Tag Archives: censorship

The Journalistic Tattletale and Censorship Industry Suffers Several Well-Deserved Blows, by Glenn Greenwald

Once upon a time most journalists considered themselves guardians of the First Amendment and the free press. Now many of them scold any of their journalistic colleagues who deviate from the accepted orthodoxy and endorse censorship. From Glenn Greenwald at greenwald.substack.com:

The NYT’s Taylor Lorenz falsely accuses a tech investor of using a slur after spending months trying to infiltrate and monitor a new app that allows free conversation.

New York Times reporter Taylor Lorenz and Silicon Valley investor Marc Andreessen

A new and rapidly growing journalistic “beat” has arisen over the last several years that can best be described as an unholy mix of junior high hall-monitor tattling and Stasi-like citizen surveillance. It is half adolescent and half malevolent. Its primary objectives are control, censorship, and the destruction of reputations for fun and power. Though its epicenter is the largest corporate media outlets, it is the very antithesis of journalism.

I’ve written before about one particularly toxic strain of this authoritarian “reporting.” Teams of journalists at three of the most influential corporate media outlets — CNN’s “media reporters” (Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy), NBC’s “disinformation space unit” (Ben Collins and Brandy Zadrozny), and the tech reporters of The New York Times (Mike Isaac, Kevin Roose, Sheera Frenkel) — devote the bulk of their “journalism” to searching for online spaces where they believe speech and conduct rules are being violated, flagging them, and then pleading that punitive action be taken (banning, censorship, content regulation, after-school detention). These hall-monitor reporters are a major factor explaining why tech monopolies, which (for reasons of self-interest and ideology) never wanted the responsibility to censor, now do so with abandon and seemingly arbitrary blunt force: they are shamed by the world’s loudest media companies when they do not.

Continue reading→

The State Is Destroying Freedom, Life, and History By Censoring and Eliminating Information and Speech, by Gary D. Barnett

Wholesale attacks on civil liberties are the hallmarks of totalitarian regimes. From Gary D. Barnett at lewrockwell.com:

“The state, I call it, where all are poison-drinkers, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all — is called “life.” Just see these superfluous ones! They steal the works of the inventors and the treasures of the wise. Culture, they call their theft — and everything becometh sickness and trouble unto them! Just see these superfluous ones! Sick are they always; they vomit their bile and call it a newspaper. They devour one another, and cannot even digest themselves.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, “Thus Spoke Zarathustra”

State censorship has been evident over all time, but what is happening today, especially considering the ease of access and the voluminous amount of information available, is far beyond the scope of understanding for most in this country. The Internet is a wonder, but it is a very sharp double-edged sword. The real power among us understands this concept intimately, while the ‘public’ has little awareness of the potential for the controllers to eliminate history and speech by using the very tool that should allow for an expansion of learning and intellect. The Internet can store and make available all the works of man, both past and present, and all this information is seemingly accessible to anyone with little effort, but is that really the case?

The risk that is missed by most, is that as easy as it is to access information today, that information can be manipulated, hidden, or eliminated just as easily, and that process could be controlled by a central ‘authority’ through any of its fascist partnerships. If much of the underlying information of recorded history; books, journals, letters, and all historical and political records and writings, can be captured, controlled, or even destroyed by nefarious efforts, then that would leave available only what is stored digitally. This would be an abomination, because it would also allow for the loss of much hard knowledge of the past and present by those controlling the Internet and communication systems. For this horror to occur, all books would not have to be destroyed, but if much of the important information were restricted from view by whatever means, or made very difficult to access, then people would know only what the state wanted them to know.

Continue reading→

The Insiders’ Game, by David Sacks

What if nobody on the outside wants to be an insider? Wouldn’t that dramatically reduce the insiders’ power? From David Sacks at persuasion.community:

GameStop was a warning: Elites are weaponizing censorship to keep the outsiders out

As the apex predators of capitalism, hedge funds are accustomed to raking in billions by driving companies into the ground and feasting on the carcasses. So there was widespread satisfaction last week when members of an online discussion group called WallStreetBets started beating the Wall Street bully boys at their own game. Ringleaders of the group noticed that hedge funds had taken a short position in the videogame retailer GameStop that far exceeded the number of shares available to trade. Motivated as much by revenge as by profit, these influencers in the group encouraged the 2.7 million members (since risen to around 8 million) to purchase the stock in order to drive the price higher and create a massive short squeeze. This quickly became a movement with a cause similar to that of Occupy Wall Street, except much more effective because it hit the intended target where they would feel it the most, in the wallet. “The only way to beat a rigged game,” one WallStreetBets leader said, “is to rig it even harder.”

GameStop stock, which closed at $17.69 a share on Jan. 8, shot up to $347.51 by the close last Wednesday. With combined losses of almost $20 billion, hedge funds were on the ropes and close to bleeding out, selling their longs in an increasingly futile effort to cover their shorts. One fund, Melvin Capital, lost over half its value and had to be bailed out by hedge fund sugar daddies Ken Griffin (Citadel) and Steve Cohen (Point 72). Another fund, Citron, was teetering on the brink of collapse. All this outsider army needed to win was the continued ability to communicate with each other online, and their collective ability to keep piling into the “Buy” side of the trade. Within hours, they would be hobbled on the first front and crippled on the second.

