Categories
Big tech Candace owens Censorship Facebook facebook censorship Facebook fact-checking Intelwars

Facebook fact-checker forced to issue correction after Candace Owens challenged ‘false’ rating

Political commentator Candace Owens challenged a “false” rating from a third-party Facebook fact-checker and she won.

Earlier this month, Owens announced that she was taking legal action against the fact-checkers used by social media platforms. Owens brought the case because she became tired of being censored on Twitter and Facebook by third-party fact-checkers, as well as seeing fellow conservatives being silenced on social media.

Owens retained a pair of lawyers to represent her in the lawsuit, including attorney Todd McMurtry, who was part of the legal team representing former Covington Catholic High School student Nick Sandmann. Owens is reportedly suing fact-checkers from USA Today and Lead Stories, according to the Daily Wire.

“It is time to fact-check the fact-checkers,” Owens said. “I’m going to put these suckers through discovery and figure out what the relationship is that they have with Facebook.”

Owens launched a website titled “Fact-Check Zuck,” which says, “Our freedoms are being stripped away. The overlords of Big Tech are determining what Americans can and cannot say, share, like, and post.”

“Support our legal efforts today as we fight back against Facebook’s fact-checkers, confronting those who are suppressing free speech, thought, and expression across our great country,” the site says.

“I wanted to show that these fact-checkers just lie, and they usually go unchecked because most people don’t have the money, don’t have the time, and don’t have the platform to go after them — and I have all three,” Owens said.

Owens celebrated her first victory in the case against the social media behemoths on Saturday.

“Weeks ago, @Facebook censored a post of mine which truthfully stated that @JoeBiden is NOT the President-elect,” Owens wrote on Saturday. “So I got lawyers involved. Conclusion? @PolitiFact uncensored the post & admitted that they LIED by rating my post false. The fact-checkers are lying for Democrats.”

“At 8 Months pregnant, I unfortunately cannot fight on the ground alongside patriots like I am used to, but I am taking every measure to fight these communists in the court room,” the conservative firebrand added. “It is my goal to expose these lying ‘fact-checkers’ one by one. @JoeBiden is NOT the President-elect.”

PolitiFact issued a correction and removed the false rating.

“Correction: PolitiFact originally labeled this video false in our capacity as a third-party fact-checker for Facebook,” PolitiFact wrote on Facebook on Nov. 25. “On Nov. 20, an appeal to that decision was made on behalf of Ms. Owens. PolitiFact approved the appeal on Nov. 20, determined that a correction was appropriate, and removed the false rating.”

Owens argued that Joe Biden is not technically the president-elect as of yet, he was only named as the president-elect by media outlets, which is not authorized to name the president-elect. Biden is projected to be the winner of the 2020 presidential election, but the president-elect will not officially be named until the Electoral College cast its votes on Dec. 14, once all states have officially certified their results.

President Donald Trump is currently challenging the results in the election and has filed several lawsuits in critical swing states.

Share
Categories
Censorship Facebook facebook censorship Facebook election Intelwars Secret internal rankings

Report: Facebook hatched ’emergency’ plan using ‘secret internal ranking’ to suppress ‘right-wing’ news sources post-election

In the tense days after the election as claims of widespread fraud were being disseminated on the platform, Facebook reportedly made an “emergency change” to its algorithm to suppress news sources that were spreading what the company believed to be “election misinformation.”

According to the New York Times, the change involved weighting news sources using a “secret internal ranking” of publishers that Facebook created based on “signals about the quality of their journalism.” The result became the more prominent featuring of posts from mainstream news outlets such as “CNN, The New York Times, and NPR,” and the suppression of posts from “right-wing” outlets.

The change — which was hatched by a group of employees and approved by the social media giant’s chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg — was reportedly part of several “break glass” plans the company had spent months developing in the case of a contested election. Here’s more from the Times report:

It involved emphasizing the importance of what Facebook calls “news ecosystem quality” scores, or N.E.Q., a secret internal ranking it assigns to news publishers based on signals about the quality of their journalism.

Typically, N.E.Q. scores play a minor role in determining what appears on users’ feeds. But several days after the election, Mr. Zuckerberg agreed to increase the weight that Facebook’s algorithm gave to N.E.Q. scores to make sure authoritative news appeared more prominently, said three people with knowledge of the decision, who were not authorized to discuss internal deliberations.

The change was part of the “break glass” plans Facebook had spent months developing for the aftermath of a contested election. It resulted in a spike in visibility for big, mainstream publishers like CNN, The New York Times and NPR, while posts from highly engaged hyperpartisan pages, such as Breitbart and Occupy Democrats, became less visible, the employees said.

“It was a vision of what a calmer, less divisive Facebook might look like,” the report noted, as if granting its approval to the emergency plan. The Times’ approval is not surprising since it was explicitly listed as one of the publishers who benefitted from the algorithm change.

