On Tuesday Elon Musk opined on Twitter’s banning of the New York Post’s reporting of Hunter Biden’s laptop. Musk labeled the actions “obviously incredibly inappropriate”.
The New York Post released stories about Hunter Biden’s laptop back in October 2020 several days before the election. Twitter banned The New York Post at the time for their reporting on crackhead Hunter and his illegal dealings. The information came straight from his own laptop. TGP’s Joe Hoft also released solid reports on Hunter Biden’s laptop and his account was suspended.
Not only was Joe Hoft’s account suspended but many of our readers who Tweeted our stories had their accounts suspended on Twitter AND Facebook.
The Gateway Pundit’s account was later shut down for questioning the stolen 2020 Election results.
Another Gateway Pundit’s Editor’s account was banned for tweeting about Twitter’s censorship back in 2018.
All of this was wrong. All of it. Twitter banned our accounts, suspended our accounts, and threatened people who posted our factual reports on the Biden family corruption on their platforms. It all was obviously incredibly inappropriate. We hope and pray this soon ends and free speech is given its proper place on the Twitter platform.
A report published Thursday by the free expression group PEN America details an “alarming” and unprecedented surge in book banning across the United States, with 86 school districts in 26 states prohibiting more than 1,100 titles in classrooms and libraries over just the past eight months.
Titled Banned in the USA, the report finds that districts representing 2,899 schools with a combined enrollment of more than 2 million students banned 1,145 unique book titles by 874 different authors, 198 illustrators, and nine translators between July 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022.
In total, the new report documents 1,586 instances of individual books being banned as a right-wing censorship campaign and broader war on public education sweeps the country, prompting pushback from libraries, students, and local residents. Some book bans have been reversed in recent months thanks to student resistance.
The top three banned titles, according to PEN America’s analysis, are “centered on LGBTQ+ individuals or touch on the topic of same-sex relationships: Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe banned in 30 districts, All Boys Aren’t Blue by George M. Johnson, banned in 21 districts, and Lawn Boy by Jonathan Evison, banned in 16 districts.”
“Out of Darkness by Ashley Hope Pérez, a love story between a Black teenage boy and a Mexican-American girl set in 1930s Texas, was also banned in 16 districts,” the report notes. “The Bluest Eye by the late Nobel Prize laureate Toni Morrison is the fifth most banned book, in 12 districts.”
PEN compiled a list of the books subject to bans here.
Jonathan Friedman, director of PEN America’s Free Expression and Education program and lead author of the report, said in a statement Thursday that “book challenges in American schools are nothing new, but this type of data has never been tallied and quite frankly the results are shocking.”
“Challenges to books, specifically books by non-white male authors, are happening at the highest rates we’ve ever seen,” said Friedman. “What is happening in this country in terms of banning books in schools is unparalleled in its frequency, intensity, and success.”
“Because of the tactics of censors and the politicization of books we are seeing the same books removed across state lines: books about race, gender, LGBTQ+ identities, and sex most often,” Friedman continued. “This is an orchestrated attack on books whose subjects only recently gained a foothold on school library shelves and in classrooms. We are witnessing the erasure of topics that only recently represented progress toward inclusion.”
According to PEN America, Texas—where the state legislature is dominated by Republicans—leads the country with the most documented book bans at 713. Pennsylvania ranks second with 456 bans, followed by Florida with 204.
“A probing look at the surge in book bans across the country exposes an alarming pattern of mounting restrictions targeting specific stories and ideas and the widespread abandonment of established procedures aimed to safeguard the First Amendment in public education,” said Suzanne Nossel, PEN America’s CEO.
“By short-circuiting rights-protective review processes,” Nossel added, “these bans raise serious concerns in terms of constitutionality, and represent an affront to the role of our public schools as vital training grounds for democratic citizenship that instill a commitment to freedom of speech and thought.”
PEN’s report also raises concern over state legislators’ increasing introduction and approval of “educational gag orders to censor teachers, proposals to track and monitor teachers, and mechanisms to facilitate book banning in school districts.”
The group notes that 175 educational gag order bills have been introduced in 40 U.S. states and 15 such measures have become law in 13 states.
