In reality, those who best exemplify “western values” as advertised are the ones who are being most aggressively silenced and marginalized by western powers. The real journalists. The dissidents. The skeptics. The free thinkers. The peace activists. Those who refuse to bow down to their rulers. Our ongoing descent into tyranny in the name of opposing tyrants calls forth a very simple question: if defeating autocracy requires becoming an autocracy, what’s the point of defeating autocracy?
The Intercept Releases Department of Homeland Security Agenda to Do Mass Censorship Andrew Anglin The Daily Stormer November 3, 2022 http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/the-in... https://seed171.bitchute.com/l00AEcB5gkG5/b1SkWTiLQ8Hn.mp4 The Intercept has published a big exposé on a Department of Homeland Security agenda to implement mass censorship in America because it is allegedly afraid that information will cause terrorism. The article is based on leaks as well as court documents. Great work by @lhfang to expose crucial evidence on the most-overlooked point about Big Tech censorship: This censorship is not done at the sole or even primary initiative of Big Tech. It is so often done in conjunction with the US Govt and US Security State, which demands it: https://t.co/X9fyihl04a — Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) October 31, 2022 Docs show Facebook and Twitter closely collaborating w/ Dept of Homeland Security, FBI to police “disinfo.” Plans to expand censorship on topics like withdrawal from Afghanistan, origins of COVID, info that undermines trust in financial institutions. https://t.co/Zb3zmI1dQF — Lee Fang (@lhfang) October 31, 2022 Earlier this year, DHS launched a widely panned "Disinfo Governance Board" which it later shuttered following criticism. But the same agenda lives on w/ DHS sub-agency "CISA" which argues disinfo is a threat to American "critical infrastructure" #dhsleaks https://t.co/OPl6m5GVGX — Lee Fang (@lhfang) October 31, 2022 How does DHS justify its evolving mission from countering foreign terror groups to policing domestic "disinfo" on social media? Leaked planning docs show the agency argues false information is a source of radicalization & violence. — Lee Fang (@lhfang) October 31, 2022 It is quite something. They are claiming, outright, that basically every new item is subjected to control by the security state. The article cites a draft copy of DHS’s “Quadrennial Homeland Security Review,” which claims that every new story, including “the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, racial justice, U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the nature of U.S. support to Ukraine” needs to be regulated by the government. Dept of Homeland Security plans to "hire and train skilled specialists to better understand how threat actors use online platforms to introduce and spread toxic narratives," per DHS quadrennial review leaked to me. Full story: https://t.co/snX2h8f49o #DHSLeaks pic.twitter.com/E5UPCGzE5v — Ken Klippenstein (@kenklippenstein) October 31, 2022 You may recall that last year, the government attempted to implement a “disinformation board” to control the media. The group was to be led by Nina Jankowicz, and the plan was cancelled in large part because this woman was so ridiculous. There were all these videos of her singing songs. This is the new Biden administration head of Ministry of Truth, Nina Jankowicz. She is in charge of what’s truth and fiction in America. Every time you think the Biden administration can’t get more ridiculous, they do: pic.twitter.com/SKCaLafDzv — Clay Travis (@ClayTravis) April 29, 2022 It should have been obvious to everyone that after the government had announced that they were going to be regulating information that they would not simply back out of that. If it gets to the point where the government is openly announcing a new department to do censorship, that is something that they’ve already thought through. Prior to the 2020 election, the FBI and other government agencies met with tech companies including Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, Discord, Wikipedia, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Verizon Media in order to discuss with them how to fight “election disinformation,” which is a euphemism for ensuring that Democrats win elections. Right now, the DHS agenda involves demanding that tech companies silence information that the government disagrees with. The Biden Administration has previously admitted to flagging information on Facebook that they do not want people to see. Facebook actually created a special department for officials from DHS to contact them about information they wanted removed from the public domain. This allows the government to target individuals they want censored. This is all completely illegal, and it is known to be illegal. It proves, beyond any doubt, that the claim by the media that “Facebook and Twitter are private companies and can censor anyone they want” was a total scam. These are not private companies and they never had a right to take away people’s Constitutional rights. But that pedantic argument was always a ruse, because they were always doing totally illegal forms of censorship behind the scenes. Now that they have normalized censorship, they can come out and tell you that they are doing it in a blatantly illegal way. There is nothing you can do about it, because we live in a democracy, meaning you have no capacity to petition grievances. This is the problem that Elon Musk is apparently now running into after having purchased Twitter: they have built this entire apparatus of information control, and they are not going to allow the electric car goofball to come in and overthrow their censorship regime. They can function on all of these technicalities, talking about “private company” and so on, but when it comes down to it, they will make happen what they want to have happen by any means necessary. Ultimately, the takeaway should be a glimmer of hope in the fact that these people believe that this censorship is necessary. Apparently, it is the view of the government that if people had free access to information that things would change. That is a hopeful message. We often feel totally hopeless, as if nothing could ever change and all we can really do is pray for society to collapse, but if these government people believe that they can only win if they are able to control everything we are allowed to think, then that means there is some possibility for change to happen. I have been very negative towards Elon Musk since his takeover of Twitter, given that there is no indication thus far that he is actually going to follow through with any of his promises to the people as regards freedom of speech. That said, however, I do continue to hope for the best, because all indications are that allowing for freedom of speech on the internet would completely change the world. Elon Musk could be the hero that makes this change happen, if he figures out a way to stand up against these people.
I’m Not Actually on Twitter Yet Andrew Anglin The Daily Stormer October 28, 2022 http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/im-not... the bird is freed — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 28, 2022 I’ve declared victory against the Jews, Aryan Victory for my leader and KING Ye. However, I’ve not actually made a new account yet. Just to be clear. For one, I want to wait and see if old accounts are going to be unbanned. I would obviously prefer to have my old account back. But I can also understand that unraveling which accounts were banned for “hate speech” and which were banned for spam or something legitimate would be complicated, and the banned will likely be asked to make new accounts. I’m sure most of my followers from that account have new accounts anyway, I would just like to have “joined in 2011” in my bio. More importantly, I assume the old moderation is going to be at least partially active for a few days. Elon fired that stupid fat Paki bitch. NOW: Elon Musk just FIRED Vijaya Gadde, the woman who made the call to suspend Donald Trump permanently. — Brian J. Karem (@BrianKarem) October 28, 2022 But most of the moderation was done out of her home country of India. I don’t want to make a new account and then have it banned before the systems have changed, as this would make Elon look bad and be generally demoralizing. Elon has said that he’s going to follow my advice and allow people who are very sensitive to use an “adult parental controls” system to hide content that “triggers” them. (Just to be clear, this was my idea, someone can find the articles where I said this.) Dear Twitter Advertisers pic.twitter.com/GMwHmInPAS — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 27, 2022 I’m sure he has a plan on how that will work, but it will take a few days to get it running. Just so you understand, the original concept of mass censorship was that people who disagreed with the liberal/globalist/Jewish consensus were causing emotional trauma to believers in that consensus, and it was therefore necessary to censor people who disagree with the government/media in order to prevent followers of the government from having emotional breakdowns or killing themselves. This was what was originally meant by the slogan “hate speech causes real world harm.” Now we think of it as meaning that people are going to see words on the internet and commit acts of violence, but back in 2017, they were claiming it was about the emotional trauma of people reading the text. My plan to solve this alleged problem was to create a color system, and tag different accounts from green to red based on how much they violate liberal dogma. Obviously, red would be people who say “nigger,” “faggot,” “kike,” “vaxie,” and so on, orange people who don’t say slurs but hold the same basic worldview of people who say slurs, yellow the basic MAGA Trump voter, and green people who agree with the government or at least don’t question it. A government believer can then set their account to whichever level they think they can view without having an emotional breakdown and/or committing suicide from the trauma of seeing people disagree with the government/media. (Someone who set it to green would get the Twitter experience that existed before Elon purchased the site.) It’s something that would be very simple to implement, which is why I kept writing these explanations of how to do it. I wanted to show how retarded the ADL argument for censorship was, given that it could very easily be solved in a way that was much cheaper for the company than completely destroying their own user-base. I didn’t really imagine someone would actually implement it, but here we are. Basically, there just needs to be an AI learning system that labels people’s tweets and then puts them in these categories. Obviously, tagging people who say slurs is very straightforward, and tagging people who support Trump is easy – creating the orange category in between is more subtle, but if a few orange people end up in yellow or red, that’s not the end of the world. (By the way, I don’t know if Elon is using this exact three-tier system, but I would assume he is, given that not only have I outlined it for years now, but it’s also just very obvious. A two-tiered system of red and yellow plus the sanitized green would be fine also.) Frankly, although it is funny to just go on there today and start spamming “NIGGER,” I don’t really think that’s productive. Elon is doing this for the people, so we should respect him and give him some breathing room (even though he’s not technically asking for it). Personally, I am not going to spam “NIGGER.” (At least that’s the plan right now, but I should note that I do drink alcohol.) I would prefer to not be in the orange category, if possible, because I assume that aside from being on the “safe space” lists, these users will also be downranked in various other ways, in the way that porn is currently downranked on Twitter (basically, you have to go looking for it). That’s how I would do it. I’ve often complained that Gab didn’t do something like this, and instead made it so whenever you log in you just see nothing but racial slurs, which meant 90% of normal conservatives wouldn’t even bother joining. I make jokes and so on, but my strong belief is that this is about the ideas, and I don’t think that racial slurs really forward any idea (outside of the narrow context of making a statement about thought-control). I will probably wait until either Wednesday or next Friday to announce my presence on Twitter. I will wait until there is word on the “adult parental controls” system for those people who will kill themselves if they see someone disagreeing with the government (unless that takes longer than a week, in which case I’ll just go ahead and join). I’ve waited 7 years, so I can wait a few more days. I just want to ask everyone: please, for my sake, do not make problems for Elon unnecessarily. If you want to say racial slurs, okay. It’s my understanding that this is allowed (though I think it will limit the spread of your content). But please don’t try to game the system. The media is going to say “Twitter is brimming with hate speech” regardless. That’s not avoidable. But we should make this as easy as possible for Elon in every way possible. Remember: our sole mission is to protect and defend Ye, who has been anointed as our leader (King). Everything you do should be through the lens of how best to help Ye achieve his glorious mission from God. Elon does not appear to agree with us on these things, but he is an ally in that he is not trying to stop us, and is doing so much to help us. Ye doesn’t care if you say racist stuff against black people, but we should focus our efforts on the world’s foremost problem. When I’m satisfied that the coast is clear (or next Friday arrives), I will announce my account here, and then our true ministry will begin.
Yet another canary sends up a warning sign from the coalmines to all who value Speaking Freely... https://KiwiFarms.net/ https://t.me/s/kiwifarms Kiwifarms has been cancelbanned. Cloudflare and ddosguard dropped them. Archive.org apparently removed all their pages. Clara "Keffals" Sorrenti, some activists, etc... https://twitter.com/DropKiwifarms/ https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/9/5/2120881/-Kiwi-Farms-all-but-finish... Joshua Moon may still be looking for hosts, dns... Moon concludes stating "I do not see a situation where the Kiwi Farms is simply allowed to operate. It will either become a fractured shell of itself, like 8chan, or jump between hosts and domain names like Daily Stormer." https://odysee.com/@mati:c/mad-at-the-internet-09-09-2022:d http://7lmgr3p745ldcx6gva4mba7bnkdjei4bzjqk4b2anio7tvemm5uwkvad.onion/ http://uquusqsaaad66cvub4473csdu4uu7ahxou3zqc35fpw5d4ificedzyqd.onion/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kerg2rrIdAU http://stormer5v52vjsw66jmds7ndeecudq444woadhzr2plxlaayexnh6eqd.onion/
Geopolitical ModBots, 1984... Friendly heads up warning for CoronavirusCircleJerk Subreddit users. Supermod that spearheaded the NoNewNormal Reddit Ban seems to be targeting CCJ now with bans for posting there on the basis of being on a "COVID misinformation" sub that "brigades" other subs. r/LockdownCriticalLeft For context, I post in the r/Banned subreddit (sub dedicated to discussing subreddit bans people have received). This is how I'm seeing a pattern beginning again. If you remember, there was a subreddit mod, N8theGr8 (one of those supermods that mods hundreds of subs at the same time), that was very instrumental in spearheading a campaign against the NoNewNormal subreddit. Anytime anyone got a ban from another sub on the basis that they were participating in NNN and that the sub was known to "brigade" other subs, his name came up as a listed mod of the sub that was banning. It's happening again. There have been at least 5 different people saying they have been banned from various subs in the past week. All of these subs have the same mod in their list of many, and all have listed the same reason: for participating in a "coronavirus misinformation subreddit" that is known for "brigading", even from subs they have never visited. All of the banned have one subreddit in common that they have posted to: r/Coronaviruscirclejerk . It can't be just a coincidence here that all the banned from all different subs ( r/tifu and r/cats being two I've seen pop up as the subs doing the bans but there are others) that have the same mod that we saw in the past wage war were posting at the same sub. Since Reddit admins never lift a finger at things like this (how does one mod weild so much power over the entire site), I figure someone needed to warn people who post there (posting it here so I don't have anything happen to my account should this lead to any further situations like NNN).
Yet another canary sends up a warning sign from the coalmines to all who value Speaking Freely...
David Icke Responds To Being Banned From 26 European Countries... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coWwVw6fQdM David Icke Blasts EU Regime https://rumble.com/ https://bitchute.com/ https://odysee.com/ https://banned.video/ Wake Up !!!
Yet another canary sends up a warning sign from the coalmines to all who value Speaking Freely...
Aidan Maclear... censorbanned... https://rumble.com/vc7ton-fall-of-the-empire-by-aidan-maclear.html https://blog.reaction.la/misc_upl/Setting%20The%20Record%20Straight.pdf https://aidanmaclear.wordpress.com/2019/08/17/book-review-c-a-bonds-nemesis/ https://twitter.com/AidanMaclear Title Beowulf - Imperium Press (Western Canon) Authors Anonymous, Aidan Maclear Publisher Imperium Press, 2021 ISBN 1922602035, 9781922602039 Length 456 pages https://summit.news/2020/09/18/princeton-study-black-lives-matter-responsibl... https://mises.org/wire/too-much-centralization-turning-everything-political-...
Yet another canary sends up a warning sign from the coalmines to all who value Speaking Freely...
EyeOnPalestine was just suspended by Instagram/Meta. They had 3M followers, largest Palestinian news source on Instagram.
Censor Banners Mind Manipulators Population Steering 1984 they all fucking hate being exposed... God Love the Internet ;) All My Friends Are ShadowBanned ... gets ShadowBanned https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6Snq5Qd-dQ AMFASB Gets Banned "All My Friends Are Shadowbanned" - An0maly and Bryson Gray https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHCx_GUd7tI AMFASB "Bump that shit, support Bryson's work!" https://brysongraymusic.com/ https://twitter.com/realbrysongray https://freedomfirstnetwork.com/2022/01/conservative-christian-rapper-bryson... https://nypost.com/2021/10/27/lets-go-brandon-rapper-bryson-grays-banned-ant... https://duckduckgo.com/?iax=videos&ia=videos&q="all+my+friends+are+shadowbanned" To be honest, @kanyewest embracing Nick Fuentes and other “cancelled” people is actually very smart. If he embraces Alex Jones…it’ll be wild! #YE24 CCG BRYSON @RealBrysonGray What are y’all thoughts on #YE24? @CassandraRules The thought of a Ye vs Trump debate is way too exciting to me. This will be so fun. #YE24 @adam22 Kanye fully embracing Nick Fuentes is definitely one of the most mind blowing occurrences in the history of the internet
https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson Censorbanned. Now playing in Sydney, lol.