The sentiment is not likely to be shared by Republicans and supporters of President Trump, however, who will no doubt see the change as yet another egregious example of blatant, purposeful censorship. The social media company, along with Twitter, had been heavily scrutinized in the weeks leading up to the election for its unabashed censorship of the New York Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden.

Guy Rosen, a Facebook executive who oversees its integrity division, told reporters on a conference call last week that the post-election algorithm changes were always meant to be temporary, but that decision is not uniformly popular at the company. The Times noted that some at the company argued that the changes should become permanent.

Share
Categories
Bates college Censorship Instagram Intelwars Lewiston maine Quinn troy safe spaces Social Media Universities

College deletes Instagram post spotlighting Republican student after fellow students complain conservatives are dangerous, want to kill black people

Bates College in Lewiston, Maine, deleted an Instagram post profiling a conservative student addressing the importance of voting.

The college removed the posting following outcry from other students who said that conservatives want to kill black people and are an active threat to the school community.

What are the details?

According to Campus Reform, the post featured Bates College Republicans President Quinn Troy, who shared a statement about the importance of voting.

The outlet reported that the since-deleted post featured a photo of Troy and read, “Most of my participation comes through my work with College Republicans: increasing the visibility of the club on campus, disseminating conservative ideas, and making sure that people know that there’s a space where you can support a Republican candidate without getting a side eye or without being baselessly labeled as hateful.”

The post concluded, “Just make sure you vote. Either way you vote, we should be able to coexist with one another regardless of political affiliation. I think that’s the most important part.”

Following the post, students and social media users took to the post to express their opinions that it was inherently wrong to feature a conservative Republican student — which they said, according to Campus Reform, is “actively harmful to the community” — on the Instagram page.

Bates College Black Student Union issued a statement about the posting and blasted Troy and his sentiments.

“We, too, believe that we should be able to ‘coexist peacefully’ … except when we’re being forced to coexist with people that want to kill us, poison us, and push us into war,” the union posted in response to the original posting.

What did the school say?

The very same day, the school shared a statement from President Clayton Spencer regarding the college’s decision to feature Troy and his thoughts on the social media channel.

Spencer’s statement said, “The right to free speech — including, especially, robust debate of political views — is a core value of our democracy. The freedom to form one’s views and values by one’s own lights is also the essence of a liberal arts education. We can only be a healthy college and society when all of us are prepared to subject our own views to scrutiny and debate, and consider the contrary views of others.”

Later, the original post — and that of Spencer — was deleted entirely from the account, and the college explained that the posts were removed due to a “number of violations of the college’s social and digital media comments policy.”

In another Instagram post, the Bates Student Government said that the school “should not claim that both sides of this conversation are equal.”

“If Bates wants to claim that it cares of all its students, especially those who are persecuted directly by the actions of this administration and all its supporters, then it cannot pander to those who actively work to attack, limit, or deny the rights of those students,” the statement added.

Following further outcry and even a peaceful protest against the original post — as well as Spencer’s subsequent clarification — both Spencer and the school ultimately ended up apologizing for Troy’s post.

Share
Categories
agenda Censorship dark winter darkest winter depopulation election chaos fake news food shortages google ban Headline News Intelwars labels LIES lockdowns Military MISINFORMATION political parasites promises propaganda punishments ruling class Sterilization trucker strike Vaccine Videos Youtube

Richie From Boston: “The Darkest Winter” Is Here

Richie from Boston, now deleted from YouTube and given a Google ban, says this upcoming trucker strike, coupled with the new lockdown restrictions could be the battering ram the brings in the “darkest winter” we have been repeatedly promised. If you add in election chaos, this could explode.

We are reaching a breaking point. Everything is coming together right now.  Please consider supporting Richie in light of his censorship.  Visit him on Bitchute and at his website by clicking on these links. Listen to what this vaccine is by watching the video below.

Anything that comes against the agenda of the elitists is going to be censored, fact-checked, and deemed fake news or misinformation. This video also shows information about the depopulation agenda as well. Is the vaccine linked to depopulation? That’s for you to decide.

The “darkest winter” however, is shaping up to be a reality.

Joe Biden Warns: A “Dark Winter” Is Ahead

Secret Models of “The Darkest Winter”

Those Who Planned The Enslavement of Mankind Warn Of “A Dark Winter” For Us

The COVID-19 “Dark Winter” PsyOp: Question Everything…

This vaccine will be distributed by the military.  If you still think it will be “voluntary” you don’t understand the meaning of that word.  There will be punishments, force, and coercion used in conjunction with impoverishment and the promises of a pittance of universal basic income to take it. If you take it, you will lose all your freedom. If you don’t take it, you will lose all your freedom.  That’s not in any way voluntary.

This vaccine will be coming soon. The lockdowns are also coming. All of this is a part of the plan. “This is all coming to a shuttering crescendo and right after Thanksgiving is when [the vaccine] takes effect,” Richie says.

The vaccine is close. Time is up. You will have to make the decision to take it or be punished for not taking it soon.