“Parents and community members deserve a voice in shaping what is taught in our schools,” Nossel said Thursday. “But the embrace of book bans as a weapon to ward off narratives that are seen as threatening represents a troubling retreat from America’s historic commitment to the First Amendment rights of students.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Google censored President Trump for years pushing hit pieces on the 45th President to the top of their search results. Google frequently censored top conservative websites like The Gateway Pundit and news broke that Google-YouTube censored and removed over a million videos on Covid-19.
Last August, Google demonetized The Gateway Pundit from their ad network. The Gateway Pundit is one of the top 200 websites in America today, according to Alexa ranking.
“Our goal is to help enable a free and open internet by giving publishers the ability to monetize their content. We do this by maintaining a clean and safe ad network that is part of a healthy digital advertising and publisher ecosystem,” said Google in their email to The Gateway Pundit.
Now, the far-left company warned more publishers that they will demonetize any websites that “imply victims are responsible for their own tragedy or similar instances of victim-blaming, such as claims that Ukraine is committing genocide or deliberately attacking its own citizens.”
Google also indicated that it may also demonetize for other reasons including talking about Nazi aspects of Azov Battalion.
“The article doesn’t blame the people of Ukraine or justify the war in Ukraine in any way, but it just talks about some of the uncomfortable aspects of the conflict that many other people have also been pointing out i.e. presence of neo-Nazi elements in Ukraine’s establishment. Azov Battalion is one such element.
The war in Ukraine has also brought out how the big tech and social media companies could align themselves in international conflict and act as supernational entities.”
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday announced a new investigation into Facebook and Twitter trying to suppress initial reporting in October 2020 about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
In recent days, mainstream media outlets including the New York Times and Washington Post have confirmed the legitimacy of the laptop and its contents, which were initially reported on by the New York Post in the days leading up to the 2020 presidential election.
At the time, Facebook and Twitter suppressed the Post’s article detailing of how Hunter Biden appeared to use his father’s position and influence for his and his family’s financial gain.
The committee said they will conduct a thorough investigation into social media giants Facebook and Twitter actions to “interfere in free and fair election-related public discourse” on their platforms that worked “to the benefit of President Biden and the detriment of former President Trump,” according to letters sent to both companies.
“I’m concerned about Russian disinformation spreading online, so today I wrote to the CEOs of major tech companies to ask them to restrict the spread of Russian propaganda,” US Senator Mark Warner tweeted on Friday.
Since then YouTube has announced that it has suppressed videos by Russian state media channels so that they’ll be seen by fewer people in accordance with its openly acknowledged policy of algorithmically censoring unauthorized content, as well as de-monetizing all such videos on the platform. Google and Facebook/Instagram parent company Meta both banned Russian state media from running ads and monetizing on their platforms in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Twitter announced a pause on ads in both Russia and Ukraine.
“Glad to see action from tech companies to reign in Russian propaganda and disinformation after my letter to their CEOs yesterday,” Warner tweeted on Saturday. “These are important first steps, but I’ll keep pushing for more.”
For years US lawmakers have been using threats of profit-destroying consequences to pressure Silicon Valley companies into limiting online speech in a way that aligns with the interests of Washington, effectively creating a system of government censorship by proxy. It would appear that we’re seeing a new expansion of this phenomenon today.
And the imperial media are pushing for more. Articles and news segments warning of the sinister threat posed by Russian propaganda to misinform and divide Western populations using the internet are being churned out at a rate that’s only likely to increase as this latest narrative management campaign gets into full gear. The Associated Press has a new article out for example titled “War via TikTok: Russia’s new tool for propaganda machine”.
“Armies of trolls and bots stir up anti-Ukrainian sentiment. State-controlled media outlets look to divide Western audiences. Clever TikTok videos serve up Russian nationalism with a side of humor,” AP warns.
“Analysts at several different research organizations contacted by The Associated Press said they are seeing a sharp increase in online activity by groups affiliated with the Russian state,” AP writes. “That’s in keeping with Russia’s strategy of using social media and state-run outlets to galvanize domestic support while seeking to destabilize the Western alliance.”
The “different research organizations” AP ends up citing include “Cyabra, an Israeli tech company that works to detect disinformation,” as well as the state-fundedNATOnarrative management firm The Atlantic Council.