Kanye West Nick Fuentes Alex Jones Quite possibly the three most heavily censorbanned people on the planet. Until they can speak freely in public fora, your own Freedom of Speech doesn't exist there either. https://infowars.com/
Free Speech History Being Made... Let Them Speak! https://dailystormer.in/full-ye-x-nick-x-aj/ "I love the first amendment! Long live Ye! I pray to Jesus that Elon is for real... 1:35PM Dec 1, 2022 Alex Jones via @kanyewest" (Now censorbanned again, simply for posting a Raelian logo not any "incitement to violence".) https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1598543670990495744 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raelism#Religious_symbol https://god.dailydot.com/kanye-banned-twitter-swastika-logo/ https://www.thehamdenjournal.com/world/kanye-west-suspended-from-twitter-aft... https://www.yahoo.com/video/kanye-west-temporarily-suspended-twitter-1225069... https://www.hngn.com/articles/245663/20221202/kanye-west-s-twitter-account-s... https://zb10-7gsop1v78.bitchute.com/M10nXE1DUczM/SeGbRpwO2zBd.mp4 Kanye Fuentes Loomer Jones The included clips alone Soros Trudeau Balenciaga etc are gold... an "absolutely lit" Free Speech show. Fully Fawkes'd image control on point 03h:07m:32s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhMSdBskre8 Kanye Fuentes Loomer Jones Youtube (CIA, Jew) has already deleted countless copies of this video. Kanye West Nick Fuentes Alex Jones Laura Loomer Andrew Anglin Find all the latest censored interviews shows voices ideas documentaries... https://bitchute.com/ https://odysee.com/ https://rumble.com/ https://banned.video/ https://infowars.com/ https://truthsocial.com/@ali https://gettr.com/user/allidoisowen https://banned.video/channel/war-room-with-owen-shroyer https://twitter.com/OwenShroyer https://cozy.tv/nick https://truthsocial.com/@nickjfuentes https://kanyewest.com/ https://truthsocial.com/@ye https://dailystormer.in/ https://twitter.com/WorldWarWang https://loomered.com/ https://lauraloomerforcongress.com/ https://www.law.com/therecorder/2022/05/02/laura-loomer-is-seeking-to-end-fa... https://dailystormer.in/ye-and-nick-appear-on-tim-pool-ye-walks-out-after-po... https://dailystormer.in/very-famous-genius-nick-fuentes-challenges-ben-shapi... https://cozy.tv/nick/replays/2022-12-03 https://nypost.com/2022/12/01/kanye-west-no-longer-buying-social-media-app-p... https://rumble.com/v133g57-reese-report-incoming-carbon-taxes-and-worldwide-... https://gregreese.substack.com/
'I Wanted to Punch Kanye' — Free Speech Waffler Elon Musk’s Nonsensical Take on Bitcoin, CBDCs, and Censorship by [25]Graham Smith Dec 5, 2022 “Vox Populi, Vox Dei, man.” So says self-proclaimed Chief Twit Elon Musk from a private jet flying high above the world during a Twitter Spaces appearance on Sunday, Dec. 4 (JST). It does sound nice to say, but the voice of the mob should never be the voice of "God." The reasons are myriad. Suffice it to say that in the same way failed crypto-exchange CEO Sam Bankman-Fried supposedly set off Musk’s BS detector, so should Musk be setting off our own alarm bells. His actions simply don't match his nice-sounding words, and anyone who refuses to understand free speech is also going to miss the boat on crypto and economic freedom. God Save the `Technoking,' the People Are Disposable Tesla CEO and self-proclaimed "free speech absolutist" Elon Musk recently ended a [26]massively-tuned-into Dec. 4 Twitter Space hosted by Mario Nawfal, by noting that we live in a time which, different from times past, doesn’t involve “some king or whatever [that would] just by default suppress” free speech. This is interesting, given this seems to be exactly the role self-labeled "Technoking" Musk is filling via his newly acquired social media platform, by arbitrarily and single-handedly deciding who gets to stay and what they can or cannot say. Musk acts, as billionaire entrepreneur and crypto advocate Mark Cuban has recently noted, like a one-man "judge and jury." Cuban [27]tweeted to Musk on Nov. 29: We have no idea what Free Speech on Twitter is because you are judge and jury. There is no transparency. Indeed, it is now Elon's platform. He can do what he wants, and I am 100% okay with him doing that in principle, ignoring the glaring issue that social media platforms are massive data collection agencies for the state, complete with [28]special government portals for the control of "misinformation." That very topic was brought up to Elon, by the way, and he said: "I gotta dig into this trusted partnership thing. Obviously that has like some big brother vibes ... Twitter will adhere to the law, but it's not going to go beyond the law." Anyway, as an actual freedom absolutist (voluntaryist) myself, I have to put this [29]Fed-funded Musk to the test. As "private" as his image may be now, he's clearly in a position of state-influenced power which could be a huge detriment to everyday individuals and free speech/crypto advocates down the line. While he noted repeatedly that he wants Twitter to "come clean" about its past "suppression of information" in relation to U.S. electoral politics, Musk still delivered many mixed messages. [30]'I Wanted to Punch Kanye' — Free Speech Waffler Elon Musk’s Nonsensical Take on Bitcoin, CBDCs, and Censorship `Free Speech Absolutist' Musk `Personally Wanted to Punch Kanye' But Allows Murdering and Child-Abusing Politicians on His Platform Let me be very clear that I am not saying this is intentional here — it could ostensibly be a product of severe statist brainwash or ignorance — but Musk does allow literal child molesters (people who touch children inappropriately) and [31]child-murder approvers (drone warfare executive signatories such as [32]Joe Biden, Donald Trump, and Barack Obama) on the Twitter platform. They are seemingly welcomed with wide-open arms. And if you call these atrocities and such tragic loss of life going on mere "collateral damage," or "misrepresented love of kids" I'm just going to laugh at you and call you an idiot, because you are. I would also ask you to be the first to volunteer yourself and your children as victims of such attacks and sexual improprieties the next time a bankers' war or pervert politician comes to your town. But I digress. At the same time Musk allows these creeps on Twitter, he arbitrarily refuses to reinstate the account of controversial talk show host Alex Jones (another suspect character). This is because, according to Musk: “I have no mercy for anyone who would use the deaths of children for gain, politics or fame.” Jones, for his part, used free speech to question the official narrative of the 2012 [33]Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, causing a media uproar. However distasteful that may seem to some, it in no way compares with the actual murder and abuse perpetrated by those allowed to remain on Twitter. [34]'I Wanted to Punch Kanye' — Free Speech Waffler Elon Musk’s Nonsensical Take on Bitcoin, CBDCs, and Censorship Along with saying we shouldn't use the death of children for gain, Musk quoted Jesus of the Christian Bible and told a disputed story about his own child's tragic death to further emotionalize his point — a story which Musk's ex-wife says was [35]not even true. Whoever is right or wrong here, Musk did all this, ironically, under a Sam Harris tweet. For those unaware, the renowned atheist philosopher [36]Harris was not so long ago on the media hot seat for [37]proclaiming: Hunter Biden literally could have had the corpses of children in his basement, I would not have cared. Elon Musk seemingly has no problem with this. In the Space, he even proclaimed: "Hunter Biden seems kind of fun, to be honest." The stories and ideas above are all so tragic and/or disgusting that disputing details seems almost insensitive, on either side, but a dispassionate look under the microscope of reason is necessary in order to maintain rational clarity, and to avoid being tricked by manipulators who love to hide behind just such so-called taboo and "unmentionable" topics. Sacred cows. As for the reinstatement of former U.S. president Donald Trump's account, Musk had initially told "the people" a council would be determining such activities, but this plan was scrapped in lieu of a single Twitter poll from Elon's personal account. However, the "Vox Populi" demanding Alex Jones be brought back, and pressing questions about what constitutes so-called "negative" or "hate" tweets — which Musk said would now be "[38]max deboosted" and demonetized under his new rule — was summarily ignored by the self-crowned tech king. [39]'I Wanted to Punch Kanye' — Free Speech Waffler Elon Musk’s Nonsensical Take on Bitcoin, CBDCs, and Censorship Musk also recently banned hip-hop star Kanye West (who himself seems to me — for many reasons — another shill character designed to stir up misguided chaos and muddy the waters) for sharing a [40]controversial image, and after comments about Nazis and Hitler in an interview with Alex Jones. Musk stated in the Dec. 4 Twitter Space that Ye's recent tweet was an illegal “incitement to violence” specifically because: I personally wanted to punch Kanye, so that was definitely inciting me to violence. Needless to say, "incitement to violence" doesn't mean words that make one individual feel like using literal violence against the speaker. No matter how ludicrous or insensitive the words — or in this case, image — may be. Incitement to violence is saying something such as "Let's all go rob Joe tomorrow!" It’s beyond the scope of this article to go deeper into the behavior of [41]narcissists and megalomaniacs, but talking endlessly about [42]saving humanity, posturing as a literal messiah figure, and thinking you get to physically harm people because of their words is not usually a good sign. As H.L. Mencken famously [43]wrote: The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. Power is what all messiahs really seek: not the chance to serve. Elon’s Bitcoin and CBDC Confusion: ‘Money Is Digital Already’ In the Dec. 4 Twitter space, joined by the likes of Ben Stiller, Musk’s mother, and a slew of militantly-moderate-opinion-toting normies, Musk was asked if he was worried about the rapid advent of [44]central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) across the globe. Like all the important questions in the live stream, he lived up to his self-applied label of being "fanatically moderate," and refused to answer directly. Instead, Musk presented some bizarre ideas implying that CBDCs would really be no different than the digital fiat currency we use today. Ignoring the fact that retail CBDCs can function as programmable money issued directly by [45]reckless governments and [46]central banks, and their similarly [47]disastrous policies — with the added ability to `[48]bake in` mechanisms like taxation, [49]digital ID, negative interest rates, and potential social credit systems right into the money itself — Musk diverted the conversation by focusing on the antiquated tech of today’s digital version of fiat, for an easy laugh from the all-to-eager fans listening. While openly acknowledging that "you can starve people to death" with draconian control of monetary systems earlier in the Space, he nevertheless said: “I think they’re conflating a few things. First of all, almost all money is digital already,” Musk said, noting: “Whether banks create their own cryptocurrencies I think is somewhat irrelevant. People will use the cryptocurrencies that they think will accrue value over time and not use the ones that don’t.” Of course, it’s unsettling for a supposed tech genius to ignore the critical difference between actual crypto like bitcoin cash or monero and CBDCs. Namely, that the latter involves the [50]violent force of the state. The only individual who seemed to even slightly push back against’s Musk's assumptions during the Twitter Space was [51]Kim Dotcom, but overall, and even from Kim, the amount of rear-end licking going on throughout was pretty nauseating. Musk's missing the boat on crypto and money should not surprise us. After all, he has missed the boat on free speech, and these two concepts are [52]inextricably related. Governments are already [53]cracking down on mere code, as evidenced by the recent United States OFAC ban and sanctions on the Tornado Cash mixing platform. It was this same ostensible tech whiz Musk that failed to understand bitcoin’s [54]minimal impact on, and even [55]benefits for, the climate and environment (especially compared to things like the fiat banking system's energy consumption, private jets constantly flying to Davos, and the dropping of bombs on people all over the world). Musk has instead chosen to push the climate panic and urge for a carbon tax, while [56]canceling bitcoin payments at Tesla. Again, either he is acting and gaslighting you, or isn’t actually very bright. [57]'I Wanted to Punch Kanye' — Free Speech Waffler Elon Musk’s Nonsensical Take on Bitcoin, CBDCs, and CensorshipA still from the film "Collateral Murder" featuring Wikileaks footage of American forces in Iraq opening fire on 12 individuals including journalists and two children. Using Musk’s ‘Bull**** Meter’ Against His Own Actions Whatever you believe about the official narratives regarding freedom activist whistleblowers Julian Assange and Edward Snowden, Musk's milquetoast stance on the two in the Dec. 4 Twitter Space hosted by Nawfal is telling. It is hard to watch the [58]Wikileaks footage exposing the murder of innocent people by U.S. forces in Iraq, including journalists and children, and not feel sickness and rage boiling in your stomach at the injustice. One would imagine that at the very least, a free speech absolutist like Musk would be one hundred percent on the side of exposing such horrific crimes. But again, the self-proclaimed “fanatic moderate” chewed his lips, answering: "I don’t know enough about the Assange situation to give an accurate answer. There are things where national security stuff is involved that I think do need to be kept secret,” Musk said. He concluded that, regarding NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: “Probably the best thing would be a jury of the public.” When pressed by Kim Dotcom, who noted that the legal system in the U.S. would render such a jury impossible, as exposing info such as Snowden did is a crime regardless, Musk gave up, sheepishly copping out: I don't know. I mean, there’s no easy answer to the Snowden/Assange situation. So much for the voice of the people, I guess. There actually is an easy answer for a "free speech absolutist," and it's not what Musk said. Adherence to draconian statist law seemed to be the running thread throughout Elon’s whole Spaces interview: We’ll do what we can, as long as it doesn’t conflict with the legal system, in other words. And, as evidenced by his recent single-handed Twitter bans, as long as it doesn’t hurt his feelings. To think that the fawning fans during the Spaces session were concerned about his safety from the powers that be. Why would he worry when he has just openly stated he will never disobey them? When asked about a conversation Musk had with failed FTX CEO Sam Bankman-Fried in the Space, Musk said: Deep insight wasn’t necessary. If someone’s calling you to talk about investing in a big transaction they should be asking questions about the transaction, not talking about themselves, and talking at the speed of an auctioneer. It didn’t require deep insight to figure out that the bull**** factor is high. I submit to you, reader, that if someone is presenting themselves as a “free speech absolutist,” crypto advocate, and candidate for savior of humanity from the uncontrollable NPC left and big-gov/big-tech oppression, they should not be a fed-funded, carbon-tax-pushing, gov-contract-having, centralized-content-censoring, WEF-young-global-leader-being, [59]Canadian-Social-Credit-Party-chair-descended, [60]neuralink-monkey-brain-damaging, New-World-Order-jacket-wearing, technocrat-social justice warrior who wants to physically assault people for the mere words they say. [61]'I Wanted to Punch Kanye' — Free Speech Waffler Elon Musk’s Nonsensical Take on Bitcoin, CBDCs, and Censorship Free speech absolutist. Okay. Cool story, bro. In Conclusion: Something Is Very Wrong Here Looking around at the world and back at history, the Vox Populi is obviously not the Vox Dei — unless god is a raging idiot. And in the case of Hitler, the Vox Populi in Germany loved him. If Elon was truly as bright as they say, he would live by some of the many accurate words he has spoken. For example, when he noted that [62]the state is a monopoly on violence. But, for whatever reason, instead of speaking out against that same state, and pushing for a more voluntary and free market/open source society which truly would be conducive to free speech and crypto innovation and peace — like voluntaryism — Musk contracts with it, and pushes for more of the same oppression, but in a more deceptive way. Meet the new boss, worse than the woke boss. Toward the end of his appearance on the Twitter Space, Musk noted that account verification will likely be more specifically leveraged to get rid of bots, but who knows exactly what this process will eventually entail. It could mean that individuals wishing to have a voice on the platform and remain private and anonymous, may have a difficult time of it. "So there will be a gold check mark for commercial organizations, a gray check mark for governments, and a blue check mark for verified individuals," Musk noted. "There will be a strong policy against impersonation and deception," he added. Musk is a tough case because he often sounds convincing, speaking generalized, cliched truths to oppressed people desperate for an escape from the woke technocratic nightmare that is happening. He is the perfect synthesis of an elitist Hegelian dialectic to pacify and gaslight (intentionally or otherwise) dissenters on both sides of the fake bipartisan political scheme, allowing those that have always controlled the world — the eugenicists, bankers, and secretive interests behind closed doors, to continue duping “the people.” In other words, it's all a big pro-wrestling show, going on while the overarching draconian agendas involving CBDCs, global surveillance, and impending climate lockdowns move steadily forward. As such, what is perceived as Gospel truth by the majority — the "Vox Dei" — is almost always lunacy. If I am deemed a lunatic for taking this view, well, time will tell it. But in the words of AC/DC's Brian Johnson in the hit song "Hells Bells": "If god's on the left, I'm stickin to the [apolitical] right." To listen to Musk's Twitter Spaces appearance, one can do so on Twitter [63]here, or on Odysee, [64]here. Tags in this story [65]alex jones, [66]Altruism, [67]bitcoin cash, [68]CBDC, [69]central bank digital currency, [70]Code Is Speech, [71]Donald Trump, [72]Economic Freedom, [73]Free Speech, [74]Government, [75]Great Reset, [76]H.L. Mencken, [77]Joe Biden, [78]Julian Assange, [79]Kanye West, [80]Kim Dotcom, [81]Mario Nawfal, [82]Monero, [83]Musk, [84]Musk Free Speech, [85]Narcissism, [86]New World Order, [87]Politics, [88]Social Credit, [89]Social Media, [90]Tornado cash, [91]Twitter, [92]Twitter Spaces, [93]UBI, [94]Voluntaryism, [95]War Crimes, [96]Wikileaks What do you think about Musk? Let us know in the comments section below. Graham Smith Graham Smith is an American expat living in Japan, and the founder of Voluntary Japan—an initiative dedicated to spreading the philosophies of unschooling, individual self-ownership, and economic freedom in the land of the rising sun. [97][IMG] [98]Don’t Forget the Importance of Censorship Resistance 24. https://news.bitcoin.com/category/op-ed/ 25. https://news.bitcoin.com/author/grahamsmith/ 26. https://odysee.com/@machaine:9/elonmusk_tspace:7 27. https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/11/29885272/mark-cuban-calls-elon-musk-judg... 28. https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/ 29. https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-tech/2021/12/13/musk-spurns-sub... 31. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Nawar_al-Awlaki 32. https://odysee.com/@QuantumRhino:9/Biden-touching-and-sniffing-girls-compila... 33. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting 35. https://in.mashable.com/culture/42675/internet-slams-elon-musk-for-lying-abo... 36. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris 37. https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/author-sam-harris-says-he-wou... 38. https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/11/18/freedom-of-speech-but-not-... 40. https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/kanye-suspended-from-twitter-for-sharing-pic-of-s... 41. https://read.cash/@VoluntaryJapan/the-musk-messiah-complex-a-look-at-elons-l... 42. https://news.bitcoin.com/elon-musk-takes-control-of-twitter-fires-ceo-and-cf... 43. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1166047-the-urge-to-save-humanity-is-almost... 44. https://news.bitcoin.com/binance-ceo-sees-no-threat-to-crypto-from-central-b... 45. https://news.bitcoin.com/biden-says-us-economy-is-strong-as-hell-white-house... 46. https://news.bitcoin.com/ecb-chooses-amazon-and-4-other-companies-to-help-de... 47. https://news.bitcoin.com/report-lebanon-planning-to-devalue-currency-by-93-d... 48. https://sociable.co/government-and-policy/us-eu-digital-id-central-bankers-c... 49. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/11/16/g20-... 50. https://news.bitcoin.com/get-real-lagarde-the-underlying-asset-guaranteeing-... 51. https://news.bitcoin.com/kim-dotcom-us-is-beyond-bankrupt-predicts-controlle... 52. https://news.bitcoin.com/crypto-is-part-of-free-speech-and-free-speech-is-ev... 53. https://news.bitcoin.com/tornado-in-the-coal-mine-how-globalists-plan-to-pen... 54. https://news.bitcoin.com/research-finds-bitcoin-mining-equates-to-0-10-of-gl... 55. https://news.bitcoin.com/esg-study-shows-bitcoin-minings-potential-to-elimin... 56. https://news.bitcoin.com/elon-musk-tesla-suspended-accepting-bitcoin-environ... 58. https://odysee.com/collateral_murder:4 59. https://read.cash/@VoluntaryJapan/the-musk-messiah-complex-a-look-at-elons-l... 60. https://odysee.com/@corbettreport:0/ep429:5 62. https://news.bitcoin.com/tornado-in-the-coal-mine-how-globalists-plan-to-pen... 63. https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1OwxWwDyXnQxQ 64. https://odysee.com/@machaine:9/elonmusk_tspace:7 65. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/alex-jones/ 66. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/altruism/ 67. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/bitcoin-cash/ 68. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/cbdc/ 69. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/central-bank-digital-currency/ 70. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/code-is-speech/ 71. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/donald-trump/ 72. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/economic-freedom/ 73. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/free-speech/ 74. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/government/ 75. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/great-reset/ 76. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/h-l-mencken/ 77. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/joe-biden/ 78. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/julian-assange/ 79. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/kanye-west/ 80. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/kim-dotcom/ 81. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/mario-nawfal/ 82. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/monero/ 83. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/musk/ 84. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/musk-free-speech/ 85. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/narcissism/ 86. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/new-world-order/ 87. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/politics/ 88. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/social-credit/ 89. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/social-media/ 90. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/tornado-cash/ 91. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/twitter/ 92. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/twitter-spaces/ 93. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/ubi/ 94. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/voluntaryism/ 95. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/war-crimes/ 96. https://news.bitcoin.com/tag/wikileaks/ 97. https://news.bitcoin.com/dont-forget-the-importance-of-censorship-resistance...