Medical Journal: Get The COVID-19 Vaccine, Or Be Punished HARSHLY

The post Richie From Boston: “The Darkest Winter” Is Here first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Censorship Intelwars Internet Interviews solutions

Interview 1597 – The Beginning is Nigh on Declare Your Independence


James joins Ernest Hancock for his regular weekly appearance on Declare Your Independence. This time they discuss the end of YouTube and the beginning of the next stage of the internet.
Share
Categories
alternative media Censorship Intelwars Internet Videos

Goodbye YouTube Party!!! (video)


Q: What’s the biggest event of the year? A: The Goodbye YouTube Party, of course! Join James, Derrick, Ryan, Dan and Josh as they celebrate being kicked off the enemy’s controlled information platform (well, everyone except James, that shill!). We look forward to pioneering the next phase of the development of the independent media and share our ideas about exciting new opportunities for sharing information outside of the grasp of the controlled Big Tech social media oligopoly.

Share
Categories
alternative media Censorship Intelwars Internet Interviews

Interview 1594 – Goodbye YouTube Party!!!


Q: What’s the biggest event of the year? A: The Goodbye YouTube Party, of course! Join James, Derrick, Ryan, Dan and Josh as they celebrate being kicked off the enemy’s controlled information platform (well, everyone except James, that shill!). We look forward to pioneering the next phase of the development of the independent media and share our ideas about exciting new opportunities for sharing information outside of the grasp of the controlled Big Tech social media oligopoly.
Share
Categories
Censorship Intelwars propaganda

Land Destroyer on BitChute (YouTube Alternative)

November 7, 2020 (Brian Berletic – LD) – Because of concerted censorship aimed at my social media accounts and attempts to even block my blogs from being shared on platforms like Facebook and Twitter – it is probably not long until YouTube deletes my channel here

That is why I have opened an account on BitChute and will be backing up all of my videos there over the next week and from this month onward. Please follow me on BitChute as well as YouTube just in case my channel is deleted. 

I want to thank everyone for supporting my work by sharing my content. My videos are free to use, re-upload and reference. 

Share
Categories
2020 Censorship contested election divide and conquer division Donald Trump Election 2020 electoral college Georgia Headline News Illusion of Choice illusion of freedom Intelwars Joe Biden Lawsuits left vs. right paradigm lie major announcement Masters preplanned chaos rulers ruling class slaves States totalitarian Twitter

This Is Where Things Stand In The 2020 Presidential Race

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge. 

Update (1020ET): With Georgia election officials proclaiming that they expect to have a final count available by noon, President Trump has just tweeted that votes that came in after election day will not be counted, eliciting another slap on the wrist from Twitter.

Trump’s tweet remained up for 15 minutes or so before Twitter slapped a label on it.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s campaign is holding press briefings in Philly and Las Vegas this morning to lay out the legal strategy to try and stop any late mail-in (ie majority Democratic) votes from being counted.

* * *

As Joe Biden creeps closer to the 270 mark, President Trump and his legal team have filed a flurry of lawsuits, according to the AP.

They’re hoping to improve the president’s chances, or at the very least cast doubt on the election results, requesting a recount in Wisconsin and filing lawsuits in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. Statewide recounts in Wisconsin have historically changed the vote tally by only a few hundred votes, however, according to the AP. Wisconsin is among the states that have been called for Biden. He currently leads by 20,000 ballots out of nearly 3.3 million counted.

Still, Trump Campaign manager Bill Stepien said the president would cite “irregularities” in several counties while requesting a recount in Wisconsin. Stepien and the campaign’s legal team explained that they would file suit in Michigan and Pennsylvania to halt ballot counting on grounds that their observers weren’t given proper access to observe.

President Trump tweeted “STOP THE COUNT!” Thursday morning, a tweet that’s practically destined to be censord.

Still, other legal actions are being launched in Georgia.

As we explained yesterday, Trump is pushing to take the battle all the way to the Supreme Court, where he believes the conservative majority would give him an edge.

Anyway, here’s a rundown of where we currently stand via Newsquawk:

Where do we currently stand?

There are currently some discrepancies between various news organizations depending on whether or not they include Arizona’s 11 Electoral College votes.

Source: WaPo

If you were to include it, as per Politico, this would put Biden on 264 vs. Trump on 214 (270 EC votes are required for victory): this follows on from swing states such as Michigan and Wisconsin being called in Biden’s favor.

The path ahead:

Several key states remain to be called including Georgia (16 EC votes), Pennsylvania (20 EC votes), North Carolina (15 EC votes) and Nevada (6 EC votes).

Given the above arithmetic, if Nevada (6 EC votes) was to be called in Biden’s favor, this would be enough to secure the presidency for the former Veep; as it stands, NYT tallies Biden at 49.3% and Trump at 48.7% with 86%.

For Trump to win, he would need to pick up all of the remaining swing seats: Georgia (16 EC votes), PAY (20 EC votes), NC (15 EC votes).

Expected timings (via NYT):

Nevada (6 EC): update expected Thursday at noon. Currently Biden 49.3% vs Trump at 48.7%; 86% votes counted.