Continue reading→

Americans Abandoning Free Speech Better Brace for the Consequences, by J.D. Tuccille

Governments are inherently hostile to free speech and a bunch of other freedoms as well. From J.D. Tuccille at reason.com:

Government will happily suppress misinformation in favor of misinformation of its own.

In the panicked aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the powers-that-be dusted off wish lists of surveillance-state powers and began monitoring and tracking us in ways that affect our lives two decades later. The political turbulence of recent years, culminating in the Capitol riot on January 6, may similarly liberate the political class to do its worst—this time with free speech as the target. The effort will likely again enjoy support from members of the public eager to surrender their freedom.

“We need to shut down the influencers who radicalize people and set them on the path toward violence and sedition,” argued columnist Max Boot in The Washington Post. His solution? Carriers should drop Fox News and other conservative cable news outlets if they don’t stop spreading “misinformation.” Boot also believes that “Biden needs to reinvigorate the FCC” to impose British-style controls over the news—never mind that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) doesn’t have the authority to regulate cable outlets that it has over broadcasters that use public airwaves.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) agrees that the public needs to be protected from speech she considers false and misleading. “We’re going to have to figure out how we rein in our media environment so that you can’t just spew disinformation and misinformation,” she insisted.

Continue reading→

Russia’s President Putin Warns That Censorship Is Killing American Democracy, by Paul Craig Roberts

Things must be getting bad if we’re getting lectured on censorship by Vladimir Putin. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

Russia’s President Putin last week at the World Economic Forum called out America’s Big Tech Monopolies for preventing free speech and attempting “to harshly and unilaterally govern society, replace legitimate democratic institutions, restrict one’s natural right to decide for themselves what stance to express freely. We’ve all seen this just now in the US, and everybody understands what I’m talking about.” https://www.rt.com/russia/513768-putin-slams-big-tech-in-davos/ 

Putin is talking about the censorship in “freedom and democracy America” of everyone who departs from the controlled explanations.  President Trump is censored.  Members of Congress are censored. Leading experts are censored.  Ordinary people are censored. No one is permitted to express the view or present evidence that the presidential election was stolen. No one is permitted to challenge or correct any aspect of the Covid narrative.  Any non-establishment view is ruled “against community standards” and suppressed just as in Stalinist Russia, Gestapo Germany, and Orwell’s 1984.

But the situation for Americans is actually much worse than being censored.  Americans who are Trump supporters are being labeled domestic terrorists, and legislation against them is in the works. The legislation pushed by Democrats and the presstitutes has strong support from former CIA director John Brennan and from the Department of Homeland Security.

Continue reading→

Establishment Elites, MSM Think Parler Is A “Threat To Democracy” Because Libertarians, Conservatives Get To Freely Post, by Daisy Luther

Heaven forbid that alternatives arise to challenge the social media giants. From Daisy Luther at theorganicprepper.com:

After years of being censored on Facebook and Twitter, conservatives, libertarians, and other fans of free speech are making a mass exodus to new platforms. One that has really taken off since the election is Parler, which has been the most downloaded app in the country over the past two weeks.

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media and left-wing extremists are outraged. How dare the people who have been censored, deplatformed, and shut down on their social media sites move to a site that promises not to treat them like pariahs? (By the way, you can find me on Parler here: @daisyluther ) They go as far as to say it’s a “threat to democracy” because libertarians and conservatives get to post.

I mean, seriously, we can’t be letting conservatives and libertarians post their opinions all willy-nilly, right? What will happen without the “fact-checkers?”

Why on earth WOULDN’T people go to a different network?

Personally, I haven’t had access to my own Facebook pages for more than a year and won’t unless I send them photos of my passport, a utility bill, and other identifying information – because they didn’t think my driver’s license was sufficient. As well, I voluntarily archived my thriving preparedness groups because of the threat of losing both my groups, my own personal account, and the accounts of all my moderators if we let through a post of which Facebook disapproved. I wrote more about it here.

And remember when Twitter shut down Zero Hedge’s account for posting something about the coronavirus they deemed as misinformation that was later proven to be true? And how they put warnings on nearly anything the President posts? And how conservative and libertarian websites are being demonetized?

I invite you to try posting anything on standard social media that questions vaccines, the outcome of the election, the COVID lockdowns, or is pro-gun. I’ll see you in Facebook jail.

Continue reading→

No Real Change Can Come If Speech Is Restricted By Monopolistic Oligarchs, by Caitlin Johnstone

It’s impossible to advocate for change if nobody can hear you. From Caitlin Johnstone at caitlinjohnstone.com:

In a solid new article titled “Facebook and Twitter Cross a Line Far More Dangerous Than What They Censor” on the cross-platform silencing of The New York Post‘s publication of Hunter Biden’s emails, The Intercept‘s Glenn Greenwald writes the following:

That is always how it will work: it is exclusively the voices on the fringes and the margins, the dissidents, those who reside outside of the factions of power who will be subjected to this silencing. Mainstream political and media voices, and the U.S. Government and its allies, will be fully free to spread conspiracy theories and disinformation without ever being subjected to these illusory “rules.”