As tends to happen whenever a consensus begins to form that a certain category of speech must be purged from the internet, imperial spinmeisters are already working to expand the definition of “Russian propaganda” which must be purged from the internet to include independent anti-imperialist commentators like myself.
Imperial narrative manager Robert Potter has a thread on Twitter currently calling for me and other anti-imperialist content creators to be labeled “State-Affiliated Media” on Twitter and ideally de-platformed across all Western social media, in my case solely because RT is one of the many outlets who occasionally choose to republish some of my blog posts for free.
I am not as Potter claims “an OP Ed columnist for Russia Today.” I don’t work for RT, I don’t write for RT, I don’t submit articles to RT, and I’ve never been paid by RT or the Russian government. RT is just one of the outlets that sometimes avail themselves of my longstanding invitation for anyone who wants to republish my work free of charge. That RT editors would find my daily rants against Western imperialism agreeable is not scandalous or conspiratorial but normal and self-evident.
Yet for agents of imperial narrative control like Potter (who ironically works directly for the US State Department but thinks my posts should be labeled “State-Affiliated Media” by Twitter), even this is enough to justify complete silencing. I will not be in the slightest bit surprised to see a great deal more of these efforts as the new cold war continues to escalate.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate, an empire-loyal NGO ostensibly focused primarily on fighting racism and prejudice, has published a report accusing Facebook of failing to label Russian propaganda as such 91 percent of the times it occurs. The CCDH decried Mark Zuckerberg’s “failure to stop Facebook being weaponized by the Russian state”.
This sudden narrative management thrust has also seen RT taken off the air in nations like Australia, Germany and Poland, with pressures mounting in Franceand the UK to follow suit.
This despite the fact that all Western powers would have to do to eliminate RT completely is simply start allowing leftist and anti-imperialist voices to be heard on mainstream media platforms. It would immediately suck up RT’s entire foreign audience as people who’d previously needed to look outside the mainstream for sane perspectives gravitate toward media made with much better funding and a higher level of talent.
But of course we all know that’s never going to happen. The imperial media aren’t going to subvert RT by platforming voices who dispute the empire’s narratives no matter how badly they hate it, because the exact reason they hate RT is because it disputes the empire’s narratives. They’re not worried about Russian propaganda operations, they’re worried about someone else running interference on their own propaganda operations.
RT’s audience makes up about 0.04% of TV viewing in the UK. This isn’t about RT, it’s about the the agenda to continually expand and normalize the censorship of unauthorized speech. That’s what it was about when they were pretending it was about the need to fight Covid misinformation before that, and when they were pretending it was about the need to fight domestic US extremism before that, and when they were pretending it was about the need to defend election security before that, and when they were pretending it was about the need to fight Russian propaganda the first time before that one cycled back around again.
Whoever controls the narrative controls the world. Humans are storytelling creatures, so whoever can control the stories the humans are telling themselves about what’s going on in the world has a great deal of control over the humans. Our mental chatter tends to dominate such a large percentage of our existence that if it can be controlled the controller can exert a tremendous amount of influence over the way we think, act, and vote.
The powerful understand this, while the general public mostly does not. That’s all we’ve been seeing in these attempts to regulate ideas and information as human communication becomes more and more rapid and networked. An entire oligarchic empire is built on the ability to prevent us from realizing at mass scale that that empire does not serve us and inflicts great evil upon our world. The question of whether our species can awaken to its highest potential or not boils down to whether our dominators will succeed in locking down our minds, or if we will find some way to break free.
Rogan responded on Sunday, sharing a video defending his podcast while promising to “balance things out” and “research topics.” Many celebrities applauded this statement in the comments.
“Great stuff here brother,” The Rock wrote. “Perfectly articulated. Look forward to coming on one day and breaking out the tequila with you.”
James, star of King of Queens and the Paul Blart: Mall Cop franchise, added, “Joe – we go way back and all these years I’ve known you to be nothing but objective and seeking truth. Thank you. Love you brother.”
“You’re doing a great job,” singer Jewel wrote, “Keep it up.” The electronic artist Kaskade said, “Nailed it.” Comedian Andrew Dice Clay wrote, “SO WELL SAID. AND I AM SO PROUD OF HOW YOU HAVE HANDLED IT All . STAY STRONG MY FRIEND !!!”