Arizona (11 EC votes): Update expected after 2100ET Thursday. Currently Biden 50.5% vs. Trump 48.1%.

Georgia (16 EC votes): Counting still ongoing, no guidance on the next update. Currently, Biden 49.1% vs Trump 49.6%; 95% of votes counted.

North Carolina (15 EC votes): Counting still ongoing, no guidance on the next update. Currently – Biden 48.7%, Trump 50.1%; 95% votes counted.

Pennsylvania (20 EC votes): No guidance on the next update, the majority is expected to be counted by Friday. Currently Biden 48.1% vs. Trump 50.7%; 89% of votes counted.

* * *

Remember, Several states allow mailed-in votes to be accepted after Election Day as long as they were postmarked by Tuesday. That includes Pennsylvania, where ballots postmarked by Nov. 3 can be accepted if they arrive up to three days later.

The post This Is Where Things Stand In The 2020 Presidential Race first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
2020 Election 2020 presidential election Big tech Censorship Facebook facebook censorship Intelwars Stop the steal

Pro-Trump ‘Stop the Steal’ group with over 360K members gets shut down by Facebook: ‘This is outrageous!’

A massive pro-Trump Facebook group named “Stop the Steal” was shut down by the social media company after quickly amassing over 360,000 followers since it was created on Wednesday. The group described itself as pledging to “do whatever it takes to ensure the integrity of this election for the good of the nation.”

Amy Kremer, a former Tea Party activist and co-founder of Women for Trump, started the Stop the Steal Facebook group. The group page was run by the Women for America First, an organization led by Kremer that describes itself as: “Engaging, inspiring and empowering women to make a difference.”

The description of the now-deleted page reads: “Democrats are scheming to disenfranchise and nullify Republican votes. It’s up to us, the American People, to fight and to put a stop to it.”

On Thursday morning, Kremer warned that “Facebook is flagging almost every post as false,” and added that the social network is “probably going to shut us down.”

Shortly before 2 p.m., Kremer announced that the Stop the Steal Facebook group had been removed.

“Wow. @Facebook just shut down the @america1stwomen #StoptheSteal group The group wasn’t even 24 hours old and had over 350K members,” Kremer wrote on Twitter. “The left is trying to steal an election and Social media is complicit. This is outrageous!”

According to a screenshot of the group’s page, it had attracted 365,000 followers in 22 hours. Reuters noted that the page was adding 1,000 new members every 10 seconds.

“The group was organized around the delegitimization of the election process, and we saw worrying calls for violence from some members of the group,” a Facebook spokeswoman said in a statement.

The group was organizing protests and called for “boots on the ground to protect the integrity of the vote.”

Before Facebook banned the Stop the Steal group, several media outlets were calling for the page to be de-platformed:

  • Media Matters wrote an article with the headline, “Right-wing influencers are using the #StopTheSteal hashtag to buoy Trump’s attempts to undercut democracy.”
  • Rolling Stone stated that the group was “spreading dangerous misinformation” in an article titled, “Pro-Trump ‘Stop the Steal’ Group Is Rapidly Expanding, and Facebook Is Letting It.”
  • Mother Jones published an article titled, “A Massive “Stop the Count” Facebook Group Has Ties to Republican Operatives.”

When Facebook users clicked on the group’s page, they were encouraged to sign up for updates through the StolenElection.us website. The domain for the site is registered to the Liberty Lab, which was involved in Newt Gingrich’s 2012 presidential campaign.

Social media censorship of conservatives has been a hot topic. During testimony before the Senate last month, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg claimed that he was not aware that the company’s head election integrity official had previously worked as a policy adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden.

Twitter has slapped a label on any tweet that makes claims about election results before they’re officially called and any other “misleading information.”

Share
Categories
banks Censorship crashed Donald Trump Economy election chaos experts Forecasting Hunter biden Intelwars Joe Biden markets monopoly no recovery Polls Silver social media platforms

ELECTION JITTERS: FULL-BLOWN MELTDOWN!

This article was contributed by Future Money Trends.

Yesterday, markets absolutely crashed hard.

What’s causing this unbelievable volatility? In one word, it’s the election. This November 3rd, the world’s leading economy, the one that holds the reserve currency status, could erupt into chaos.

The markets were sure that Biden will win due to the polls, which they couldn’t believe would be wrong again, but the reality is proving much more complicated.

For one, Hunter Biden’s scandal is getting suppressed at 20x the force that the bullion banks depressed silver at the turn of the decade. If Trump’s son was in the same shoes, there would have been no COVID-19 coverage anymore – his recordings would be playing 24/7 and spreading like fire on all social media platforms.

The United States media has lost all credibility and any sense of fairness or dignity.

Courtesy: U.S. Global Investors

October is notoriously the most volatile month of the calendar year, and the NASDAQ 100 is very close to another flash correction (-10%).