Censorship power, like the tech giants who now wield it, is an instrument of status quo preservation. The promise of the internet from the start was that it would be a tool of liberation, of egalitarianism, by permitting those without money and power to compete on fair terms in the information war with the most powerful governments and corporations.

But just as is true of allowing the internet to be converted into a tool of coercion and mass surveillance, nothing guts that promise, that potential, like empowering corporate overloads and unaccountable monopolists to regulate and suppress what can be heard.

Continue reading→

France: More Terrorism, More Silence, by Giulio Meotti

The French have terrified themselves into submission. From Giulio Meotti at gatestoneinstitute.org:

  • This brand of extremism has also managed to transform many European citizens into prisoners, people hiding in their own countries, sentenced to death and forced to live in houses unknown even to their friends and families. And we got used to it!
  • “[T]his lack of courage to follow in Charlie‘s footsteps comes at a price, we are losing freedom of speech and an insidious form of self-censorship is gaining ground.” — Flemming Rose, Le Point, September 2, 2020.
  • “To put it simply, freedom of speech is in bad shape around the world. Including in Denmark, France and throughout the West. These are troubled times; people prefer order and security to freedom.” — Flemming Rose, Le Point, August 15, 2020.
On September 25, in Paris, two people were stabbed and seriously wounded outside the former offices of Charlie Hebdo, where 12 of the satirical magazine’s editors and cartoonists were murdered in 2015. Pictured: Firefighters and paramedics evacuate a wounded victim from the site of the attack. (Photo by Alain Jocard/AFP via Getty Images)

On September 25, in Paris, two people were stabbed and seriously wounded outside the former offices of Charlie Hebdo, where 12 of the satirical magazine’s editors and cartoonists were murdered by extremist Muslims in 2015. The suspect, in police custody, is being investigated for terrorism.

The accused murderers in the 2015 attacks are currently on trial in Paris.

Continue reading→

Facebook’s New Terms Of Service Update Sounds A Lot Like Censorship, by Joe Martino

Facebook just turned itself into an enforcement arm of US government censorship. From Joe Maritino at collective-evolution.org:

In Brief
  • The Facts:Facebook users began receiving notifications about updates to FB’s terms of service. The wording has users wondering if this is another move at censorship.
  • Reflect On:Is it clear yet that big tech companies engage in censorship? If they are controlling what content you see, is it important to question why we believe what we believe, and where that information came from?

Many Facebook users have been receiving notifications from Facebook stating that on Oct. 1, 2020, they will be updating their Terms of Service. The new changes will allow Facebook to remove content or restrict access if the company feels it is necessary to avoid legal or regulatory impact.

Desktop and mobile users were receiving notifications that looked like this:

–> Help Support Collective Evolution: Become a member of CETV and get access to exclusive news and courses to help empower you to become an effective changemaker. Click here to join.

Effective October 1, 2020, section 3.2 of our Terms of Service will be updated to include: “We also can remove or restrict access to your content, services or information if we determine that doing so is reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate adverse legal or regulatory impacts to Facebook.”

Users of social media have been rather critical of the recent updates, feeling that it may lead to more censorship or election meddling from big tech companies. Other users feel this could be a great move to get rid of more fake news.

Before we move on, don’t get me wrong, fake news exists, and is a problem. I have spoken to many other website owners within the independent media community over the years, urging them to take a deeper look at some of the stories they put out and ask whether they are actually true. People can do poor research at times, and they can miss important facts. At other times, some websites seek only to make money and thus they post anything that will get them traffic, even if it’s false.

Continue reading→

The Purge: The Natural Progression Of “Woke” Censorship Is Tyranny, by Brandon Smith

The natural progression is from a little tyranny, like censorship, to full-on tyranny. Give in to the former your asking for the latter. From Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:

As I have noted in the past, in order to be a conservative one has to stick to certain principles. For example, you have to stand against big government and state intrusions into individual lives, you have to support our constitutional framework and defend civil liberties, and you also have to uphold the rights of private property. Websites are indeed private property, as much as a person’s home is private property. There is no such thing as free speech rights in another person’s home, and there is no such thing as free speech rights on a website.

That said, there are some exceptions. When a corporation or a collective of corporations holds a monopoly over a certain form of communication, then legal questions come into play when they try to censor the viewpoints of an entire group of people. Corporations exist due to government sponsored charters; they are creations of government and enjoy certain legal protections through government, such as limited liability and corporate personhood. Corporations are a product of socialism, not free market capitalism; and when they become monopolies, they are subject to regulation and possible demarcation.

Many corporations have also received extensive government bailouts (taxpayer money) and corporate welfare. Google and Facebook, for example rake in billions in state and federal subsidies over the course of a few years.   Google doesn’t even pay for the massive bandwidth it uses.  So, it is not outlandish to suggest that if a company receives the full protection of government from the legal realm to the financial realm then they fall under the category of a public service. If they are allowed to continue to monopolize communication while also being coddled by the government as “too big to fail”, then they become a public menace instead.

Continue reading →