FreeSpeech and Censorship: Thread

[grarpamp]

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-pelosi-story.html
93. https://www.ala.org/advocacy/intfreedom/hate
94. https://theintercept.com/2019/01/20/beyond-buzzfeed-the-10-worst-most-embarrassing-u-s-media-failures-on-the-trumprussia-story/
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-sounds-are-a-russian-soni.html
98. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1470029431855058950
99. https://rumble.com/vnwyhz-the-mountain-of-data-showing-how-authoritarian-democrats-have-become.html
100. https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1391455909386375171
101. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/08/18/more-americans-now-say-government-should-take-steps-to-restrict-false-information-online-than-in-2018/
102. https://greenwald.substack.com/p/congress-escalates-pressure-on-tech
103. https://deadline.com/2022/01/joe-biden-covid-omicron-variant-media-1234911903/
104. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/01/27/surgeon_general_murthy_recognize_social_media_platforms_have_an_important_role_to_play_to_stop_misinformation.html
105. https://theintercept.com/2020/05/14/new-documents-from-the-sham-prosecution-of-gen-michael-flynn-also-reveal-broad-corruption-in-the-russiagate-investigations/
106. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officer-who-shot-ashli-babbitt-during-capitol-riot-breaks-silence-n1277736
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-misinformation-133519539.html
113. https://www.wsj.com/articles/cloth-face-mask-omicron-11640984082
114. https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-cures/589573-cloth-face-masks-wont-cut-it-against-omicron
115. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/cdc-warns-loosely-woven-cloth-masks-protective-covid/story
116. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/08/12/rumble-video-gabbard-greenwald/
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-anti-vaccine/
120. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-went-from-dead-broke-to-rich-bill-earned-1049-million-for-speeches/2014/06/26/8fa0b372-fd3a-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html
121. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2014/06/13/what-did-nbc-newss-chelsea-clinton-do-for-her-600000-salary/
123. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/nov/27/manafort-held-secret-talks-with-assange-in-ecuadorian-embassy
124. https://twitter.com/APompliano/status/1478059547688374281
125. https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-rogans-podcast-sparks-tensions-inside-spotify-11604156400
126. https://variety.com/2020/digital/news/spotify-joe-rogan-alex-jones-podcast-1234817836/
127. https://www.theguardian.com/music/2022/jan/25/neil-young-demands-spotify-remove-his-music-over-joe-rogan-vaccine-misinformation
128. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/26/spotify-neil-young-joe-rogan-covid-misinformation
129. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/28/arts/music/joni-mitchell-neil-young-spotify.html
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-labor-report-2021-5
143. https://twitter.com/JDCocchiarella/status/1486733295484342274
144. https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/news/coronavirus/148990/anti-vax-row-could-blight-harrys-18m-spotify-deal
145. https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/music/spotify-to-remove-neil-youngs-music-over-joe-rogan-ultimatum
146. https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/music/spotify-loses-4-billion-in-market-value-following-neil-young-controversy
148. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/business/media/megyn-kelly-nbc-fox-news.html
149. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2018/oct/27/megyn-kelly-blackface-comments-nbc-show-cancelled-what-happened
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-e26b21c283a9.html
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-west-criminalizing-activism-against-israeli-occupation/
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-pathologist-texas-federal-court-becomes-the-third-to-strike-down-pro-israel-oath-as-unconstitutional/
162. https://www.callin.com/show/the-glenn-greenwald-podcast-eLzjZcJdah
163. https://greenwald.substack.com/subscribe
164. https://greenwald.substack.com/subscribe