What we’re hearing from Jeff Gundlach, David Einhorn, and Stanley Druckenmiller is distressing and alarming. Gundlach is predicting a revolution this decade. Einhorn has called the top of the tech bubble (as of September 2nd). Druckenmiller is on edge.

Going back more than 120 years, the data shows that October is a unique month; for some reason, the biggest market crashes occur within this calendar month.

Courtesy: SeekingAlpha.com

As you can see, the tech bubble of today is only half as expensive as the one in the 2000s, so before we start predicting a great depression 2.0, know that we personally don’t treat this volatility as the telltale signs of a huge meltdown.

We acknowledge the fact that stocks are expensive, but we also know that times are different.

Therefore, keep “living” what’s going on instead of looking to build fantasy scripts in your mind like the ones I read about every day that forecast -80% drops as if those occur every Monday morning.

The worst black swan event in a century only managed to move markets down by -35% in March, so think of what -80% really entails…

Courtesy: Zerohedge.com

We live in a world of expensive assets and zero-percent interest rates. At some point in the coming years, the whole thing will have to be reversed, neutralized, or reset – IT’S MADNESS.

On the other side of this chaos, I expect the motherlode of all stimulus packages – wait for fireworks, even if they take a couple of months to kick in.

Governments are under severe threat of existential legitimacy and people want money. They will GET IT, and that is a clear catalyst for commodities.

The post ELECTION JITTERS: FULL-BLOWN MELTDOWN! first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Censorship Glenn Greenwald Hunter biden emails Intelwars Joe Biden Media Bias The Intercept

Journalist Glenn Greenwald resigns from The Intercept claiming censorship of Biden-critical article — Intercept fires back

Claiming “trends of repression, censorship and ideological homogeneity” have overtaken the publication he co-founded and the mainstream media at large, journalist Glenn Greenwald resigned from The Intercept on Thursday.

In an essay announcing his resignation, Greenwald said a decision by the Intercept’s New York-based editors to censor an article he wrote that criticized Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden was the “final, precipitating cause” of his departure. He lamented that the “pathologies, illiberalism, and repressive mentality that led to the bizarre spectacle of my being censored by my own media outlet are ones that are by no means unique to The Intercept.”

According to Greenwald, an article he wrote this week criticized Biden, the Democratic nominee, over recent revelations about his business relations with foreign entities as reported by the New York Post and by a witness who claims to be a former business partner of the Biden family. He also critiqued “the media’s rank-closing attempt, in a deeply unholy union with Silicon Valley and the ‘intelligence community,’ to suppress” the Hunter Biden materials. But Greenwald’s editors wouldn’t let him publish the story unless he removed the parts critical of Biden.

“The final, precipitating cause is that The Intercept’s editors, in violation of my contractual right of editorial freedom, censored an article I wrote this week, refusing to publish it unless I remove all sections critical of Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, the candidate vehemently supported by all New-York-based Intercept editors involved in this effort at suppression,” Greenwald wrote.

“The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication.”

He added that his editors rejected a suggestion that they publish their own article airing disagreements with his views on the Biden evidence rather than preventing him from publishing the story.

“So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose,” Greenwald wrote.

In response, he chose to leave, “voluntarily sacrificing the support of a large institution and guaranteed salary in exchange for nothing other than a belief that there are enough people who believe in the virtues of independent journalism and the need for free discourse who will be willing to support my work by subscribing.”

“Like anyone with young children, a family and numerous obligations, I do this with some trepidation, but also with the conviction that there is no other choice,” Greenwald wrote. “I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election.”

Greenwald co-founded The Intercept and its parent company First Look Media in 2013 with Jeremy Scahill and Laura Poitras. He said the original mission of the publication was “to create a new media outlets where all talented, responsible journalists would enjoy the same right of editorial freedom I had always insisted upon for myself.”

He believes that The Intercept of today is “completely unrecognizable when compared to that original vision.”

“Rather than offering a venue for airing dissent, marginalized voices and unheard perspectives, it is rapidly becoming just another media outlet with mandated ideological and partisan loyalties, a rigid and narrow range of permitted viewpoints (ranging from establishment liberalism to soft leftism, but always anchored in ultimate support for the Democratic Party), a deep fear of offending hegemonic cultural liberalism and center-left Twitter luminaries, and an overarching need to secure the approval and admiration of the very mainstream media outlets we created The Intercept to oppose, critique and subvert.”

Sounding off on the ideological bent of “every mainstream center-left political organization, academic institution, and newsroom,” Greenwald declared his independence from groupthink.

“I began writing about politics fifteen years ago with the goal of combatting media propaganda and repression, and — regardless of the risks involved — simply cannot accept any situation, no matter how secure or lucrative, that forces me to submit my journalism and right of free expression to its suffocating constraints and dogmatic dictates.”

The Intercept on Thursday published a response to Greenwald’s criticisms, accusing him of crafting a “narrative” “teeming with distortions and inaccuracies.”