Kat Von D shared emojis of praise hands and hearts, while television announcer and former NFL quarterback Troy Aiken posted the 100 symbol. Marianne Williamson, the spiritualist and former presidential candidate said, “I’m triple vaxxed, but (unless they’re standing for hate or calling for violence) banning someone’s podcast is too much like burning a book to me.” She added, “Joe Rogan should talk on his podcast about whatever he damn well pleases.” Republican politicians and conservative commentators also leapt to Rogan’s defense. Scroll through the comments on his Instagram video to see more.
Journalist Jonathan Cook has 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 neighboring suns grow ever bigger and brighter. I will disappear from view so slowly you won’t even notice.”
Cook says this began after the 2016 US election, which was when a major narrative push began for Silicon Valley corporations to eliminate “fake news” from their platforms and soon saw tech executives 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.
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 lied to us about every war has seen their view counts and new follows slashed.
By mid-2017 independent media outlets were 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 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 started using mailing lists and giving indie media outlets 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 admitted in 2020 to algorithmically throttling World Socialist Website. Last year the CEO of Google-owned YouTube acknowledged that the platform uses algorithms to elevate “authoritative sources” while suppressing “borderline content” not considered authoritative, which apparently even includes just marginally establishment-critical left-of-center voices like Kyle Kulinski. Facebook spokeswoman Lauren Svensson said in 2018 that if the platform’s fact-checkers (including the state-funded establishment 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.”
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. 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 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 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.
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.
One day after brand new Twitter CEO Parag ‘Not Bound by the First Amendment” Agrawal took the helm, the company announced that it will no longer allow people to share ‘images or videos of private individuals without their consent’ due to “growing concerns about the misuse of media and information” to “harass, intimidate, and reveal the identities of individuals.”
We assume this includes photos of protesters rioters, people looting a Louis Vuitton store, the driver of an SUV plowing into a crowd of people, and viral memes which include non-public figures.
“There are growing concerns about the misuse of media and information that is not available elsewhere online as a tool to harass, intimidate, and reveal the identities of individuals. Sharing personal media, such as images or videos, can potentially violate a person’s privacy, and may lead to emotional or physical harm. The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities. When we receive a report that a Tweet contains unauthorized private media, we will now take action in line with our range of enforcement options.”
What is in violation of this policy? Under our private information policy, you can’t share the following types of private information or media, without the permission of the person who it belongs to:
home address or physical location information, including street addresses, GPS coordinates or other identifying information related to locations that are considered private;
identity documents, including government-issued IDs and social security or other national identity numbers – note: we may make limited exceptions in regions where this information is not considered to be private;
contact information, including non-public personal phone numbers or email addresses;
financial account information, including bank account and credit card details; and
other private information, including biometric data or medical records.
NEW: media of private individuals without the permission of the person(s) depicted.
Twitter does provide themselves an ‘out’ – writing that “there are instances where account holders may share images or videos of private individuals in an effort to help someone involved in a crisis situation, such as in the aftermath of a violent event, or as part of a newsworthy event due to public interest value, and this might outweigh the safety risks to a person. ”
Who makes that decision, and will the race of the suspect be a factor?
The move comes two days after CNN‘s Brian Stelter called for the censorship of memes.
According to the blog post, “When we are notified by individuals depicted, or by an authorized representative, that they did not consent to having their private image or video shared, we will remove it. This policy is not applicable to media featuring public figures or individuals when media and accompanying Tweet text are shared in the public interest or add value to public discourse.”
“However, if the purpose of the dissemination of private images of public figures or individuals who are part of public conversations is to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them, we may remove the content in line with our policy against abusive behavior.”
Earlier today we shared Matt Taibbi’s “Will Twitter become an ocean of suck?”
(Ryan DeLarme) We live in a world where an alarming number of people take “Independent” fact-checkers as absolute truth without looking beyond the often ill-explained or misleading explanations for marking certain things as “partly false” when they are in fact observably true.
The recent Gun Control efforts and subsequent debate have been a hot topic in America, and while this piece isn’t meant to be a commentary on that particular issue, we will be using the debate as a reference point for the purposes of this article.