"Digital Fentanyl": Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Legislation To Ban TikTok https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/1ebac814-157e-4e26-81b9-d9a... https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Press-Releases&id=D1C2E147-3A23-4F49-AC27-268572AABDCD A group of bipartisan lawmakers led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has introduced legislation that would completely ban the social media app TikTok from operating in the United States. "TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, is required by Chinese law to make the app’s data available to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)," reads a Tuesday statement from Rubio's office. "From the FBI Director to FCC Commissioners to cybersecurity experts, everyone has made clear the risk of TikTok being used to spy on Americans. " Rubio - who introduced the Averting the National Threat of Internet Surveillance, Oppressive Censorship and Influence, and Algorithmic Learning by the Chinese Communist Party Act (ANTI-SOCIAL CCP Act) - is joined by Reps. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), who introduced companion legislation in the US House of Representatives. "TikTok is digital fentanyl that’s addicting Americans, collecting troves of their data, and censoring their news," said Gallagher. "It’s also an increasingly powerful media company that’s owned by ByteDance, which ultimately reports to the Chinese Communist Party – America’s foremost adversary." Allowing the app to continue to operate in the U.S. would be like allowing the U.S.S.R. to buy up the New York Times, Washington Post, and major broadcast networks during the Cold War. No country with even a passing interest in its own security would allow this to happen, which is why it’s time to ban TikTok and any other CCP-controlled app before it’s too late. -Rep. Mike Gallagher. The app has come under intense scrutiny in recent weeks, including a lawsuit from the state of Indiana, a ban in South Dakota, calls to ban TikTok 'everywhere,' and hitting a major snag in negotiations with the Biden administration over national security concerns. One of the primary issues with TikTok - owned by Chinese company ByteDance, is where user data is housed. Both ByteDance and US officials struck a preliminary agreement that TikTok data on US users would be hosted by Oracle Corp. TikTok, meanwhile, says it will delete the private data of US users from its own data centers in Virginia and Singapore as it transitions to fully store data with Oracle. The company has also said that access to US data by anyone outside of a newly established division to govern US data security would be limited by, and subject to, its protocols - which would be overseen by Oracle. Certain administration officials, however, still aren't comfortable with the arrangement, and have sought to make any TikTok security agreement stronger in some respects over concerns with the company's access to consumer data, and its potential use for influence operations. "The federal government has yet to take a single meaningful action to protect American users from the threat of TikTok. This isn’t about creative videos — this is about an app that is collecting data on tens of millions of American children and adults every day," said Rubio on Tuesday. "We know it’s used to manipulate feeds and influence elections. We know it answers to the People’s Republic of China. There is no more time to waste on meaningless negotiations with a CCP-puppet company. It is time to ban Beijing-controlled TikTok for good." Republicans have been pushing to ban the app altogether. TikTok claims it doesn't collect data on search and browsing history outside the app, though it does collect information within the app so that it 'functions correctly,' said the spokeswoman. For example, returning relevant search results and ensuring users don't see the same videos multiple times. Former US President Donald Trump sought to ban TikTok unless it was a US-owned entity - which President Biden rescinded shortly after taking office in light of legal challenges.
Musk Taking Legal Action Against Kid Who Tracks His Plane After "Crazy Stalker" Attack We finally know why the @ElonJet Twitter account was suspended. Musk tweeted: "Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood." Musk then said, "legal action is being taken against Sweeney [the kid who runs @ElonJet] & organizations who supported harm to my family." Musk also said, "any account doxxing real-time location info of anyone will be suspended, as it is a physical safety violation. This includes posting links to sites with real-time location info," adding "posting locations someone traveled to on a slightly delayed basis isn't a safety problem, so is ok." Last night, car carrying lil X in LA was followed by crazy stalker (thinking it was me), who later blocked car from moving & climbed onto hood. Legal action is being taken against Sweeney & organizations who supported harm to my family. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) December 15, 2022 The college kid who created the @ElonJet Twitter account before Elon Musk bought the social media platform has had the account "suspended." Last Friday, Jack Sweeney pointed out @ElonJet was "search banned," though he mentioned the account had been "search banned for months before Elon's takeover. " It’s true ElonJet is search banned. But I’m not sure who to blame, it’s been search banned for months now way before Elon’a takeover. https://t.co/kYpSdFS6Tw — Jack Sweeney (@JxckSweeney) December 9, 2022 But now it appears the account that shared publicly-available information about Musk's private jet locations and had over half a million followers has been "suspended." On Wednesday morning, Twitter users are chatting away about the suspension. Here's what some had to say: Elon Musk’s position on free speech pic.twitter.com/zvxTLf4Jhz — Daniel Uhlfelder (@DWUhlfelderLaw) December 14, 2022 Hey folks (@RonFilipkowski @DWUhlfelderLaw ), not only has Elon suspended @ElonJet, he's now prevented Flight Aware from publicly tracking his airplane. I guess it's good to be rich. This should be publicly available information. I'm sure someone can figure out how. pic.twitter.com/VQ2xCmBHra — globetrotter (@globe55trotter) December 14, 2022 Nearly a year ago, we told readers about Sweeney and how Musk requested the college kid to take down the account because of security risks. At the time, Sweeney told Musk the price to take down @ElonJet would be a "Model 3." Musk rejected the offer and told the kid: "I don't love the idea of being shot by a nutcase." As we've told readers, tracking the private jets of CEOs is nothing new in the hedge fund industry. There are services that some traders pay upwards of $100k to retrieve flight data of the movements of deal-makers. We also said Sweeney would have better luck selling his technology to a hedge fund or even Quandl, a flight-tracking company, rather than letting it stay on Twitter. Now the account has been nuked.
Fuck the Kings Presidents and Politicians, they have no clothes anymore... Erdogan Rival Handed Nearly 3-Years In Prison For "Insulting" Election Authority To the surprise of no one... given the now years-long crackdown on all media including internet and social apps by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Islamist-leaning Justice and Development Party, a main political rival of Erdogan has just been issued a stiff prison sentence by a Turkish court for mere political speech. On Wednesday Istanbul Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu was sentenced to 2 years 7 months and 15 days in prison by a Turkish court for "insulting the election authority," according to national media. Erdogan rival Ekrem Imamoglu, via Reuters. Specifically Imamoglu was accused of unlawful speech directed against Turkey’s Supreme Electoral Council, which the mayor has denied, instead saying it's part of a political purge backed by Erdogan loyalists. "They have stopped fighting honestly and bravely. They are resorting to all kinds of tricks to protect their order," he told protesters who gathered in the capital in support of his innocence. "This decision is proof that the rulers of this country have no aim to bring justice and democracy to the country," he also said. According to the government allegation cited in the Associated Press: The mayor denied insulting members of the electoral council, insisting his words were a response to Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu calling him "a fool" and accusing Imamoglu of criticizing Turkey during a visit to the European Parliament. "The will of 16 million Istanbulites is on trial," the mayor’s office said in a firm statement just before Imamoglu's sentencing. "They are seeking to deprive the mayor of Istanbul of his political rights." The supposed initial "insult" that Imamoglu is "guilty" of came after Erdogan's AK Party successfully achieved a new election after Imamoglu won a March 2019 upset for Istanbul mayor (he won the 'do-over' election too). It was considered a huge, historic defeat of the AK Party. And then, as AP recounts: Imamoglu was charged with insulting senior public officials after he described canceling legitimate elections as an act of "foolishness" on Nov. 4, 2019. Erdogan has become a political superstar when he was slapped with 6 months jail sentence and a political ban two decades ago. İmamoğlu has already faced one election cancellation which made him a hero. Now a possible political ban? Not very smart for whoever is behind it — Ragıp Soylu (@ragipsoylu) December 14, 2022 For this reason the obvious heavy-handed politically motivated prosecution is expected to result in fierce backlash from Imamoglu's supporters and other opposition groups, possibly resulting in large-scale protests and unrest. Erdogan and his political network have have spent years stacking the judiciary with loyalists, who have in turned worked to stamp out dissent, even in the areas of political speech - as has been made clear with Imamoglu's nearly 3-year prison sentence. What's more is that the court "imposed a political ban that could lead to his removal from office," according to the AP, ahead of the upcoming June 2023 presidential election. In the meantime countless journalists as well as Kurdish and Armenian activists have also languished in Turkish prisons, given over the past decade mere speech-related "crimes" have been relentlessly clamped down on.
Libs just can't help their depraved addictions, thus sideloading will become popular again, thus LOTT will be keep exposing them... https://twitter.com/LibsOfTikTok Ban TikTok Everywhere? https://www.theepochtimes.com/ban-tiktok-everywhere_4915101.html It’s time to ban TikTok. The social media app is wildly popular with young adults and children but controlled by an authoritarian regime in China. Apple rates the platform for users ages 12-plus. Yet the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) uses the app’s secret algorithm to influence and track their opinions, messaging, keystrokes, and locations. The TikTok logo is displayed outside a TikTok office in Culver City, Calif., on Aug. 27, 2020. (Mario Tama/Getty Images) One billion users globally are vulnerable to the theft of their passwords and future blackmail. Based on data already collected, TikTok could leverage American leaders over the entire 21st century. TikTok is expanding into online purchases, music, search engines, warehouses, and fulfillment centers. It would like to become an everything app that replaces Google, Apple, Twitter, Amazon, and Facebook. Unfortunately, the Biden administration is doing next to nothing against the threat that TikTok poses to the American public and economy. The silence of most Democrats on the issue is a form of complicity. Republican States Against TikTok But Republicans in Congress and state capitals across the United States are increasingly voicing their concerns and stepping up to the plate. Nebraska’s Governor Pete Ricketts was the trendsetter, having banned TikTok on state-owned and leased devices two years ago. In the past few weeks, other Republican leaders—including in Texas, South Dakota, South Carolina, Maryland, and Arkansas—have taken similar actions. The State of Indiana filed two lawsuits against Tiktok, alleging the app deceives consumers about content and security. Indiana claims the algorithm purposefully addicts young people. One lawsuit claims it promotes inappropriate content and is linked to mental and eating disorders. A young girl looks at social media apps, including TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and WhatsApp, on a smartphone on Nov. 12, 2019. (Peter Byrne/PA) Indiana’s Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita said, “TikTok is actively exposing our children to drug use, alcohol abuse, profanity and sexually explicit material at a young age.” In South Carolina, the Republican governor not only removed the app from government devices, but asked state offices to block TikTok’s website. Republican Governor of Maryland Larry Hogan issued an emergency cybersecurity directive prohibiting technologies from both Russia and China, including TikTok, from the executive branch. South Dakota’s tourism bureau deleted its TikTok account of 60,000 followers. These states are stepping up to pay the price for U.S. national security. South Dakota’s Governor Kristi Noem, who signed the state’s executive order against TikTok, wrote that the CCP collects personal information on users, including internet browsing data and keystrokes. That would mean it could harvest passwords. In an opinion article, Noem criticized the Biden administration for insufficiently protecting the United States from foreign adversaries. “Mr. Biden hasn’t demanded that Beijing or TikTok cease gathering the data of American citizens, and he hasn’t pushed Congress to ban the app nationally,” she wrote. “By refusing to respond to this threat, the president is allowing China’s communist leaders to continue their attack on American security.” Noem also plans to work with South Dakota’s legislature to address China’s buying of American farmland. Companies from China often purchase land near U.S. military bases, threatening surveillance of strategic assets, including nuclear weapons. “South Dakota is showing the nation how to create a state-led response to threats from communist China,” the governor wrote. “We are taking the lead on preventing Beijing from accessing the private data of our citizens and throttling our food supply.” Noem, a Republican, will get support from most of South Dakota’s voters as 53 percent are Republicans, compared to only 37 percent Democrats. China can be a bipartisan issue—perhaps many Democrats will support her measures. But TikTok users and farmland owners could turn against her. Taking a strong position against the CCP, even on a bipartisan issue in the United States, carries political risk. Biden’s Big Choice The Biden administration faces increasing risk from its limited options on the TikTok issue as well. Whether it bans the app or not, someone will be unhappy. Read more here...
https://www.theepochtimes.com/supreme-court-to-take-up-trump-backed-florida-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-asks-supreme-court-to-take-up-florida-so... https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/243755/20221024132713178_20... https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-277/243634/20221021135207159_Ne...