Glenn Greenwald’s decision to resign from The Intercept stems from a fundamental disagreement over the role of editors in the production of journalism and the nature of censorship. Glenn demands the absolute right to determine what he will publish. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him is corrupt, and anyone who presumes to edit his words is a censor. Thus, the preposterous charge that The Intercept’s editors and reporters, with the lone, noble exception of Glenn Greenwald, have betrayed our mission to engage in fearless investigative journalism because we have been seduced by the lure of a Joe Biden presidency. A brief glance at the stories The Intercept has published on Biden will suffice to refute those claims.

We have the greatest respect for the journalist Glenn Greenwald used to be, and we remain proud of much of the work we did with him over the past six years. It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not The Intercept.

In tweets sent after the Intercept’s response was published, Greenwald refused to get into a “tit-for-tat” with his former employer, but announced he would publish the emails sent back and forth between him and his editors over the article “so people can decide for themselves if it was censored.”

The news of Greenwald’s resignation was received with admiration and respect from many journalists and political commentators.

Lee Fang, a reporter for The Intercept and now former colleague of Greenwald, called him “the most principled person in media today.”

Others applauded Greenwald for his “courage.”

But Greenwald is not without some detractors.

Share
Categories
Activists Adam Smith Big tech Censorship dissent Dollars Donald Trump Fiat free market free speech Government Hate speech Headline News Intelwars Morality principles Shut-down silenced socialist taxation Theft Youtube

There Is A Solution To Big Tech Censorship – But No Politician Will Touch It

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.us. 

The issue of censorship by major tech companies is a precarious one, and I’m becoming increasingly suspicious of the nature of the debate. There are some complexities, but it can all be boiled down to this:

Big tech social media conglomerates argue that their websites are like any other private business and that they are protected from overt government interference by the US constitution. In other words, they have a right to platform or de-platform anyone they choose. Of course, this is the exact OPPOSITE of what most leftist groups have argued in the past when it comes to private businesses refusing to cooperate with people they disagree with on basic principle, such as LGBT activists, but let’s set that hypocrisy aside for now.

Social media companies have decided that the people they want to de-platform most are conservatives, along with anyone else who disagrees with hard-left ideologies such as social justice or the handling of the pandemic situation. Statements or content that run contrary to leftist philosophies are simply labeled “hate speech” or “conspiracy theory” and are erased.

Conservatives argue that big tech is a monopoly with far too much power, that social media should be treated more like a public resource or “town square” and that these companies are violating the free speech rights of conservatives by specifically targeting them for censorship. Many conservatives are also demanding that Donald Trump and the government step in to regulate or punish such companies for these actions.

The truth is that both sides are right, and both sides are wrong. The real solution to the problem requires a radical change in how we view the institution of corporations and how they interact with government, and it’s a solution I doubt ANY political official will consider, and that includes Trump.

Let me explain…

Social media and big tech do in fact represent a monopoly, but not in terms most people are familiar with. Instead of acting only as an economic monopoly controlling market share, big tech is also a political monopoly controlling the majority of communication platforms. If only one political and social ideological group dominates every major social media and digital information outlet, this in my view represents a completely unbalanced power dynamic that does indeed threaten the free speech rights of the populace.

Rabid censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop scandal, a scandal that is supported by facts and evidence that big tech has chosen to bury because it’s inconvenient to them rather than a violation of their community guidelines, is just one more example of the incredible danger that social media monopolies present.

Obviously, there is the issue of private property rights to consider. I fully support and defend private property rights and I do believe that a business has the freedom to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Just because you open your doors to the public does not mean the public now owns your labor. You should have the right to refuse labor whenever you wish.

If a business refuses a customer based merely on personal bias, then word is going to get around quickly and that business may lose a large number of potential buyers in the future (this is happening right now with multiple alternative social media companies on the rise). The free market should determine the fate of that business, not state or federal governments.

Government itself is an untrustworthy entity that craves a monopoly of power, and by handing government the authority to micromanage the policies and internal practices of web companies we might be trading the big tech monster for an even more dangerous governmental monster.

Who is to say that the government will stop with sites like Facebook or Twitter or Google? Maybe they will exploit their newfound powers to go after smaller websites as well. Maybe they will attempt to micromanage the entire internet. Maybe they will start dominating and restricting conservative websites instead of the leftist conglomerates we intended, and then we will be doubly screwed.

If you value freedom and the Bill of Rights, then this debate leaves us at an impasse. Both sides (perhaps conveniently) lead to a totalitarian outcome. The thing is, the publicly presented argument is a contrived one, a manipulated discussion that only presents two sides when there are more options to consider. The narrative is fixed, it is a farce.

The public has been led to believe that government and corporations are separate tools that can be used to keep each side in check. This is a lie. Big government and big corporations have always worked together while pretending to be disconnected, and this needs to stop if we are to ever defuse the political time bomb we now face.

To solve the social media censorship debacle we need to examine the very roots of corporations as entities. First, corporations as we know them today are a relatively new phenomenon. Adam Smith described the concept of a corporation as a “joint-stock company” in his treatise ‘The Wealth Of Nations’, and stood against them as a threat to free-market economics. He specifically outlined their history of monopoly and failure, and criticized their habit of avoiding responsibility for mistakes and crimes.