Joe Biden, who maintains an armed security detail and is presumably in charge of one of the world’s largest armed forces, has signed 6 executive orders on “gun control” and has repeatedly made it very clear that he wants to come for guns owned by American citizens.
Tim Kennedy, a Green Beret and Special Forces Sniper, recently took to Facebook-owned Instagram to share what has historically happened across the globe when authoritarian governments have taken the people’s right to protect themselves. You can still view the video HERE, assuming you can access Instagram, and it’s also below.
In the 2 minute video, Kennedy outlines which countries have effectively taken weapons from their citizens and the ensuing death tolls that have occurred in those respective countries in the following years.
As per Tim Kennedy:
If we look to history: 1911, Turkey established gun control: From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians were murdered. 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control: From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents were killed. 1938, Germany established gun control: From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and Europeans will be gassed, shot, and burnt. China established gun control in 1935: From 1948 to 1952, 20 million citizens were systematically killed. 1964, Guatemala. 1970, Uganda. 1975, Cambodia. 1994, Rwanda. When are we going to learn?
He covers all of this swiftly in 2 minutes, And if a person takes the time they will find the validity of the statement as well as several attempts to manipulate the truth by “reputable” sources. Instagram unsurprisingly attached the eye-catching, hypnotically suggestive red lettering indicating that Kennedy’s post contained “partly false” information.
For most, seeing this appear on a post is all that is required to toss out the information provided, relieving themselves of the dreaded effort it would take to verify. Others still will at least click the link to further increase their understanding, to which they will be provided the following no-so-detailed explanation:
So, despite it being an objective fact that government-sponsored murder and genocide tend to sharply increase after an authoritarian regime takes control of the population’s ability to defend themselves, there is no “direct link” between gun control these killings? Some would wonder what kind of “direct link” is required besides the fact that it has happened time and time again, what would this “direct link” even look like?
Just who are these fact-checkers anyway? They are supposedly independent yet their fact-checks always seem to go hand in glove with establishment politics and corporate trends.
You may have noticed a link saying “learn more” in the picture above, clicking this link leads you to a page dedicated to explaining how Instagram reduces the spread of “misinformation”.
How is Instagram addressing false information through third-party fact-checkers?
So these super-efficient third-party fact-checkers who seem to know the truth about events before the FBI can even begin an investigation should be trusted because they were certified by the Non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network.
Who exactly is the Non-partisan International Fact-Checking Network?
According to their own online publication:
A unit of the Poynter Institute dedicated to bringing together fact-checkers worldwide. The IFCN was launched in September 2015 to support a booming crop of fact-checking initiatives by promoting best practices and exchanges in this field.
The concept sounds great on paper, but in a world dominated by money, we have learned that altruism is even rarer than objectivity and nothing is free. If we are going to allow individuals to become the grand arbiters of truth then perhaps it is worthwhile to learn how this worldwide initiative gets its funding…
A quick search reveals exactly who funds the alleged “non-partisan” organization:
Let’s go over some of these names.
Charles Koch foundation. The enormity of the Koch fortune is no mystery. Brothers Charles and David are each worth more than $40 billion. The electoral influence of the Koch brothers is similarly well-chronicled. The Kochs are homegrown oligarchs; they’ve cornered the market on Republican (establishment, non-Trump Rhinos) politics and have nakedly attempted (likely succeded) to buy Congress and the White House. Koch touts only one top-line financial figure: $115 billion in annual revenue, as estimated by Forbes. By that metric, it is larger than IBM, Honda, or Hewlett-Packard and is one of America’s largest private companies.
The company’s troubled legal history – including a trail of congressional investigations, Department of Justice consent decrees, civil lawsuits and felony convictions – augmented by internal company documents, leaked State Department cables, Freedom of Information disclosures and company whistle-blowers, combine to cast an unwelcome spotlight on the toxic empire whose profits have long financed the DC swamp creature republicans of the past and present.
The Democracy Fund. The democracy fund presents itself as “scrupulously bipartisan” though its giving suggests the group is another degree of separation between big money and the politicians they want to put in office. The fund is chaired and principally funded by eBay founder and former chairman Pierre Omidyar, who has long endorsed career politicians on the left.