LOTT will be keep exposing them... https://twitter.com/LibsOfTikTok
https://nypost.com/2022/12/19/fbi-reimbursed-twitter-for-doing-its-dirty-wor... Rachel Levine Calls For Tech Companies To Control "Misinformation" On Gender Affirming Care https://segm.org/ajp_correction_2020 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5227946/ Biden's trans Assistant Secretary for Health and honorary four-star admiral, Rachel Levine (formerly known as Richard Levine) has called for Big Tech companies to control "misinformation" on gender affirmation care (hormone treatments and sex change surgeries). This is yet another example of open attempts by government officials to demand tech conglomerates and social media websites enforce the establishment narrative while censoring anyone who disagrees. Recent Twitter File data dumps indicate extensive collusion between government agencies like the FBI and social media in an attempt to silence dissent on hotly debated topics from the existence of the Hunter Biden laptop to the draconian covid pandemic response. In most cases, the government has sought to silence facts and evidence and label accurate arguments as "misinformation." Another issue which leftist officials seem to obsess over is the trans identity movement. Representatives claim to engage in activism in the name of civil rights, but trans people have the same exact rights and legal protections as anyone else in the US and equality is already a fact of life for them. Instead, their goals are more akin to special treatment and extraordinary privileges well beyond the rights enshrined in the US Constitution or the law. It is hard to think of any other group in the western world that gets more attention and protection from government and corporations than trans people. In essence, they demand the power to control people's speech, language and thoughts in the name of insulating trans people's feelings and mental health. Rachel Levine's comments on "misinformation" are clearly in response to the massive push-back coming from the public when it comes to the numerous oversteps by the trans community and the government. The establishment has recently lost control of the narrative and they are seeking to get it back. Specifically, a large number of Americans are fighting against the imposition of trans ideology on children and the use of hormone therapies and gender based surgeries on kids. In the past five years there has been an accelerated expansion of trans related policies applied within public institutions, especially when it comes to public schools. Keep in mind that trans people (or people claiming to be trans) only represented 0.39% of the population in 2016. Only six years later around 1.9% of the general population and a suspicious 5% of teens identifying as trans. One could argue that such a jump defies scientific and statistical logic and can only be explained by the growing pervasiveness of trans ideology in schools and media. In other words, it is likely that many people identify as trans today because they want to join an artificially created trend, or, they want to get a piece of the pie when it comes to special treatment. Studies involving gender reassignment or hormone therapy often conclude that patients experience a notable decline in depression or need for mental health services afterwards. But, after peer review these conclusions change, indicating that there is no significant advantages to gender affirmation care. The media runs with the initial story, and then never reports on the retractions. People like Levine assert that the science is all but settled and any contrary information is "dangerous" to the public. What Levine calls an "onslaught" is merely the natural correction of false information being pumped out by the government and the corporate media. Science should never become political, and when it does it is no longer science - It is cultism. This goes for climate change, covid vaccines and gender affirmation treatments. Science is ever evolving with theories and counter-theories. To suppress all counter-theories and contrary evidence in support of a single narrative is anti-science.
Biden Dem SocComs Appointed US Military Wokesters to Erase History so that their Chinese buddies can fill the void and rule the world with even worse fist... Watch: Chinese Fighter Threatens US Spy Plane Over Regional Waters, Coming Within 20 Feet West Point Begins Removal, Alteration Of Confederate Memorials On Campus https://www.theepochtimes.com/west-point-begins-removal-alteration-of-confed... The U.S. Military Academy at West Point has commenced the removal and modification of 13 Confederate memorials and symbols on its campus at the direction of the Department of Defense. Cadets walk across 'The Plain' before the Oath of Allegiance ceremony during Reception Day at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York on June 27, 2016. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) The modifications—recommended by the congressionally mandated Naming Commission and subsequently approved by the Defense Department in October—were to begin over the school’s holiday break, which started on Dec. 18. “Academy leaders and key stakeholders developed a comprehensive plan to ensure that historical artifacts will be professionally and respectfully handled during the execution phase,” the school said in a Dec. 19 statement. “Memorabilia removed during this process will be relocated to appropriate sites, including museums or other suitable venues.” According to a letter (pdf) signed by Lt. Gen. Steve Gilland, superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy, items to be placed in storage includes a portrait of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee that hung in the academy’s library, Jefferson Hall; a stone bust of Lee from Reconciliation Plaza; and a bronze triptych from the main entrance of Bartlett Hall. Meanwhile, the portrait and the stone bust of Union Gen. Ulysses Grant that have traditionally accompanied those of Lee will be moved to Grant Hall. By Spring 2023, the school also intends to replace a quote from Lee displayed at Honor Plaza and begin refacing select stone markers at Reconciliation Plaza with modified language and images. Several streets, buildings, and areas around the West Point campus are also slated to be renamed, including Lee Road, Beauregard Place, Hardee Place, Lee Barracks, Lee Housing Area, and Lee Child Development Center. “We will conduct these actions with dignity and respect,” Gilland wrote in the letter. “In the case of those items that were class gifts (specifically, Honor Plaza and Reconciliation Plaza), we will continue to work closely with those classes throughout this process. Any costs associated with the Commission’s recommendations will be resourced within the Department of Defense.” The History The U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York, was founded in 1802 under President Thomas Jefferson. The school churned out hundreds of graduates who fought for both the Union and Confederate armies, including Grant, in the class of 1843 and Lee in 1829. Lee, who became commander of the Confederate Army toward the end of the Civil War, graduated second in his class at West Point and later served as the school’s superintendent from 1852 to 1855. Calls for Revisions Established under the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2021, the Naming Commission was created to assign, modify, or remove names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia within the Department of Defense that commemorate the Confederacy or those who voluntarily fought for the Confederate Army. On Aug. 29, the eight-member commission submitted Part II of its final report to Congress (pdf), which addressed assets of the U.S. Military Academy and U.S. Naval Academy. “Throughout the [West Point] grounds, plaques adorn almost every building and entrance, honoring the names and lives of West Point graduates who demonstrated exceptional devotion to the defense of the United States and the advancement of its ideals,” the commissioners wrote in their report. “Commemorating the Confederacy alongside those graduates honors men who fought against the United States of America, and whose cause sought to destroy the nation as we know it.” In defending their recommendations relating to assets named after Lee, the commissioners noted that the general turned down the opportunity to serve as the top field commander for the Union Army, opting instead to join the Confederates. “The consequences of his decisions were wide-ranging and destructive,” they added. “Lee’s armies were responsible for the deaths of more United States Soldiers than practically any other enemy in our nation’s history.” As for the triptych, the commissioners called for the removal of the names of several Confederate soldiers. Additionally, acknowledging that the triptych’s depiction of a hooded Ku Klux Klansman did not fall under their purview, the commissioners also encouraged the secretary of defense to “address DoD assets that highlight the KKK in Defense Memorialization processes and create a standard disposition requirement for such assets.” “The Commissioners do not make these recommendations with any intention of erasing history,” the commissioners noted. “The facts of the past remain and the Commissioners are confident the history of the Civil War will continue to be taught at all service academies with all the quality and complex detail our national past deserves. Rather, they make these recommendations to affirm West Point’s long tradition of educating future generations of America’s military leaders to represent the best of our national ideals.” Reactions West Point’s announcement has been met with mixed reactions from those who have served in the nation’s armed forces, with some supporting the changes and others decrying them. Read more here...
"We Don't Do This": Adam Schiff & The Underbelly Of American Censorship https://jonathanturley.org/2023/01/07/we-dont-do-this-adam-schiff-and-the-un... Below is my column in the Hill on the recent disclosure of efforts by Rep. Adam Schiff (D., Cal.) to pressure Twitter to censor critics, including a columnist. This effort occurred shortly after Schiff’s office objected to one of my columns accusing him of pressuring social media companies to censor those with opposing views. While publicly denying that he supports censorship, Schiff was secretly pressuring Twitter to censor an array of critics. Here is the column: “We don’t do this.” That response from Twitter to Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is a singular indictment, coming at the height of Twitter’s censorship operations. Apparently, there were some things that even Twitter’s censors refused to do. One of those things was silencing critics of Schiff and his House committee. In the latest tranche of “Twitter Files,” journalist Matt Taibbi revealed that Twitter balked at Schiff’s demand that Twitter suspend an array of posters or label their content as “misinformation” and “reduce the visibility” of them. Among those who Schiff secretly tried to censor was New York Post columnist Paul Sperry. Sperry drew Schiff’s ire by writing about a conversation allegedly overheard by one of his sources. Sperry’s article, which appeared in RealClearInvestigations, cited two sources as overhearing two White House staffers discussing how to remove newly-elected President Trump from office. The article raised the possibility of bias on the part of an alleged key player in launching the first Trump impeachment, CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella. The sources reportedly said that Ciaramella was in a conversation with Sean Misko, a holdover from the Obama administration who later joined Schiff’s staff. The conversation — in Sperry’s words — showed that “just days after [Trump] was sworn in they were already trying to get rid of him.” Rather than simply refute the allegation, Schiff wanted Sperry and other critics silenced. His office reportedly laid out steps to cleanse Twitter of their criticism, including an instruction to “remove any and all content about Mr. Misko and other Committee staff from its service — to include quotes, retweets, and reactions to that content.” The date of Schiff’s non-public letter in November 2020 is notable: Earlier that year, I wrote a column for The Hill criticizing Schiff for pushing for censorship of misinformation in a letter that he sent to social media companies. His office promptly objected to the very suggestion that Schiff supported censorship. We now know Schiff was actively seeking to censor specific critics on social media. These likely were viewed as more than “requests” since Schiff was sending public letters threatening possible legislative action against these same companies. He wanted his critics silenced on social media. After all, criticizing his investigations or staff must, by definition, be misinformation — right? His office seems to have indicated they knew Twitter was using shadow-banning or other techniques to suppress certain disfavored writers. In the letter, his staff asked Twitter to “label and reduce the visibility of any content.” Twitter, however, drew the line with Schiff; one of its employees simply wrote, “no, this isn’t feasible/we don’t do this.” The “this” referred to in this case was raw political censorship. And even a company that maintained one of the largest censorship programs in history could not bring itself to do what Schiff was demanding — but the demand itself is telling. Not only does it show how dishonest some politicians have been in denying censorship while secretly demanding it, it also shows the insatiable appetite created by censorship. The article in question, written by Sperry, is a good example. Sperry has denied ever supporting QAnon conspiracy theories, as Schiff’s office charged. Yet even if Sperry’s account about Schiff’s staffer was wildly untrue, that should make it easier to rebut publicly. The move by Schiff to ban Sperry and others on Twitter — and to remove content — is highly ironic. Schiff has been criticized repeatedly for promoting “misinformation” and for relying on unidentified “sources” for his claims of Trump’s criminality. For example, Schiff pushed the false claim that the infamous Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation; he also was criticized for pushing false narratives of Trump-Russia collusion in the 2016 election. Nevertheless, I would equally oppose any effort to ban Schiff from social media, although that is hardly likely given the demonstrated political bias of past censorship efforts. As for Sperry, he was later permanently suspended by Twitter, which I also criticized. Schiff is unlikely to be deterred by the release of these communications. He recently sent a letter to Facebook, warning it not to relax its censorship efforts. His letter, written with Reps. André Carson (D-Ind.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), reminded Facebook that some lawmakers are watching the company “as part of our ongoing oversight efforts” — and suggested they may be forced to exercise that oversight into any move by Facebook to “alter or rollback certain misinformation policies.” Schiff’s actions embody the slippery slope of censorship. By labeling his critics as QAnon supporters or purveyors of “misinformation,” he sought to have allies in social media “disappear” critics like Sperry — yet he found that even those allies could not stomach his demands. Given Twitter’s censorship of even satirical sites, it was akin to being turned down by a Kanye West podcast as being too extreme. With the disclosure of apparent FBI involvement in Twitter’s censorship program, the release of the Schiff files is another rare insight into how government officials attempted to enlist social media companies for censorship by surrogate or proxy. That is precisely why many in the media, political and business establishments have mobilized against Elon Musk, the new owner of Twitter who has released these compromising files. In a recent tweet, Schiff chastised Musk and demanded more answers from the Twitter CEO. While insisting that “I don’t support censorship,” Schiff asked Musk if he would “commit to providing the public with actual answers and data, not just tweets?” Well, Musk just did precisely that. The “actual answer” is that Schiff has long sought to silence his critics, and Musk has exposed the underbelly of censorship — which is where we found Adam Schiff.
Ontario Governing Body For Psychologists Demands Re-Education For Jordan Peterson https://torontosun.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-the-orwellian-re-educati... Outspoken psychologist and former tenured professor Jordan Peterson has come under relentless attack ever since he criticized the 'Act To Amend The Canadian Human Rights Act And The Criminal Code' back in 2016. The act is a framework which makes scrutiny of gender identity ideology or transsexualism into potential discrimination under Canadian law. Peterson posted a series of videos which outline why critique of gender identity groups is rooted in science and should be protected as free speech. After several years of harassment from leftist activists and politically motivated bureaucrats, Peterson is once again being threatened. This time, with the loss of his license to practice psychology unless he submits to a series of 're-education' programs mandated by the College of Pyschologists of Ontario. The CPO is a quasi-governmental body (a mostly unaccountable bureaucracy) acting in accordance with the Psychology Act, 1991 the Health Professions Procedural Code, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 and the regulations and by-laws of the college. The CPO's sudden aggressive effort to silence Jordan Peterson appears to have been triggered by his reinstatement on Twitter in November. He was originally banned from the site for referring to actress Elliot Page by her original name (Ellen Page) and using the word “her” as a descriptive, which is a scientific fact, but also a violation of the leftist site's TOS before Elon Musk's takeover. The psychologist is also known for his criticisms of Canada's draconian covid lockdowns and mandates. With Peterson once again having access to a wider audience on social media, the CPO has ordered him to complete a mandatory “Specified Continuing Education or Remedial Program” to “review, reflect on and ameliorate [his] professionalism in public statements,” according to a lengthy list of requirements from the college that Peterson shared on Twitter. He must meet with a psychologist for coaching classes, which he must pay for, until a final report is issued by the coach that shows their concerns have been “properly ameliorated.” The CPO argues that Peterson's social media interactions constitute a violation of the organization's standards for professional interactions with the public. In other words, the CPO essentially believes it has the right to control the speech of member psychologists and force them to adhere to a predetermined narrative they find acceptable when engaging with the public. It should be noted that there are no publicized instances of psychologists being threatened with a loss of their license for espousing leftist viewpoints on social media. The measures appear to be strictly designed to punish more conservative leaning professionals. Peterson says he will not comply with the CPO programs because his comments have nothing to do with his role as a psychologist. “Every single accusation is not only independent of my clinical practice, but explicitly political — and not only that: unidirectionally explicitly political,” Peterson writes. Canada's spiral into authoritarianism is widely publicized and the nation's waning respect for free speech accelerated during the pandemic lockdowns. While the US is not far behind, Americans at least have free speech rights codified in a constitution that is designed to regulate what the government can and cannot do. In Canada, such a thing does not exist. Canadian rights are treated more like privileges that the government is allowed to legally erase at a moment's notice. CPO actions not only indicate hostility towards free speech, but also hint at an underlying fear – Members of the professional class are often the most indoctrinated of all people, and for one of them to break from the paradigm and speak against the establishment is considered the utmost betrayal. Peterson is being targeted with a special brand of bureaucratic attention because the establishment uses the professional class to convince and control the general public. The claim that the “experts have spoken” is the ultimate tool for manipulating a majority of the population, and when some of those experts contradict the narrative, the powers-that-be take particular notice.
Stanford proposes adding 'American' to harmful language list thepostmillennial.com/stanfo… The list of soon-to-be banned terms includes the label “American,” which Stanford argues is too US-centric and ignorant of the other forty-one countries that also exist in the region.
Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 22h Censored, not silent. outkick.com/emails-reveal-wh… Emails Reveal White House Official Asked Facebook to Censor Tomi Lahren on COVID Vaccines New emails reveal that White House officials demanded that Facebook censor Tomi Lahren for opposition to the COVID vaccines. outkick.com 289 551 25 3,868 Tomi Lahren retweeted Ted Cruz @tedcruz Jan 7 This is brazen government censorship. If there are any actual “journalists” remaining in the corrupt corporate media, they should vocally condemn the Biden White House getting their lap dogs in Big Tech to silence major media outlets. Greg Price @greg_price11 Jan 7 Here is an email from White House Digital Director @RFlaherty46 telling Facebook to censor @TuckerCarlson and @TomiLahren. They respond “running this down now.” This is completely insane and a total violation of the first amendment. Show this thread 818 1,644 82 6,090 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 4h This photo op with border patrol agents is utterly useless if sleepy Joe is gonna refuse to take their advice!! 135 106 6 1,119 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 4h Joe should go meet with the cartels, he’s funding them. 482 504 36 4,587 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 5h Everyone exiting that plane in El Paso right now, should be impeached! 242 340 26 3,657 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 6h This is the tweet the White House wanted to “reduce.” If me saying that I will not get the COVID jab caused others to think twice before getting it, I will wear that like a badge of honor! Perhaps my tweet played some role in protecting them from heart issues or sudden death! 169 245 11 1,501 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 6h “Irregular migration” HA! It’s an invasion and it’s not an accident, it’s by your design!! Close the border!!! RNC Research @RNCResearch Jan 6 Karine Jean-Pierre claims Biden "inherited a mess" at the southern border, then says "Republicans made it worse." 🤔 Show this thread 611 296 37 1,754 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 6h States should not have to put flipping shipping containers on the border to protect this country while the Biden administration allows for a free-for-all!! 157 204 6 1,887 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 8h I think I speak on behalf of all of the voices and accounts who have been censored, we would like the White House to acknowledge and apologize for this. Immediately. Matt Orfalea @0rf 21h BREAKING: Biden's Digital Director told Facebook to censor @TuckerCarlson and @TomiLahren just for saying she won't take the vaccine! #FacebookFiles 261 314 19 1,768 Tomi Lahren retweeted Scott Taylor @Scotttaylorva 8h NOT OK, this government official working to silence critics, whatever you may think of @TomiLahren or @TuckerCarlson . Even, if you think it’s horrible they said vaccines don’t work (they certainly didn’t work as professed). “Democracy dies in darkness” @washingtonpost Greg Price @greg_price11 Jan 7 Here is an email from White House Digital Director @RFlaherty46 telling Facebook to censor @TuckerCarlson and @TomiLahren. They respond “running this down now.” This is completely insane and a total violation of the first amendment. Show this thread 34 154 9 581 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 8h Unacceptable! Tom Fitton @TomFitton Jan 7 This looks to be criminal activity by Biden WH targeting @TuckerCarlson and @TomiLahren. 135 337 13 2,032 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 9h This is the tweet from April 2021 the White House was concerned about and triggered them to ask Twitter to “reduce” me. Unbelievable. Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 12 Apr 2021 I personally will not get the COVID vaccine/will not be forced to get it. If you want to get it, by all means please do. If you want to wear 1, 2 or 5 masks driving/walking alone, by all means please do. If you are terrified of returning to “old normal” by all means stay home!! 194 232 9 1,644 Tomi Lahren retweeted Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren 22h Censored, not silent. outkick.com/emails-reveal-wh… Emails Reveal White House Official Asked Facebook to Censor Tomi Lahren on COVID Vaccines New emails reveal that White House officials demanded that Facebook censor Tomi Lahren for opposition to the COVID vaccines. outkick.com 289 551 25 3,868 Tomi Lahren retweeted Attorney General Andrew Bailey @AGAndrewBailey Jan 7 Here, the Biden White House directs Facebook to shut down conservative voices @TuckerCarlson and @TomiLahren (4/9) 206 2,554 160 6,251 Show this thread Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren Jan 7 Am I shocked?! Greg Price @greg_price11 Jan 7 Here is an email from White House Digital Director @RFlaherty46 telling Facebook to censor @TuckerCarlson and @TomiLahren. They respond “running this down now.” This is completely insane and a total violation of the first amendment. Show this thread 428 1,034 49 3,746 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren Jan 7 +Secure the border Clay Travis @ClayTravis Jan 7 Now that Republicans officially have a speaker the job is simple: keep Joe Biden from making everything worse for two years until he can be sent to retirement home in 2024, conduct primetime hearings on big tech collusion, & hold Fauci’s feet to fire on his covid lies. Let’s roll 126 115 9 1,154 Tomi Lahren retweeted Rep. Jim Jordan @Jim_Jordan Jan 7 Time to get to work. 10,818 4,222 661 56,039 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren Jan 7 Now it’s time to get to work on securing the border. Here’s the first question our House majority needs to ask Biden officials..,, OutKick @Outkick Jan 7 .@TomiLahren: The one question Democrats CANNOT answer about our open border….. 74 84 4 513 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren Jan 7 Good lord just get it done. This is enough of this. #speaker 463 89 13 1,780 Tomi Lahren @TomiLahren Jan 6 January 6 is the only day Democrats gave a shit about law-enforcement. Not a single day before, not a single day after. Don’t be fooled.
DemSoc's and Govts Falling Into Panic, Crypto and Internet Shall Win The Elitists Communications Counterrevolution https://amgreatness.com/2023/01/07/the-elitists-communications-counterrevolu... Thaddeus McCotter The gleaming promise of new technology and its uses blinded us to the insidious extent imperiled elitists would go to protect their unmerited power, wealth, and status. We were naïve. Yet, even if one could have foreseen the metastasizing tyranny brought about by the digital age, it would have strained credulity to watch Americans—especially the young—not merely acquiescing to it, but embracing it. Though we are now inured to its novelty, it bears recollecting that from the late 20th century to the present, we have lived through a worldwide communications revolution. Profoundly affecting the individual and society, the full impact of this revolution remains unclear. Humanity’s ability to choose and pursue happiness has been empowered to an extent undreamt. In the palm of one’s hand, or upon one’s laptop or desk, and with just a stroke of a key, one can instantaneously communicate with family and friends a world away, conduct business, petition the government for the redress of grievances, or bring calumny upon a major corporation. In sum, the communications revolution is an historically unprecedented technological boon for personal empowerment, growth, enrichment, and self-government. It is this last that alarms the elitists. The elitists believe they are entitled to wield power for the purpose of governing their inferiors (i.e., the rest of us). To facilitate this inversion of our free republic’s design, the elitists require the complicity of a significant amount of the citizenry who, through acquiescence, apathy, and/or dependency, are more than willing to submit to the elitists’ control over their lives, be it wholly or in part. Thus, for the elitists, the communications revolution is an existential threat. The empowerment of sovereign citizens to self-govern and, be it singularly or collectively, increase their ability to control and curtail—i.e., to subordinate—the power of public and private sector elitists, had to be blocked through co-option and coercion; through a communications counterrevolution. Fear is the key. (Isn’t it always when trying to pry away the people’s rights?) Frightened elitists were able to project and impart their fear into their fellow citizens; once the unwarranted paranoia was sufficiently transferred to a critical mass of them, no social, political, legal, or constitutional bar would be insurmountable. There were foreign and domestic terrorists lurking around the corner, white supremacists scurrying about the block, hate and racism woven throughout our endangered democracy! So commenced and continues the coercive disempowering of the entire sovereign citizenry, as far too many frightened people voluntarily shed their rights and scramble into faux lifeboats bound up serf’s creek without a paddle. Free speech is on the verge of being viewed not as a God-given right but a clear and present danger. A danger only the elitists could prevent through their life-saving censorship—er, “content moderation.” Already, the elitists’ siren song has found fertile ground. The elitists’ indoctrination machine has seduced many of America’s youth to renounce what was once considered an intergenerational, innate yearning by young people to be heard and to reject censorship. But the elitists have tamed and muzzled the rising generation’s innate rebelliousness. Like a teacher handing out participation trophies to boost students’ unwarranted self-esteem, the elitists have granted laurels to collegiates for disempowering themselves, laurels these kids have accepted gratefully in exchange for their rights. Of course, they and everyone who submits to the self-censorship and abets the censorious silencing of dissent will be defenseless when the elitists come for them. But that will never happen, will it? This is not a partisan issue, as every American has the God-given right to free speech. And every American is an equal participant in our free republic’s revolutionary experiment in self-government. The elitists’ communication counterrevolution proceeds apace—with the bitterly ironic collusion of Big Tech, which has betrayed its initial promise of providing and promoting personal empowerment and free speech—and with the support of much of the Left, which once championed free speech. Apparently, that was free speech only for themselves and those who aligned with their ideology. In the end, though, it makes perfect, despicable sense: Big Government, Big Tech, and the Left are elitists in common cause to convince the public that the greatest threat to Our Democracy™ is your freedom. Yet, this “democracy” is actually their oligarchy, the preservation of which is the elitists’ communications counterrevolution’s end game. Yes, we should have seen it coming. Still, during the communications revolution, to have been blinded by the empowering possibilities and—hope against hope—to have believed individual liberty had ultimately triumphed over the state is to our eternal credit. Such idealism, independence, and faith are hallmarks of Americans; and, incidentally, why the elitists’ communication counterrevolution, finally, will fail.
https://reclaimthenet.org/rob-flaherty-white-house-censorship-pressure/ Concerns from the “highest levels” of the White House were used to pressure social media censorship
Draw Muhammad Day coming soon. Picture your favorite Tyrants in soiled nappies. Watch: Six Journalists Arrested For Releasing Video Showing South Sudan President Wetting Himself https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2023/01/07/watch-six-journa... Authored by Rick Moran via PJMedia.com, South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir has been in office since the country became independent in 2011. The 71-year-old had been rumored to be in ill health for months, but during a photo-op in December, Kiir was shown standing during the nation’s national anthem and wetting himself in a most embarrassing way. Six staffers for the national broadcasting company in South Sudan were arrested by the security service. There were immediate complaints from the trade union representing the staffers that the law, which gives the government the power to hold someone for 24 hours before taking them before a judge, is being violated. The staffers are being charged with having knowledge of the unauthorized release of “certain footage.” “If there is a prima facie case of professional misconduct or offense then let authorities expedite an administrative or legal process to address the issue in a fair, transparent [sic] and in accordance with the law,” union chair Oyet Patrick Charles said. A journalists’ union in #South_Sudan asserted Friday that six staffers with the national broadcaster are detained in connection with footage apparently showing the country’s president urinating on himself during an event. https://t.co/fXqyiAEQjP — Patrick Heinisch (@PatrickHeinisc1) January 6, 2023 The Associated Press reports that “The presidential election was recently postponed again, this time to late 2024, amid the slow implementation of a 2018 peace deal ending a five-year civil war.” There hasn’t been a presidential election in South Sudan since the independence, and Kiir claimed he did not want “to rush you into an election that will take us back to war,” he said. The national security services in South Sudan are making a habit of arresting people and holding them indefinitely. Reuters: Muthoki Mumo, CPJ’s sub-Saharan Africa representative, said the arrests match a “pattern of security personnel resorting to arbitrary detention whenever officials deem coverage unfavourable.” “Authorities should unconditionally release these six SSBC employees and ensure that they can work without further intimidation or threat of arrest,” Mumo said. So South Sudan’s agony will continue with a president who is at the very least incontinent and almost certainly losing the ability to lead his country.
Govts and Secret Globalism worldwide going all 1984 on your ass... revolt now. BRBRBRBRBR...! https://rumble.com/v25depn-exclusive-extreme-escalation-of-brazils-censorshi... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world/americas/bolsonaro-brazil-supreme-c... https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1614046335581229061.html https://rumble.com/GGreenwald Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 2h LIVE, in 15 minutes: Our exclusive report on a major escalation of Brazil's censorship regime: a single Supreme Court judge has ordered multiple Americans social media platforms to immediately ban politicians and analysts or face massive fines: rumble.com/v25depn-exclusive… EXCLUSIVE: EXTREME ESCALATION OF BRAZIL'S CENSORSHIP REGIME | SYSTEM UPDATE #22 Thank you for watching this episode of SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET. Subscribe and join us LIVE on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald Become part of our Locals community: h rumble.com Jan 13, 2023 · 11:46 PM UTC · Twitter Web App 730 2,213 267 7,804 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 2h We will reveal the full order, which we've obtained exclusively: it's truly shocking in its breadth and authoritarianism, with no rationale. Just a command, accompanied by threats. As this thread illustrates, it's a threat to internet freedom globally: Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h BREAKING: The censorship regime in Brazil is growing rapidly, virtually daily now. We just obtained a censorship order that is genuinely shocking, directing multiple social media platforms to *immediately* remove numerous prominent politicians and commentators. Show this thread 100 355 12 1,833 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 2h We'll interview at least one of the Brazilian commentators who is the subject of this order. The just has ordered his decision be kept secret. The censored analyst had no idea these platforms were ordered to ban him until we called. The key context: nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world… To Defend Democracy, Is Brazil’s Top Court Going Too Far? Brazil’s Supreme Court has acted as the primary check on President Jair Bolsonaro’s power. Now many are worried the court is posing its own threat. nytimes.com 113 286 10 1,535 Greg Drew @SchwerbTheHerb 1h Replying to @ggreenwald How is a single judge so powerful, seems like he pulls the strings of a shadow gov in Brazil? 4 1 20 more replies Jonathan Kogan @Kogz 1h Replying to @ggreenwald @chrispavlovski What a time to be alive! Crazy to watch this happen in real-time… Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 9 Dec 2022 We're incredibly excited to announce the debut of @SystemUpdate_ -- to air nightly, live, Monday-Friday at 7 pm ET -- exclusively on Rumble. Our first live show will be this Monday, December 12, featuring an interview with @Mtaibbi and other topics and guests:👇 398 1,243 92 6,210 351,057 Show this thread Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 1h Starting now, LIVE: Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 1h LIVE, in 15 minutes: Our exclusive report on a major escalation of Brazil's censorship regime: a single Supreme Court judge has ordered multiple Americans social media platforms to immediately ban politicians and analysts or face massive fines: rumble.com/v25depn-exclusive… Show this thread 207 142 8 806 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 1h LIVE, in 15 minutes: Our exclusive report on a major escalation of Brazil's censorship regime: a single Supreme Court judge has ordered multiple Americans social media platforms to immediately ban politicians and analysts or face massive fines: rumble.com/v25depn-exclusive… EXCLUSIVE: EXTREME ESCALATION OF BRAZIL'S CENSORSHIP REGIME | SYSTEM UPDATE #22 Thank you for watching this episode of SYSTEM UPDATE, now airing every weeknight at 7pm ET. Subscribe and join us LIVE on Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/GGreenwald Become part of our Locals community: h rumble.com 615 1,924 235 6,642 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 1h We will reveal the full order, which we've obtained exclusively: it's truly shocking in its breadth and authoritarianism, with no rationale. Just a command, accompanied by threats. As this thread illustrates, it's a threat to internet freedom globally: Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h BREAKING: The censorship regime in Brazil is growing rapidly, virtually daily now. We just obtained a censorship order that is genuinely shocking, directing multiple social media platforms to *immediately* remove numerous prominent politicians and commentators. Show this thread 80 327 9 1,641 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 1h We'll interview at least one of the Brazilian commentators who is the subject of this order. The just has ordered his decision be kept secret. The censored analyst had no idea these platforms were ordered to ban him until we called. The key context: nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world… To Defend Democracy, Is Brazil’s Top Court Going Too Far? Brazil’s Supreme Court has acted as the primary check on President Jair Bolsonaro’s power. Now many are worried the court is posing its own threat. nytimes.com 97 258 9 1,352 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h BREAKING: The censorship regime in Brazil is growing rapidly, virtually daily now. We just obtained a censorship order that is genuinely shocking, directing multiple social media platforms to *immediately* remove numerous prominent politicians and commentators. 3,913 11,182 2,691 43,207 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h I can't overstate how shocking and dangerous this new censorship order is. It's from the same judge that even the NYT has been warning about as authoritarian: Alexandre de Moraes. Read this NYT article. It was from September. It's now severely escalating: nytimes.com/2022/09/26/world… To Defend Democracy, Is Brazil’s Top Court Going Too Far? Brazil’s Supreme Court has acted as the primary check on President Jair Bolsonaro’s power. Now many are worried the court is posing its own threat. nytimes.com 299 2,159 124 10,174 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h A sign of how repressive the situation in Brazil is: I've had to spent hours with lawyers even figuring out if I can report this. I've confronted governments around the world and this is the only time I've ever asked: "Should I report on this? Can I safely criticize this judge?" 363 1,804 150 9,870 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h But the only reason to become a journalist is to do your job no matter the threats and risks. We'll be on live on Rumble with our @SystemUpdate_ program at its regular time - 7pm ET - to report this and explain the immense dangers of it. It's stunning. 50 535 13 3,781 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h Below is the 2nd article from the NYT on the dangers of this judge's censorship powers, from Oct. I've never seen a judge in any democracy with this level of power. He's become a venerated hero of the Brazilian left, feared and off-limits from criticism nytimes.com/2022/10/21/world… To Fight Lies, Brazil Gives One Man Power Over Online Speech Brazilian authorities granted the country’s elections chief broad power to order the takedown of online content in a bid to combat soaring misinformation ahead of this month’s election. nytimes.com 93 764 40 3,793 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h For the crime of criticizing this Judge - once hated by the Brazilian left as part of a "coup" government until this shocking censorship splurge - I was branded as "pro-terrorist" on Tuesday, trending for days. The climate here is like 9/11: "with us or with the Terrorists." 65 571 15 3,372 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h The censorship regime implemented in Brazil makes the US and EU look like bastions of liberty. *Ten* members of Congress - including some with the nation's highest vote totals - have been banned by this judge from social media even though the platforms say they violated no rules 64 685 32 3,493 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h This is not confined to Brazil. Just as Brazilian prosecutors copied the US's indictment of Assange to try to imprison me for my reporting, this censorship model implemented in Brazil will be used by other countries to bar all dissent. It's a bridge too far even for the NYT. 87 593 8 3,412 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h But the breadth and scope of this order -- directing multiple platforms to immediately ban multiple politicians and analysts *within two hours,* upon threats of major fines - brings this to an all new level. Join us tonight, 7pm ET, for our live coverage rumble.com/GGreenwald Glenn Greenwald Browse the most recent videos from channel "Glenn Greenwald" uploaded to Rumble.com rumble.com 55 433 8 2,414 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 2h What right does a Brazilian judge have to order foreign platforms to ban politicians and journalists from their platform and threaten them with massive fines if they don't censor on command? Alexandre de Moraes is now making himself Chief Censor not only of Brazil but the world. 399 885 114 3,639 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 2h The liberal-left is in the US is filled with homophobia. The minute a gay man dissents from their orthodoxy, they invoke the oldest anti-gay trope: he's a pedophile. Ed Oswald is getting sued for defamation with great speed. Not even the ACLU thinks this is free speech: This tweet is unavailable 68 98 5 812 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h Quem defende um princípio não está do lado de nenhuma facção política. Um princípio não serve à esquerda ou à direita. Um princípio, por definição, tem aplicação universal. Aqueles que não conseguem raciocinar com princípios sempre assumem que todos sofrem da mesma incapacidade 588 920 110 7,042 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h Os princípios - como os direitos - não têm partido. Podem ajudar a esquerda um dia, a direita no dia seguinte. Por exemplo, o princípio de que o Estado não pode punir um cidadão sem julgamento justo um dia pode libertar o Lula. No dia seguinte, proteger um bolsonarista. 22 111 3 1,601 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h Mas o próprio princípio – o direito a um julgamento justo, liberdade de expressão, limites ao poder judicial – serve e protege a sociedade inteira. Isso é o que diferencia os princípios do poder corrupto. O fascismo e o autoritarismo só são possíveis na ausência de princípios. 41 164 10 1,878 Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald 3h Uma das coisas que vcs nunca vão me ver dizendo é “direitos humanos para humanos direitos”. Defendo o direito de todos: dos Trumpistas, petistas, dos “terroristas" em Guantanamo, dos Bolsonaristas, todos. São nesses princípios que eu acredito. É isso que eu vou defender sempre
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/01/11/entertainment/demi-lovato-poster-banned-g... https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/universal-music-operations-ltd-g22-1168872-un... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUMJDAG3QNk Madonna's Catholic SEX Book BANNED Britain’s advertising regulator has banned a poster promoting Demi Lovato’s most recent album for being “likely to cause serious offence to Christians.” The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) launched an investigation into the poster, which was seen at multiple sites across London in August, after receiving complaints from four members of the public. The poster featured an image of the album cover under the headline “HOLY FVCK,” which is also the name of the album. The image showed Lovato sprawled across a large cushioned crucifix in a leather bondage-style outfit. Under the UK’s code for non-broadcast advertising, ads must be prepared with a “sense of responsibility” and must not contain anything likely to cause serious or widespread offense. According to the report published by the ASA Wednesday, the complainants “challenged whether the ad was likely to cause serious or widespread offence,” while some also suggested it was “irresponsibly placed” where children could see it. The watchdog investigated and upheld both aspects of the complaints, finding that both the language and the imagery used were likely to cause serious offense.
