(Ryan DeLarme) Several States and individuals have begun to take a stand against the increasingly tyrannical suppression of information that the political establishment, big-tech, and the plutocracy deem “dangerous”. The question is whether or not the information is dangerous to the general population or dangerous to the deep-state death grip on western civilization.
by Ryan DeLarme, March 6th, 2021
When the suppression of information on social media first began it was subtle compared to where we are now. First, it came in waves, slowly ramping up to what essentially became the modern book-burning we see today. The Press and the political machine it protects seem to be presently engaged in an information war against forces who would not like to see America fall despite the international financial elite’s determination to make it so, using China and the “Great Reset” as tools for creating this outcome.
The information tzar’s crosshairs are on any outlets or voices contributing to the growing dissent towards the political establishment. Whether it be popular news outlets like the Epoch Times or OANN, YouTubers, independent outlets, even your friends and family who might not even be conservative but have their own qualms with the current incarnation of the democratic party, all have been consigned to the digital pit.
In the Trump Era, many of these outlets carried on despite the censorship, believing that at some unknown point all would be made right. Fast-forward to today, Trump, who was formerly deep-state enemy #1, is out of the office and presumed out of control (despite soaring popularity post-presidency among the GOP and general population) and now We The People are at the top of the list.
Now we are beginning to see the retaliation in the form of several states and individuals standing up against the drastic rise of censorship. The country was built on a state level, that is where the power comes from, and that power is being used to fight back.
Texas Governor Greg Abbot announced on Friday that he will be joining Texas State Senator Bryan Hughes to bring forward a bill preventing Social Media platforms from censoring speech.
If successful, the big Social Media giants will be vulnerable to lawsuits that could potentially gut these companies financially. It shows the true power of the States, and though we do need the federal government to rescind section 230 of the internet legislation Communications and Decency Act (CDA), something we probably won’t see during a Biden administration, the legislation is certainly a step in the right direction to preserve free speech. If Texas, Florida, and Mississippi continue this fight against big-tech, other states might join in.
It already appears that Abbot is following suit with Florida Governor Rick Desantis, who recently unveiled his own legislation, so the idea that more States could continue the trend is not so far-fetched.
In an even more zoomed-in perspective, we see single individuals contributing to the fight in their own way. Co-Founder of Wikipedia Larry Sanger has proposed a way to decentralize social media, essentially defanging their ability to censor and even potentially halt their ability to harvest the data of unwitting Americans. Sanger, who parted ways with Wikipedia almost 2 decades ago over “the project’s direction”, has claimed that the site’s neutrality is “long gone”.
as per The Washington Times:
Wikipedia, which says “anyone can edit” its entries, is one of the most-used websites in the world. Google prioritizes its placement in search results.
But Mr. Sanger tweeted that leftist activists gradually move in “to take control of any influential institution not explicitly conservative … and they just work harder, and in more subtle ways, on the ones that are explicitly conservative.”
“And then when the rest of the media and tech became insanely far left, Wikipedia naturally went along with the trend,” he tweeted.
The Fox analysis cited the two main pages for “Socialism” and “Communism” that span 28,000 words but lack any discussion of the genocides committed by socialist and communist regimes, in which tens of millions of people were murdered and starved.
“The omission of large-scale mass murder, slave labor, and man-made famines is negligent and deeply misleading,” economics professor Bryan Caplan, who has studied the history of communism, told Fox News.
In a blog post, Mr. Sanger said examples of bias on Wikipedia “have become embarrassingly easy to find,” pointing to the entries for former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
“The Barack Obama article completely fails to mention many well-known scandals: Benghazi, the IRS scandal, the AP phone records scandal, and Fast and Furious, to say nothing of Solyndra or the Hillary Clinton email server scandal — or, of course, the developing ‘Obamagate’ story in which Obama was personally involved in surveilling Donald Trump,” Mr. Sanger posted in May 2020. “A fair article about a major political figure certainly must include the bad with the good.”
He said the entry about Mr. Trump shows that Wikipedia’s neutrality “is a joke.”
“Just for example, there are 5,224 none-too-flattering words in the ‘Presidency’ section,” he wrote. “By contrast, the following ‘Public Profile’ (which the Obama article entirely lacks), ‘Investigations,’ and ‘Impeachment’ sections are unrelentingly negative, and together add up to some 4,545 words — in other words, the controversy sections are almost as long as the sections about his presidency.”
The most targeted weak spot for outlets is the revenue. The trend of deplatforming dramatically affects an outlet’s ability to market themselves which naturally alters the companies bottom line. In addition, ad platforms will now drop entire businesses if enough pressure is put on them by corporations to do so, even entire online stores can be erased overnight.
We will continue to report on the fight against censorship despite the attacks against us and our ability to do so.
The preceding is a Stillness in the Storm original creation. Please share freely.