Joint-stock companies were chartered by governments and given special protections from risk, as well as protection from civil litigation (lawsuits). But, they were supposed to be temporary business entities, not perpetual business entities. The point was to allow for the creation of a joint-stock company to finish a particular job, such as building a railroad, and once the job was finished the company was dissolved and the government protections were no longer needed. Smith knew that if corporations were ever allowed to become permanent fixtures in an economy, they would result in disaster.

This is exactly what happened in 1886 when the Supreme Court allowed companies like Southern Pacific Railroad to use the 14th Amendment, which was supposed to protect the constitutional rights of newly freed slaves, as a loophole to declare corporations as “legal persons” with all the protections of an individual citizen. Not only that, but with limited liability, corporations actually became super-citizens with protections far beyond normal individuals. Corporations became the preeminent force in the world and it was their relationship with governments that made this possible.

This fact completely debunks today’s notion of what constitutes free markets. Corporations ARE NOT free market structures. They are, in fact, government-chartered and government-protected monopolies. They are SOCIALIST creations, not free-market creations, and therefore they should not exist in a free market society at all.

The alternative option to corporations was for businesses to form “partnerships”, which did not enjoy protection from government, limited liability or the ability to form monopolies. When the owners of a partnership committed a crime, they could be personally held liable for that crime. When a corporation commits a crime, only the company as a vaporous faceless entity can be punished. This is why it is very rare to see company CEOs face prosecution no matter how egregious and catastrophic their actions.

Today, certain corporations continue to enjoy government protections while also enjoying government welfare. Meaning, these companies get a legal shield while also basking in the advantage of tax incentives and taxpayer dollars.

For example, Google (Alphabet and YouTube) has long received huge tax breaks and is rarely if ever forced to pay in full for the massive bandwidth the company uses. In fact, YouTube was facing bandwidth affordability issues until it was purchased by Alphabet and Google, then it no longer had to worry about it – Google gets over 21 times more bandwidth than it actually pays for because of government intervention.

The same rules apply to companies like Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Apple, etc. All of them enjoy extensive tax breaks as well as cheap bandwidth that makes it impossible for small and medium-sized businesses to compete, even if they operate on a superior model or have superior ideas. Many times the corporations pay no taxes whatsoever while smaller businesses are crippled by overt payments.

A truly free market requires competition as a rule, but the current system deliberately crushes the competition. Again, we live in a socialist framework, not a free market framework.

Now that we understand the nature of big tech and what these companies actually are (creations of government), the debate on social media censorship changes.

How? Take for example the fact that public universities in the US are not legally allowed to interfere with free speech rights because many of them survive by consuming taxpayer dollars. They are PUBLIC institutions, not private. Why then are we treating major corporations that survive on endless taxpayer infusions and incentives as if they are private businesses? They are not – They are publicly funded structures chartered by the government and therefore they should be subject to the same rules on free speech that universities are required to follow.

Said corporations will surely argue against this and will attempt to use legal chicanery to maintain their monopolies. Trying to dismantle them could take decades, and there are no guarantees that government officials will even make the attempt? Why would they? The relationship between government and corporations has been an advantageous one for establishment elites for decades.

Instead of challenging the corporate model in the Supreme Court, an easier option would be to simply take away all welfare and tax incentives for any big tech companies that refuse to allow free speech on their platforms. If Google had to pay normal price for the bandwidth it uses, the corporation would either implode or it would be forced to break apart into multiple smaller companies that would then compete with each other. More competition means lower prices for consumers along with better products. The threat of losing tax incentives would mean more large companies would refrain from censorship.

Donald Trump as president could conceivably make this happen, but he will not, and neither will any other political official. The partnership between government and corporations will continue, I believe because there are other agendas at play here. The establishment WANTS the public to argue in favor of tech totalitarianism on one side and in favor of government totalitarianism on the other side. They aren’t going to allow any other solutions to enter the discussion.

The only available strategy left for fighting back against big tech is to continue leaving their platforms and building our own. This will take many years to accomplish. The point is, there is a more permanent option, but it requires a complete deconstruction of the socialist government/corporate framework now in place. To confront the power dynamic between governments and major conglomerates is to confront one of the fundamental sources of corruption within our society, which is why it won’t be allowed. And when the system refuses to police itself, public upheaval becomes inevitable.

The post There Is A Solution To Big Tech Censorship – But No Politician Will Touch It first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Bitcoin Censorship central banking Commodities control speech controlled Crush the Street democracy Donald Trump Dou Casey election experts failures Forecasting gold mining stocks Government Greater Depression Headline News hopes Intelwars Joe Biden Kenneth Ameduri lied to monetary system Scam selection Silver social media giants third world country tracked United States

Doug Casey: “I Wonder If The U.S. Isn’t Devolving Into A 3rd World Country”

In an interview with Kenneth Ameduri of Crush the Street, infamous analyst, and author Doug Casey. Casey didn’t mince words and came down hard on the ruling class and the establishment terrorizing all of us.