" As this latest 'Twitter Files' thread spreads across a holiday market, Elon Musk himself has opined on the efforts to bully the former Twitter executives into censoring ZeroHedge: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1615064194889691138 Zerohedge can be jerks at times, but they did nothing warranting suspension — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) January 16, 2023 We'll take the 'being jerks' jab... isn't that what the media is supposed to be? "
Biden unbans Communist Socialist China His party Twitter bans prove he didn't do it because he believes in free speech or free software. Why TikTok Must Be Banned In US And Free World https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19295/tiktok-ban-us https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-reverses-trump-s-effort-b... https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/7218234/MEMORANDUM-for-the-SECRETARY.... https://thediplomat.com/2019/02/the-real-danger-of-chinas-national-intellige... https://www.facebook.com/SenatorHawley/posts/pfbid02rrRFwWu4X7mcjs8pxk9STXQM... https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dem-sen-mark-warner-trump-was-right-banning... https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/3694346-tiktok-is-chinas-trojan-horse... https://www.axios.com/2022/11/01/interview-fcc-commissioner-says-government-... https://www.forbes.com/sites/emilybaker-white/2022/10/20/tiktok-bytedance-su... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/dec/22/tiktok-bytedance-workers-... https://abcnews.go.com/Business/texas-gov-greg-abbott-bans-tiktok-state-devi... https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/11/10/marco-rubio-ban-tiktok-am... https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/19/technology/tiktok-browser-tracking.html https://www.lawfareblog.com/unpacking-tiktok-mobile-apps-and-national-securi... https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/12/23/china-tech-giants-process-stolen-data-s... https://stratechery.com/2020/the-tiktok-war/ https://www.aspi.org.au/report/tiktok-wechat https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/28/20986867/tiktok-unblock-us-teen-china-cr... https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/medien/zensur-bei-tiktok-sternchen-be... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0xzuh-6rY Spinach and Opium https://www.deseret.com/2022/11/24/23467181/difference-between-tik-tok-in-ch... The United States recently banned TikTok from all federal government devices over growing security concerns. That is a good start. TikTok, FBI Director Christopher Wray warned at the beginning of December, is controlled by the Chinese government, which is a national security concern. TikTok, a video-sharing app owned by Chinese company ByteDance, has, according to TikTok's own estimates, 1 billion users worldwide. In 2021, TikTok had approximately 87 million users in the US, according to Statista. Disturbingly, a recent study found that 10% of US adults get their news from the Chinese app, up from 3% in 2020. Wray said that China's government can control the app's recommendation algorithm, "which allows them to manipulate content, and if they want to, to use it for influence operations." "All of these things are in the hands of a government that doesn't share our values, and that has a mission that's very much at odds with what's in the best interests of the United States. That should concern us," Wray said in a speech at the University of Michigan. Wray's comments echoed those he made at the "Worldwide Threats to the Homeland" hearing held at the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee on November 15. "We do have national security concerns at least from the FBI's end about TikTok," Wray stated. "They include the possibility that the Chinese government could use it to control data collection on millions of users. Or control the recommendation algorithm, which could be used for influence operations if they so chose. Or to control software on millions of devices, which gives it opportunity to potentially technically compromise personal devices." Wray's concerns are not new -- actually, they come a bit late. In 2020, President Donald J. Trump, citing similar security concerns, tried to ban the app in the US, in addition to sanctioning the company, but several federal judges ruled against both sanctions and a ban, blocking his attempts. One judge ruled that the ban failed "to adequately consider an obvious and reasonable alternative before banning TikTok" and that the ban was "arbitrary and capricious." "ByteDance's submission and compliance with Chinese law has rendered it a reliable, useful, and far reaching ear and mouthpiece for the Party and State," the Trump administration wrote at the time in a document motivating the proposed ban. The document cited ByteDance's commitment to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) as resulting in "systemic censorship of content across its platforms" and "the harvesting of user data." In the document, the Trump administration stressed noted: "ByteDance, as a company, and its subsidiaries are subject to PRC national security laws that require or compel the assistance of any Chinese citizen or entity in surveillance and intelligence operations. As ByteDance is subject to PRC jurisdiction, PRC laws can compel cooperation from ByteDance..." Chinese law requires all Chinese companies to turn over information to the Communist Party upon request -- and ByteDance reportedly employs more than 130 Party members to ensure compliance, among other matters. The Trump administration stated : "One of the foremost national security risks presented by the TikTok mobile application in the United States is the possibility that the PRC government could, through lawful authority, extralegal influence (Communist Party) influence, or PRCISS, compel TikTok to provide systemic access to U.S. user's sensitive personal information. A number of press reports clearly indicate the PRC Government has already compelled TikTok to assist them for domestic surveillance, censorship, and propaganda action within China, and their compliance is indicative of how they are likely to respond to intelligence requests on U.S. users. Given the bounty of information TikTok could offer on foreign users, as well as the aforementioned cyber tactics employed by the PRC, the Department of Commerce assesses the PRC and PRCISS would not limit their use of TikTok to domestic concerns and would instead use it for foreign intelligence and surveillance." Furthermore, similar to the concerns expressed by Wray, the Trump administration argued, "The PRC government and the CCP can exert influence on ByteDance and, through the TikTok app, censor and shape content available to U.S. users in ways that can influence their opinions and views of China." In April 2021, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley wrote: "TikTok is a Trojan Horse for the Chinese Communist Party that has no place on government devices—or any American devices, for that matter.... TikTok has repeatedly proven itself to be a malicious actor." According to Adonis Hoffman, a former chief of staff and senior legal advisor at the FCC who has served in legal and policy positions in the U.S. House of Representatives: "Its algorithm is at once simple and sinister. Download the app on your smartphone and you have given China access to all your data... This opens a treasure trove of data on millions of Americans for the Chinese government to use whenever and however they choose. And history shows they use that data for nefarious purposes." President Joe Biden reversed Trump's attempt at banning TikTok, signing an executive order in June 2021 that revoked Trump's proposed ban. Instead, the Biden administration has sought to work out the security concerns with ByteDance through a negotiated deal with the Chinese company that would reportedly allow TikTok to continue operating in the US without any change of ownership. "Well, I think Donald Trump was right," Senator Mark Warner, D-Va., chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, recently said. "I mean, TikTok is an enormous threat. So, if you're a parent, and you've got a kid on TikTok, I would be very, very concerned. All of that data that your child is inputting and receiving is being stored somewhere in Beijing." Brendan Carr, a Republican commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission, said in November that the only way to resolve the national security concerns regarding TikTok would be to ban the app. "I don't believe there is a path forward for anything other than a ban," Carr said. According to Axios: There simply isn't "a world in which you could come up with sufficient protection on the data that you could have sufficient confidence that it's not finding its way back into the hands of the [Chinese Communist Party]," Carr said. In October, Forbes revealed that a China-based team at ByteDance had planned to use TikTok to track the locations of an unspecified number of Americans. In December, it was revealed that ByteDance had used the app to surveil several journalists to track down the journalists' sources. According to Texas Governor Greg Abbott: "TikTok harvests vast amounts of data from its users' devices -- including when, where and how they conduct internet activity -- and offers this trove of potentially sensitive information to the Chinese government," Also in December, Indiana became the first U.S. state to sue TikTok, for misleading users about the Chinese government's capacity to access their data and showing mature content to minors. "The company's ownership of TikTok is problematic for two reasons," wrote Republican Senator Marco Rubio and Republican US Representative Mike Gallagher. "First, the app can track cellphone users' locations and collect internet-browsing data — even when users are visiting unrelated website. "That TikTok, and by extension the CCP, has the ability to survey every keystroke teenagers enter on their phones is disturbing. With this app, Beijing could also collect sensitive national security information from U.S. government employees and develop profiles on millions of Americans to use for blackmail or espionage... Even more alarming than that possibility, however, are the potential abuses of TikTok's algorithm... Its algorithm is a black box, in that its designers can alter its operation at any time without informing users... in the hands of ByteDance, it could also be used to subtly indoctrinate American citizens. TikTok has already censored references to politically sensitive topics, including the treatment of workers in Xinjiang, China, and the 1989 protests in Tiananmen Square. It has temporarily blocked an American teenager who criticized the treatment of Uyghurs in China. In German videos about Chinese conduct toward Uyghurs, TikTok has modified subtitles for terms such as 'reeducation camp' and 'labor camp,' replacing words with asterisks." In China, the content available on TikTok could not be more different. China serves up the "spinach version": science, physics, engineering and patriotism. In the US, TikTok serves up the "opium version." Tristan Harris, a former Google employee, said of China's approach to TikTok on CBS' 60 Minutes: "It's almost like [the Chinese] recognize that technology is influencing kids' development, and they make their domestic version a spinach version of TikTok, while they ship the opium version to the rest of the world." "If you're under 14 years old, they show you science experiments you can do at home, museum exhibits, patriotism videos and educational videos," said Harris of the content served by TikTok within China, adding that Chinese children were limited to only 40 minutes a day on the app. "There's a survey of pre-teens in the U.S. and China asking, 'what is the most aspirational career that you want to have?' and in the U.S., the No. 1 was a social media influencer, and in China, the No. 1 was astronaut. You allow those two societies to play out for a few generations and I can tell you what your world is going to look like." TikTok urgently needs to be banned from the US and the rest of the free world.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/covid-narrative-dissenters-file-antitrust-acti... https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/TNI-Complaint-1.10.22.... COVID-Narrative Dissenters File Lawsuit Against Legacy Media Over Coordinated Censorship A coalition of outspoken critics and skeptics of the mainstream narratives on COVID-19 has brought an antitrust lawsuit against some of the world’s largest news organizations, accusing them of working in collaboration to suppress dissenting voices surrounding the pandemic. Attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attends the 2018 Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights' Ripple Of Hope Awards at New York Hilton Midtown in New York City on Dec. 12, 2018. (Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images) The lawsuit (pdf), filed on Tuesday in a federal court in Texas, targets The Washington Post, the British Broadcasting Corp (BBC), The Associated Press (AP), and Reuters—all of which are members of the “Trusted News Initiative (TNI),” a self-described “industry partnership” formed in 2020 among legacy media giants and big tech companies. “By their own admission, members of the TNI have agreed to work together, and have in fact worked together, to exclude from the world’s dominant internet platforms rival news publishers who engage in reporting that challenges and competes with TNI members’ reporting on certain issues relating to COVID-19 and U.S. politics,” the complaint reads. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a critic of the Biden administration’s COVID-19 vaccination policies, led the lawsuit. He is joined by Creative Destruction Media, Trial Site News, Truth About Vaccines founders Ty and Charlene Bollinger, independent journalist Ben Swann, Health Nut News publisher Erin Elizabeth Finn, Gateway Pundit founder Jim Hoft, Dr. Joseph Mercola, and Ben Tapper, a chiropractor. The plaintiffs, the lawsuit alleges, are among the many victims of the TNI’s “group boycott” tactic, defined as a coordinated effort to facilitate monopoly by cutting off the competitors’ access to supplies and necessities. In this case, the TNI members are accused of engaging in group boycott—in concert with their big tech partners—against small, independent news publishers by denying them access to internet platforms they need to compete and even survive in the online news market. “As a result of the TNI’s group boycott, [the plaintiffs] have been censored, de-monetized, demoted, throttled, shadow-banned, and/or excluded entirely from platforms like Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, and Linked-In,” the lawsuit states. For example, the lawsuit claims, TNI members have been working with Big Tech to censor what they condemned as “misinformation,” such as reports that COVID may have originated in a laboratory in the Chinese city of Wuhan, that the COVID vaccines do not prevent infection, and that vaccinated people may still transmit COVID to others. This alleged effort to establish a dominant media narrative by shutting off nonestablishment outlets, according to the lawsuit, has violated both federal antitrust and freedom of speech laws. “Federal antitrust law has its own name for this kind of ‘industry partnership,'” the lawsuit states. “It’s called a group boycott and is a per se violation of the Sherman Act.” Read more here...