The Environmental Defense Fund. Since the EDF was founded in 1966, it has grown into a behemoth $150 million per year environmental action organization with twelve offices across the United States, and international offices in China, Europe, and Mexico. The Deep-State has long made a good racket with their climate change, climate crisis, and now climate emergency alarmism and neuro-linguistic programming, naturally this organization would want to maintain the narrative.
Facebook. There are about a million things one could say about why you should think carefully before trusting Facebook, but all that really needs to be said is two words: Cambridge Analytica, which sold user data to the highest bidder.
Foundation to Promote Open Society… George Soros, maybe you’ve heard of him? The man who assumed a non-Jewish identity during WWII helping the Nazis make inventories of the confiscated property of jews, largely believed to be a bagman for an international banking dynasty, and likely has total influence over the DNC. This is his organization.
The Gill Foundation was established in 1994 by Tim Gill. The foundation, based in Denver, Colorado, was created as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt private foundation to support public policy efforts that promote equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and economic opportunity in Colorado. In the foundation’s 2015 Annual Report, its assets are listed at over $206 million, with a total of over $20 million in grants awarded to nonprofit organizations that year.
The list goes on but the point is made, these “independent” fact-checkers are traceably tools of the financial elite, the unelected leaders who rule from several degrees of separation over whichever candidate (typically funding whoever receives the nomination from both parties) ends up in the winner’s chair.
Take Google, for example, they are masters of the “degrees of separation” gambit. Joe Biden’s administration is heavily influenced by big-tech, he may have not been able to secure the presidency and convince half the country there was no voter fraud if it wasn’t for big-tech and their “independent Fact-checkers”.
Not everything promoted by this Fact-Checking network is false or slanted, only the things that affect their financier’s business and political agendas.
Certainly, they can and do play a very constructive role. There are so many lies swirling around that professional fact-checking seems to be a necessary public good.
But who fact-checks the fact-checkers?
While that might seem like a silly question, the objectivity of fact-checking websites has already been called into doubt and for good reason. For example, an in-depth analysis by Matt Shapiro at the Paradox Project revealed that PolitiFact (the site that famously uses “pants on fire” as one of its ratings) is biased in its fact-checking.
The analysis makes several different arguments, but one of the more compelling ones is that the articles that debunk Republicans are longer than those that debunk Democrats. Why? Well, it comes down to a bit of chicanery:
We’ve found that PolitiFact often rates statements that are largely true but come from a GOP sources [sic] as ‘mostly false’ by focusing on sentence alterations, simple mis-statements, fact-checking the wrong fact, and even taking a statement, rewording it, and fact-checking the re-worded statement instead of the original quoted statement.
Doing this takes time and many, many words.
Another popular website, Snopes (which got its start by debunking urban legends), bizarrely decided to debunk satire. Snopes appeared to be aiming the majority of its wrath toward one satire site, in particular, the Babylon Bee, which happens to be published by conservative Christians.
Can Something Really Be “Mostly True” or “Half True”?
Another problem with fact-checking is the rating system. Fact-checkers like PolitiFact often conclude that statements are true, mostly true, half-true, mostly false, or false. But is such a classification even possible? In other words, can something really be “mostly true” or “half true”?
The Babylon Bee captures this problem in a pretty funny headline:
If a politician said that the lost city of Atlantis has been discovered underneath Puget Sound, everybody would know he was lying. It’s entirely absurd. But if a politician makes a false claim within a context that is mostly true, people are much more likely to believe it. In other words, the most effective lies are “mostly true.”
Ultimately, fact-checking is a much more subjective enterprise than we would like it to be. Truth is real but sometimes difficult to ascertain, particularly when political ideologies and motivated reasoning are involved. To dodge these pitfalls, fact-checkers need to be keenly sensitive to such biases. Otherwise, fact-checkers can (and in some cases should) be seen as simply another manifestation of “fake news.”
(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.
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.
“As far as I'm concerned, it's a damned shame that a field as potentially dynamic and vital as journalism should be overrun with dullards, bums, and hacks, hag-ridden with myopia, apathy, and complacence, and generally stuck in a bog of stagnant mediocrity.” -Hunter Thompson