Ukrainian Activist Lauded By Western Media Says She Wants "All Russians" To Be "Wiped Off The Face Of The Earth" https://summit.news/2023/01/16/ukrainian-activist-lauded-by-western-media-sa... A Ukrainian activist who has been lauded by legacy media outlets called for “all Russians” to be “wiped off the face of the Earth.” The genocidal remarks were made by blogger Melania Podoliak in response to a missile hitting an apartment block in the Ukrainian city of Dnepr. The building was struck after a Russian missile was shot down by a Ukrainian anti-air weapon, according to Aleksey Arestovich, an adviser to President Vladimir Zelensky. “It’s absolutely fair for me to wish for all Russians and Russia to be wiped off the face of the Earth,” Podoliak tweeted. “It’s not hate speech, it’s not horrible of me, it’s just FAIR,” she added. It’s absolutely fair for me to wish for all Russians and Russia to be wiped off the face of the Earth. It’s not hate speech, it’s not horrible of me, it’s just FAIR. 14.01.2013, Dnipro, a residential building after Russian missile attack. pic.twitter.com/4TPHYm13a8 — Melaniya Podolyak (@MelaniePodolyak) January 14, 2023 Quite how it was “fair” for all Russians to be killed in response to their government being embroiled in a war wasn’t explained by Podoliak. Her comments were flagged after it was noted that Podoliak has been given a platform by numerous western legacy media outlets, including on NBC News as a “political activist” and by Fox News as a “media consultant.” Critics accused Podoliak of being “pro-ethnic cleansing,” to which she responded by tweeting swear words. Fuuuuuck you — Melaniya Podolyak (@MelaniePodolyak) January 14, 2023 After some respondents said they knew Podoliak’s home address, she told them they were in for “a big fucking treat,” posting a photo of herself holding a shotgun. Cool, now these bots threaten me by letting me know they have my address Well if you know that, you also know your in for a big fucking treat. Cya! (Unless you want to waste an entire missile on me, which is going to change nothing for you, you’re still gonna get fuucked) https://t.co/4iesIszNGw pic.twitter.com/EbRkD8krPp — Melaniya Podolyak (@MelaniePodolyak) January 15, 2023 This isn’t the first time we’ve heard such genocidal rhetoric. As we previously highlighted, Ukrainian TV host Fahruddin Sharafmal took to the airwaves to demand the genocide of Russian children, quoting top Nazi Adolf Eichmann as he called for “killing children.”
nitter Logo Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 United States Joined December 2022 Tweets 210 Following 145 Followers 36,483 Likes 107 61 Photos and videos Tweets Tweets & Replies Media Search Load newest Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 20.Bryan Weisbard. Current Facebook Trust & Safety. Formerly 9 years of “multiple senior level leadership positions in US Government Intelligence Community.” Former Twitter Online Safety & Security Analysis 4 years. Former Youtube Trust & Safety 1 year. linkedin.com/in/bryanweisbar… 5 482 7 1,468 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 21.Hagan Barnett. Current Facebook Trust & Safety Operations Lead. Former Self Employed Contractor CIA 1 year, Booz Allen 4 years, US Department of Treasury 3 years. linkedin.com/in/haganbarnett… Hagan Barnett - Herndon, Virginia, United States | Professional Profile | LinkedIn View Hagan Barnett’s professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world’s largest business network, helping professionals like Hagan Barnett discover inside connections to recommended job... linkedin.com 2 428 6 1,384 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 22.Jeff Lazarus. Current Facebook Trust & Safety. Former Apple Trust & Safety 1 year. Former Google Trust & Safety 4 years. Former CIA 5 years. linkedin.com/in/jeff-lazarus… Jeff Lazarus - Strategic Response - Meta | LinkedIn View Jeff Lazarus’ profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Jeff has 5 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Jeff’s connections and... linkedin.com 6 485 5 1,439 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 23.Chon Rosa. Current Facebook Trust & Safety. Former US Army Intelligence & Security Command 4 years. linkedin.com/in/chon-c-rosa/ 2 434 4 1,376 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 24.Jason Barry. Current Facebook Trust & Safety Manager. Former DHS 7 years. linkedin.com/in/jason-barry-… Jason Barry - Trust and Safety Manager - Facebook | LinkedIn View Jason Barry’s profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Jason has 3 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Jason’s connections and... linkedin.com 1 432 5 1,371 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 25.Rick Cavalieros. Current Facebook Trust & Safety Manager. Former FBI 21 years. linkedin.com/in/rick-cavalie… Rick Cavalieros - Fort Lauderdale, Florida, United States | Professional Profile | LinkedIn View Rick Cavalieros’ professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world’s largest business network, helping professionals like Rick Cavalieros discover inside connections to recommended job... linkedin.com 2 423 5 1,352 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 26. Sandeep A. (He/Him). Current Senior Investigator Trust & Safety. Former NSA SIGINT Lead Analyst 4 years. linkedin.com/in/sandeep-abra… Sandeep A. - Senior Investigator, Trust & Safety Risk Intelligence - Meta | LinkedIn View Sandeep A.’s profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Sandeep has 1 job listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Sandeep’s connections... linkedin.com 4 398 4 1,319 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 27. Amarpreet G. (She/Her). Current Facebook Product Integrity, Elections. Former FBI 6 years. linkedin.com/in/amarpreet-gh… Amarpreet G. - Product Integrity, Elections - Meta | LinkedIn View Amarpreet G.’s profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Amarpreet has 5 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Amarpreet’s... linkedin.com 4 405 4 1,296 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 28. Brian Kelley. Current Facebook Law Enforcement Outreach Manager. Former FBI 7 years. linkedin.com/in/briankelley0… Brian Kelley - Law Enforcement Outreach Manager - Facebook | LinkedIn Experienced Lead Associate with a demonstrated history of working in the law enforcement and management consulting industry. Skilled in Counterterrorism, Criminal Law, Criminal Investigations, Law... linkedin.com 8 417 2 1,311 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 29. Aleah Houze. Current Facebook Product Policy Manager. Former NSA 7 years. linkedin.com/in/aleah-houze/ Aleah Houze - Product Policy Manager - Meta | LinkedIn Expertise in counseling product teams to build with safety, integrity, privacy, transparency, and expression in mind. I love building systems and frameworks that enable organizations to operate in a... linkedin.com 5 407 5 1,301 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 30. Shawn Turskey. Current Facebook Global Director Security Investigations. Former NSA 19 years. Former US Cyber Command 4 years. linkedin.com/in/shawnturskey… Shawn Turskey - Global Director Security Investigations at Meta Financial Technologies at Meta... On September 26, 2022, I joined Meta, specifically Meta Financial Technologies as the Global Director of Security Investigations where I leverage my C-suite experience & passion to build relationsh... linkedin.com 4 407 2 1,292 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 31. Mike Torrey. Current Facebook Security Engineer Investigator. Former NSA 3 years. Former CIA 9 years. linkedin.com/in/mike-torrey-… Mike Torrey - Security Engineer Investigator, Threat Intelligence (Meta/Facebook) - Meta | LinkedIn Expert with extensive experience analyzing and disrupting cyber threats. Extensive public and private sector experience in cyber threat intelligence and response, including against information... linkedin.com 13 397 3 1,274 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 32. Corey Ponder. Current Facebook Senior Strategist. Former Policy Consultant DHS 7 months. Former CIA 6 years. Former Policy Advisor Google 2 years. linkedin.com/in/coreytponder… Corey P. - Brooklyn, New York, United States | Professional Profile | LinkedIn View Corey P.’s professional profile on LinkedIn. LinkedIn is the world’s largest business network, helping professionals like Corey P. discover inside connections to recommended job candidates,... linkedin.com 5 239 1 697 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 33. John Papp (He/Him). Current Facebook Infrastructure ASIC Sourcer. Former DIA 4 years. Former CIA 12 years. linkedin.com/in/johnpapp/ John L. Papp, Jr. - Sr. Technical Sourcer - Northrop Grumman | LinkedIn As a former Sr. Intelligence Officer for the CIA, I come to Technical Sourcing with a unique background and needless to say, I approach "recruitment" from a slightly different perspective than most.... linkedin.com 1 251 1 709 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 34. Nick Lovrien (He/Him). Current Facebook Chief Global Security. Current Board Director US State Department. Former CIA 5 years. linkedin.com/in/nick-lovrien… Nick Lovrien, CPP - Chief Global Security Officer - Vice President - Meta | LinkedIn Nick Lovrien, CPP (He/Him), serves as Vice President, Chief Security Officer, for the Fortune 50 company Meta and its family of services: Facebook | Instagram | Messenger | WhatsApp | Quest | Portal... linkedin.com 1 231 1 677 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 35. Cameron H. Current Facebook Workflow Risk Project Manager. Former CIA 4 years. linkedin.com/in/cameron-h-75… Cameron H. - Workflow Risk Project Manager - Meta | LinkedIn View Cameron H.’s profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Cameron has 8 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Cameron’s connections... linkedin.com 2 220 1 660 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 36. Andi Allen (She/Her). Current Facebook Senior Technical Recruiter. Current “Talent Partner” for helpukraine22.org/ . Former CIA 4 years. linkedin.com/in/andi-allen-6… Andi Allen - Talent Partner - Help Ukraine 22 | LinkedIn I've interpreted foreign intelligence for the President of the United States as a CIA analyst. Now I'm recruiting for Infrastructure Data Centers at Meta. I've worked on the Starlink global satellite... linkedin.com 4 210 1 642 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 37. Travis M. Current Facebook Technical Investigator. Former NSA 10 years. linkedin.com/in/travis-m/ 2 206 1 635 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 38. Keith Pridgen. Current Facebook Program Manager. Former NSA 2 years. Former US Navy Information Warfare Officer 7 years. linkedin.com/in/keithpridgen… Keith Pridgen - Program Manager - Meta | LinkedIn View Keith Pridgen’s profile on LinkedIn, the world’s largest professional community. Keith has 5 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Keith’s connections... linkedin.com 2 207 1 627 Name Redacted @NameRedacted247 19 Dec 2022 39. Daniel Kaiser. Current Facebook Research Data Scientist. Former NSA 2 years. linkedin.com/in/daniel-kaise… Daniel Kaiser - Lead Data Scientist - The Home Depot | LinkedIn • Full stack data scientist, leader of global interdisciplinary technical teams comprised of Data Engineers, Machine Learning Engineers, Data Architects, Software Engineers, and Data Scientists. •... linkedin.com 3 203 1 624 Show this thread Load more
https://twitter.com/NameRedacted247 https://www.theepochtimes.com/jordan-subpoenas-big-tech-execs-in-house-weapo... https://www.theepochtimes.com/house-republicans-allege-weaponization-of-fbi-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-select-subcommittee-on-the-weaponization-of-... https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-fbi-is-rotted-at-its-core-republicans-hold... https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/jim-jordan-sends-demands-bi... Jordan Subpoenas Big Tech CEOs In House 'Weaponization' Probe House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) says he has subpoenaed the CEOs of top U.S. Big Tech firms as part of Republicans’ ongoing investigation into the weaponization of the federal government. U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, delivers remarks during a business meeting prior to a hearing on U.S. southern border security on Capitol Hill in Washington on Feb. 1, 2023. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images) In November, House Republicans unveiled a 1,050-page report detailing whistleblower findings from FBI agents. Since then, the House majority authorized the creation of the House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, which held its inaugural hearing on Feb. 9. Now, Jordan has sent subpoena requests to several major tech executives asking for documents and testimony. “Today, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan subpoenaed the chief executive officers of Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, and Microsoft for documents and communications relating to the federal government’s reported collusion with Big Tech to suppress free speech,” Jordan’s office said in a statement emailed to the Epoch Times. “The House Judiciary Committee has repeatedly attempted to engage with the five companies since last December,” the release continues. “Unfortunately, the companies have not adequately complied with our requests.” Jordan was referencing a series of Dec. 14, 2022, letters his office sent to various tech executives. The CEOs—Alphabet’s (Google) Sundar Pichai, Amazon’s Andy Jassy, Apple’s Tim Cook, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, and Microsoft’s Satya Nadella—have until March 23 to provide any communications between them and the federal government’s executive branch on the subject. “Big Tech is out to get conservatives, and is increasingly willing to undermine First Amendment values by complying with the Biden Administration’s directives that suppress freedom of speech online,” Jordan wrote, in excerpts from the letter to the executives posted to his website. “This approach undermines fundamental American principles and allows powerful government actors to silence political opponents and stifle opposing viewpoints,” he continued. “Publicly available information suggests that your companies’ treatment of certain speakers and content may stem from government directives or guidance designed to suppress dissenting views. “Big Tech’s role in shaping national and international public discourse today is well-known. In some cases, Big Tech’s ‘heavy-handed censorship’ has been ‘use[d] to silence prominent voices’ and to ‘stifle views that disagree with the prevailing progressive consensus.’ “Because of Big Tech’s wide reach, it can serve as a powerful and effective partisan arm of the ‘woke speech police.’ Although the full extent of Big Tech’s collusion with the Biden Administration is unknown, there are prominent examples and strong indications of Big Tech censorship following directives or pressure from executive branch entities. “These examples raise serious concerns about how and why tech companies suppress, silence, or reduce the reach of certain political speech and speakers. The collusion of Big Tech and Big Government to advance censorship undeniably undermines liberty and jeopardizes our country’s First Amendment values and protections.” Jordan cited long-held concerns among conservatives that their viewpoints are disproportionately stifled on social media platforms through outright bans, removal of certain posts, and “shadow banning,” which dramatically reduce a person’s reach on most social media platforms. President Donald Trump considered the issue a concern as early as 2019, and attempted at the end of his presidency to gut the legal liability protections currently enjoyed by Big Tech platforms. With Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and the release of documents from the platform’s previous management, it’s become clear that these concerns were well-founded, and have been proven that the firms were engaging in censorship of certain viewpoints. Read more here...
Bill Gates was major 1984 style trouble ever since he continued to write closed source NSA_KEY software and use the deadly violence of the State to enforce "copyright" fiction. Free Speech Is Futile: Gates Goes Full 'Borg' On AI Censorship https://jonathanturley.org/2023/02/15/free-speech-is-futile-gates-goes-full-... https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Quotes/ResistanceIsFutile https://nypost.com/2023/01/28/inside-chatgpts-woke-ai-problem/ https://www.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-says-political-polarization-195918789.... https://jonathanturley.org/2021/09/29/enlightened-algorithms-democrats-call-... https://jonathanturley.org/2023/02/14/unmasking-covid-claims-scientific-revi... https://nypost.com/2021/07/16/psaki-white-house-in-touch-with-facebook-to-pu... https://jonathanturley.org/2022/11/05/de-madness-biden-unleashes-tirade-over... https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/11/18/1012066/emtech-stage-twitters-ct... https://nypost.com/2023/02/08/house-panel-seeks-out-collusion-between-fbi-tw... https://nypost.com/2023/02/05/chatgpt-is-dangerous-but-not-in-the-way-you-th... https://nypost.com/2023/02/07/microsoft-adds-chatgpt-ai-technology-to-bing-s... Below is my column in the New York Post on the call of Bill Gates to use Artificial Intelligence to combat “political polarization” on the Internet. It turns out the problem on the Internet is those pesky humans “who want to believe … things” that they should not. Enter the new AI Overlords to bring collective peace and tranquility through content assimilation. Here is the column: “We are the AI.” That Borg-like greeting could be coming soon to the internet in the form of new AI overlords. In a recent chilling interview, Microsoft founder and billionaire Bill Gates called for the use of artificial intelligence to combat not just “digital misinformation” but “political polarization.” He is only the latest to call for the use of either AI or algorithms to shape what people say or read on the internet. The danger of such a system is evident where free speech, like resistance, could become futile. In an interview on a German program, “Handelsblatt Disrupt,” Gates calls for unleashing AI to stop certain views from being “magnified by digital channels.” The problem is that we allow “various conspiracy theories like QAnon or whatever to be blasted out by people who wanted to believe those things.” Gates added that AI can combat “political polarization” by checking “confirmation bias.” Confirmation bias is a term long used to describe the tendency of people to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms their own beliefs. It is now being used to dismiss those with opposing views as ignorant slobs dragging their knuckles across the internet — people endangering us all by failing to accept the logic behind policies on COVID, climate change or a host of other political issues. This is not the first call for AI overlords to protect us from ourselves. Last September, Gates gave the keynote address at the Forbes 400 Summit on Philanthropy. He told his fellow billionaires that “polarization and lack of trust is a problem.” The problem is again … well … people: “People seek simple solutions [and] the truth is kind of boring sometimes.” Not AI, of course. That would supply the solutions. Otherwise, Gates suggested, we could all die: “Political polarization may bring it all to an end, we’re going to have a hung election and a civil war.” Others have suggested a Brave New World where citizens will be carefully guided in what they read and see. Democratic leaders have called for a type of “enlightened algorithms” to frame what citizens access on the internet. In 2021, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) objected that people were not listening to the informed views of herself and leading experts. Instead, they were reading views of skeptics by searching Amazon and finding books by “prominent spreaders of misinformation.” Warren blamed Amazon for failing to limit searches or choices: “This pattern and practice of misbehavior suggests that Amazon is either unwilling or unable to modify its business practices to prevent the spread of falsehoods or the sale of inappropriate products.” In her letter, Warren gave the company 14 days to change its algorithms to throttle and obstruct efforts to read opposing views. Social media responded to such calls and engaged in widespread censorship of those who held opposing views of mask mandates, vaccine safety, school mandates, and the origin of COVID-19. Many of those criticisms and views are now acknowledged as plausible and legitimate, but scientists were banned and censored. There was no “polarization” allowed. The public never was allowed to have that full debate on social media because such views were declared disinformation. President Biden joined in these calls for censorship, often sounding like a censor-in-chief, denouncing social media companies for “killing people” by not blocking enough. Recently, he expressed doubt that the public can “know the truth” without such censorship by “editors” in Big Tech. They found an eager body of censors at companies like Twitter. After taking over as CEO, Parag Agrawal pledged to regulate content as “reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation.” Agrawal said the company would “focus less on thinking about free speech” because “speech is easy on the internet. Most people can speak. Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard.” That view was echoed last week in the first hearing on Twitter’s censorship program. Former Twitter executive Anika Collier Navaroli testified on what she repeatedly called the “nuanced” standard used by her and her staff on censorship. She explained that they did not just balance free speech against public safety in deciding whether to allow someone to speak. Rather censorship depended on the persons involved: “Whose free expression are we protecting at the expense of whose safety and whose safety are we willing to allow to go the winds so that people can speak freely?” All of that could be much easier with an AI Overlord that can protect us against our own doubts and divisions. Currently, Microsoft, the company Gates founded, uses NewsGuard, a self-described arbiter of misinformation, which rates sites and has been widely criticized for targeting conservative media. Now, this work could be turned over to an AI Overlord. Of course, the intelligence remains artificial. A human has to program what is truth and what is intolerable “polarization.” It would be a ramped-up version of ChatGPT, the popular AI service that Microsoft just incorporated into its Bing search engine. It censors “offensive” content and bars certain viewpoints because it was told to do so. AI enforces the collective truth that needs to be amplified for a greater good as determined by figures like Gates. We are clearly not facing a giant menacing cube circling our planet (No, the Chinese balloons don’t count). Yet, after years of censorship, you would be forgiven if it all sounds chillingly similar to “Lower your shields and surrender … Resistance is futile.”
The Censored Generation https://mises.org/wire/censored-generation Incredulity. Astonishment. Disgust. Anger. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IEFD_JVYd0 https://compactmag.com/article/a-black-professor-trapped-in-anti-racist-hell https://www.amazon.com/Foreign-Correspondent-Night-Soldiers/dp/0812967976 It is these feelings—amongst others—that describe the general reaction to the revelations of the Twitter Files and other egregious episodes of Big Tech censorship of the electronic public square. The implicit deal with companies like Twitter, Facebook, Google, etc. is very simple: we will look at your ads if you give us a service for free. The deal did not include censorship. But what is society to expect when those doing the censorship seem to see absolutely nothing wrong with it, and that it didn’t even occur to them that what they were engaged in—often at the specific request of governmental agencies—was at all a problem? For a generation that has grown up with speech codes, enforced nicety, automatic deference to the feelings of others, and has been swaddled in bubble wrap against the vagaries of life, censoring of speech is not only not an ethical leap, it is the right thing to do. Couple that with a permanent, purposeful self-infantilization that makes them defer to (or incoherently rage at for NOT censoring speech) anyone they perceive to be a grown-up—such as former FBI bigwig James Baker at Twitter—and the stage is not only set, but the terrifying end of the play writes itself. This generation is not necessarily Y, or X, or millennial—it’s a bit of a mix of those aged from about sixteen to about thirty-six, numbers that will, sadly, most likely become lower and lower on the low end and higher and higher on the high end as time marches on. It is a subcohort (I thought it best to learn their language) of people who have much in common—first, they have come from the now de rigueur smaller families, hence they do not have the thick skin and personal combat skills that one acquires when one has siblings. They have usually grown up relatively comfortably and are uncomfortable with confrontation. They went to the right schools, but they do not understand how other people can think differently. They are overcredentialed but actually vastly undereducated. They feel twinges of guilt when the grocery store delivers but are absolutely certain that a twenty-five-minute trip to the store is a waste of their valuable time. While there are many, many examples, two events stand out as exemplar moments for the censored generation. First, this rather well-known incident from Yale University in which a college student is angrily demanding to be treated like a child, and this chilling tale of a professor struggling to deal with the “best and the brightest” demanding to be lectured to rather than participate in a thoughtful seminar. Professor Vincent Lloyd, director of black studies at Villanova University, writes: Like others on the left, I had been dismissive of criticisms of the current discourse on race in the United States. But now my thoughts turned to that moment in the 1970s when leftist organizations imploded, the need to match and raise the militancy of one’s comrades leading to a toxic culture filled with dogmatism and disillusion. How did this happen to a group of bright-eyed high school students? This remembrance of things past, as it were, should not be viewed as garden variety “Get off my lawn!” generational angst. This is not, when complaining about Elvis Presley’s hips, purposefully failing to remember exactly how much underwear was visible at a 1940s swing dance. These two examples starkly show that a sea change has occurred in just the past ten or fifteen years. It is simply unimaginable that students prior would have demanded more boundaries, more restrictions, more lectures, more being told what to think, and, especially, more being told how to think. It literally has never happened before. This, to quote Alan Furst’s book The Foreign Correspondent, “doctrinal agony over symbols” has always existed, but it only flourished in insular monomaniacal environments, like the cloisters of a medieval monastery or a dingy backroom full of bickering Bolsheviks. Now, these ultimately meaningless disputes capture much of the globe’s attention and involve a race to the bottom of dogma, to a purity purgatory which, thanks to the speed of social media, has engulfed us all. The past has seen its share of equivalent events and trends, but the speed at which “facts” and thoughts and concepts move on the internet essentially destroys the usual “predators” of bad ideas—nuance, history, research, reason, time to reflect, reliable sourcing, and proper context. This has allowed people to simply ignore or dismiss anything they think may contravene their own ideations and the ideations of whatever happens to be ascendent that particular day. It is this permanent state of flux, intentionally unmoored from the evil past and its expectations, that allows the unthinkable to not only be thought but to be acted upon. And because this is the only world—a world in nonchalant destruction—the censored generation has ever known, it is only natural that they are so terrified of saying the wrong thing, doing the wrong thing, straying too far from the dictate of the day that they cannot grasp the enormity of their actions. The astonishment of North Korea defector Yeomani Park as she has wound her way through Columbia University—“I realized, wow, this is insane. I thought America was different but I saw so many similarities to what I saw in North Korea that I started worrying.”—is a warning that should be heeded but has not. It is the ultimate outsider noticing what others cannot or will not, and it is disturbing to the core. Or at least it would be if it were not so dejectedly unsurprising. This abandonment by putative progressives of the most cherished progressive position—all can speak, all can be heard, and you can decide to listen or not—is beginning to wear thin on even the older left-of-centers. Joyce Carol Oates touched off a Twitter storm—of course, sigh—when she savaged the recent announcement of the posthumous reediting of the work of Roald Dahl by sensitivity readers hired by the publishing house. For his part, Richard Dawkins—again, not a card-carrying conservative—said recently when asked about proposed elimination of the use of words like “man” or “woman” from scientific papers, “I am not going to be told by some teenage version of Mrs. Grundy which words of my native language I may or may not use.” But it will take more than shame for the censored generation to understand its own aggressive emptiness. It is not until the system that created them, credentialed them, and now employs them changes itself that they will be able to see themselves differently, as discrete individuals capable of freedom of thought and capable of allowing others that same basic right. And those systems—educational, governmental, financial, social, cultural—have no reason to change. For now.
AOC, the jumping-mad hoe (AOC was a broke cocktail waitress upon entering US ConGress, four years later and reports say somehow having net worth ~ $1.5M), tries to censor critics and catcalls with Lawfare... free rage-jumping speech for her, not for you... 'Big Booty Latina' AOC Sued By Comedian She Blocked Over Catcall https://www.cnbc.com/2023/03/08/comedian-sues-aoc-for-twitter-block-after-he... https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/05/supreme-court-erases-lower-court-ruling-agai... https://www.nationalreview.com/news/aoc-likely-violated-ethics-rules-in-acce... https://nypost.com/2023/03/05/aoc-begged-to-go-to-met-gala-even-if-it-meant-... Alongside Rashida Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez was the first female member of the Democratic Socialists of America elected to serve in Congress. Alex Stein, a political provocateur who called Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez his "favorite big booty Latina," is suing AOC for blocking him on Twitter. "She wants to kill babies but she’s still beautiful. You look very beautiful in that dress. You look very sexy. Look at that booty on AOC," he said last July amid a national debate over abortion. "Look how sexy she looks in that dress. Oooh, I love it AOC. Hot, hot, hot like a tamale," Stein continued. Despite flashing a peace sign, she claimed that she was "actually walking over to deck him." Here is a video he posted of the incident. I was actually walking over to deck him because if no one will protect us then I’ll do it myself but I needed to catch a vote more than a case today pic.twitter.com/RdwCNBDIBb — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) July 14, 2022 Stein's lawsuit cites a decision by a federal appeals court which ruled that then-President Donald Trump violated the constitutional rights of several people after he blocked them on Twitter. Days after the Trump ruling, AOC apologized to and settled a case brought by former Brooklyn assemblyman Dov Hikind, who sued her for blocking him, CNBC reports. AOC eventually lifted the block, and admitted that he "has a First Amendment right to express his views and should not be blocked for them." Stein seeks the same response. "I really don’t have any hard feelings for AOC," he said, adding "I really would like to have her unblock me." If the congresswoman fights the complaint, it would reopen the legal argument about the rights of political figures to prevent certain individuals or groups from following them on social media platforms. In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court erased the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Trump had violated the First Amendment rights of the people he had blocked from his Twitter account while serving in the White House. The Supreme Court ordered the appeals court to dismiss the case as moot, because Trump by then was a private citizen. -CNBC Stein's suit claims AOC blocked him "in retaliation to Mr. Stein’s exercise of his First Amendment right, because earlier that day Mr. Stein, in the context of political commentary and satire, complimented Ms. Cortez." "Mr. Stein has a constitutional right to access Ms. Cortez’s Twitter account as part of vigorous public comment and criticism," the filing continues. "Ms. Cortez’s practice of blocking Twitter users she disagrees with is unconstitutional and this suit seeks to redress that wrong."
France's First Lady Loses Transgender Lawsuit https://www.lepoint.fr/politique/rumeurs-transphobes-la-justice-annule-une-p... https://lemediaen442.fr/brigitte-macron-perd-son-proces-contre-deux-femmes-q... https://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/relationships/macron-affair-french-presid... Brigitte Macron, the First Lady of France, filed a complaint last year against two women who uploaded a YouTube video titled "Brigitte Macron is a man." The video alleged that Brigitte had a gender reassignment at 18. On Wednesday, the French newspaper Le Point reported that Brigitte's complaint against the two women was "voided" by a Paris Judge. In its decision, consulted by AFP, the court declared void the summons issued by Brigitte Macron for invasion of privacy and image rights, considering that the facts she denounced should have been qualified of public defamation. Brigitte Macron, her brother, and the three children of the First Lady had assigned two women on February 15, 2022, one presenting herself as a "medium," the other as an "independent journalist." They asked the court to condemn these two women to pay them damages for having broadcast on the YouTube channel of the "medium", on December 10, 2021, "a perfectly eccentric thesis" according to which Brigitte Macron, born Trogneux, does not would never have existed, but that his brother would have taken on this identity after changing sex. "It is hard to imagine that the First Lady of France, accompanied by the best lawyers, erred in qualifying her complaint as defamation rather than an invasion of privacy. Unless she tries to drop the case as soon as possible and not go any further," French media outlet Le Média en 4-4-2 wrote. Brigitte's transgender rumor appeared around France's 2022 presidential elections. Despite the video receiving hundreds of thousands of views and trending on Twitter for days, Emmanuel still pulled off a victory. A more serious accusation is the affair Brigitte had with Emmanuel when she was 39yo, and he was 15yo schoolboy...
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/03/08/tech/biden-tiktok-bill/index.html The White House has endorsed a Senate bill that members unveiled Tuesday, which would give the U.S. government more far-reaching powers in restricting and even banning foreign-linked software or electronics producers. As Statista's Katharina Buchholz reports, the draft law is considered to be aimed at Chinese-owned social media network TikTok, even though it doesn't explicitly name the service. The Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act - RESTRICT for short - is being unveiled after two years of largely fruitless negotiations with TikTok to address U.S. national security concerns surrounding the app. Concern over how much of TikTok's user data could be seen - and potentially weaponized - by the Chinese government has been heightening in the U.S. and Europe alike. As seen in data by Statista Market Insights, TikTok has curated a large following in the United States and Europe, with its app revenue market share surpassing those of older social media networks like Instagram and Facebook - both U.S. owned. Infographic: TikTok: Social Media Heavyweight | Statista You will find more infographics at Statista In the United States, TikTok's share is already comprising 26 percent of the market, far ahead of Instagram's 14 percent. However, advertisers have been sticking to longer-standing services. TikTok's social media ad spending share in the U.S. as well as the UK and Germany hovered between 9-12 percent, behind larger ad players Facebook, Instagram as well as professional networks Linkedin (i.e. equivalent Xing in the German market).
Uncivilized mobs, Leftist screechers as usual... Should The Names Of Stanford Student Disrupters Be Published? https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19476/stanford-student-disrupters https://freebeacon.com/campus/dogshit-federal-judge-decries-disruption-of-hi... https://freebeacon.com/campus/hundreds-of-yale-law-students-disrupt-bipartis... https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/599486-free-speech-under-attack-at-two... https://www.thecollegefix.com/video-stanford-law-dei-dean-rowdy-student-prot... Once again, a conservative speaker had been shouted down by censorial law students who didn't want him to speak. This time it was Stanford, last time it was Yale. Then it was Georgetown. If the Stanford Dean of diversity, equity and inclusion gets her way, this censorship of conservative speakers will spread to other campuses. Among the worst offenders in this all-too-common censorship fest was Dean Tirien Steinbach. In what appears to be a written statement prepared in advance, she effectively silenced the speaker, federal Judge Kyle Duncan, by monopolizing his space. She sought to justify not inviting speakers who might offend the sensibilities of students who she claims to be responsible for "protecting" and providing "safe spaces" against uncomfortable ideas. After paying lip service to free speech, she suggested reconsidering Stanford's speech policy, repeatedly asked whether "the squeeze is worth the juice". She questioned whether Judge Duncan, whose opinions and views cause "hurt" to students, should have been invited to speak. Her bottom-line message was that offending some students is worse than allowing others to hear from a controversial speaker. This from a high-ranking administrator who was purporting to speak on behalf of the university. The real victims of this censorship were the students who were denied the opportunity to hear Judge Duncan's full presentation. An angry Judge Duncan responded, "Don't feel sorry for me. I'm a life-tenured judge. What outrages me is that these kids are being treated like dogshit by fellow students and administrators." As the late Justice Thurgood Marshall once observed, "The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; They are two sides of the same coin." To her credit, the dean of the law school, Jenny Martinez, condemned the disrupters, writing, "However well-intentioned, attempts at managing the room in this instance went awry... The way this event unfolded was not aligned with out institutional commitment to freedom of speech." She gave no indication of whether anyone would be disciplined. To be sure, protesting, picketing and even brief heckling of speakers is also protected free speech, but shouting speakers down with the intent to silence them is not. It is explicitly prohibited by Stanford's rules. Yet that's exactly what occurred without apparent consequences to the disrupters. The disrupters also attempted to shame the sponsors of the speech by disclosing their names and subjecting them to harassment. This suggests a possible response to the disrupters. Following the Yale disruptions, some judges have announced that they will no longer hire law clerks from Yale. Similar announcements regarding Stanford are likely. In my view, that amounts to collective punishment of the innocent along with guilty. Many law students from these schools do not agree with disrupting speakers, and they should not be denied clerkships. Instead, the names of the disrupters might be published and made available to potential employers, so they can decide whether they want to hire graduates with such intolerance for diversity of viewpoints. I made a similar suggestion about publishing the names of Berkeley law students who voted to ban all Zionists — that is, believers in Israel's right to exist — from speaking at 14 law school clubs, including feminist, Black and gay organizations. As one who well remembers McCarthyite "blacklists," I'm uncomfortable about publishing the names of student censors. But if they are proud of their very public efforts to silence speakers with whom they disagree, they should be proud to have their names published so that potential employers can have relevant information before they make hiring decisions. That would be far better than judges and other employers refusing to hire ANY students from the offending schools. Law schools are supposed to teach advocacy skills and a commitment to the rule of law. They should have and enforce vigorous free speech policies. They should not have deans, like Steinbach, who are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution. Stanford should apologize to Judge Duncan for the dean's actions and inactions. He observed that in his view, "This was a set up. She was working with the students." Stanford should discipline any students who violated its speech policies. Most importantly, it should foster values of diversity of viewpoints, rather than merely diversity of race and ethnicity. Perhaps the law school should appoint a new dean of "diversity of opinions, tolerance for other views and free speech".
participants (2)
-
grarpamp -
punk