Casey begins the interview by explaining that neither Donald Trump nor Joe Biden said anything of substance during the recent presidential debates. In fact, he wondered “if the U.S. isn’t devolving into a third world county” as the people put all of their hope and faith in the government on one side or the other.

Casey then touches on the subject of big social media giants and their censorship campaign.  He’s hoping that they [social media] are going to  “cut their own throats” by continuing to centralize power and attempt to control speech. He also makes the good point that without direct and indirect subsidies from the government these social media giants would be midgets.

“The Constitution is a dead letter,” says Casey. “It’s a document that exists, but it’s not observed.” He adds that he’s not a fan of democracy either “It’s two wolves and sheep deciding what to have for dinner,”  he says. “Democracy is mob rule dressed up in a coat and tie.”

Casy’s interview sheds light on the biggest problem we face today: politics. The government has initiated a power grab many have missed and even more people are unaware of. Our future is bleak if we continue down this path. The printing of money is going to be catastrophic, Casey says of our economic situation. We will see the destruction of the dollar.

Because of that, he’s staying away from all stocks, except gold mining stocks.

All of the awakening of the coming “Greater Depression” is forcing people to reevaluate central banking and control. This coming depression will be worse than the unpleasantness of 1929-1946, Casey adds.  And a lot of people are figuring it out and dumping the dollar for gold, silver, and Bitcoin.

 

The post Doug Casey: “I Wonder If The U.S. Isn’t Devolving Into A 3rd World Country” first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Censorship Intelwars solutions Videos

YouTube is Purging Again . . . Here’s How to Find Me

As you’ve probably seen by now, YouTube has engaged in another round of purging. But don’t worry, not only can you access all my work directly from CorbettReport.com, all of my videos are now uploaded to Archive.org, BitChute, LBRY and Minds.com. In addition, LBRY has now backed up the enter Corbett Report YouTube channel (and of course the entire Corbett Report Extras channel is backed up on BitChute). Oh, and I forgot to mention the IPFS backup of the entire website. Do your worst, GooTube!

Share
Categories
behavior modification Censorship central control Coronavirus COVID-19 enabling governments free speech FREEDOM OF SPEECH Headline News human rights Intelwars Internet freedom less free mass surveillance power silenced Social Control social enineerin Society the masses

Human Rights Watchdog Says Governments Using Pandemic To Crack Down On Online Dissent

This article was originally published by Aaron Kessel at Activist Post.

Governments around the world are using the ongoing pandemic to crack down on online dissent according to a human rights watchdog.

Washington-based Freedom House said dozens of countries have cited CV as a means “to justify expanded surveillance powers and the deployment of new technologies that were once seen as too intrusive.” They added that it marks the 10th consecutive annual decline in internet freedom, Barron’s reported.

The expansion of technological systems is enabling governments’ social control, according to the report.

“The pandemic is accelerating society’s reliance on digital technologies at a time when the internet is becoming less and less free,” said Michael Abramowitz, president of the nonprofit group.

“Without adequate safeguards for privacy and the rule of law, these technologies can be easily repurposed for political repression.”

China was singled out in the report noting, Chinese authorities “combined low- and high-tech tools not only to manage the outbreak of the coronavirus but also to deter internet users from sharing information from independent sources and challenging the official narrative.”

The report stated this shows a growing trend toward Chinese-style “digital authoritarianism” globally and a “splintering” of the internet as each government imposes its own regulations for citizens.

Freedom House said that of the estimated 3.8 billion people using the internet, just 20 percent live in countries with free internet, 32 percent in countries “partly free,” while 35 percent were in places where online activities are not free. The remainder live in countries that weren’t among the 65 assessed.

The report cited declines in countries where authorities have imposed internet shutdowns including Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, and India, and in Rwanda for its use of “sophisticated spyware to monitor and intimidate exiled dissidents.”

Activist Post has previously reported that countries were using the pandemic to shutdown online dissent back in May of this year. Expressing that governments around the world were using fake news to hide behind their online censorship efforts. Hungary is one of the countries that began arresting citizens for allegedly spreading fake news related to the CV pandemic as ordered by Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Hungary isn’t the only country that is using the CV crisis to push draconian laws on its citizens.  Activist Post previously reported early on during the CV outbreak that two individuals were arrested under Thailand’s new “Anti-Fake News Center” for spreading false information about the coronavirus. Malaysia also issued four arrests of its citizens for spreading rumors and “disinformation,” according to a report by Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post. Those “suspects” included a tutor, two pharmacy assistants, and a university student whom if found guilty will face upwards to a $12,000 fine and up to 1 year in prison if convicted.

Then there is China, which arrested 8 people who were charged with spreading rumors about a virus before the coronavirus was publicly known. Beyond that, China recently highlighted what can be done with such a law by censoring a media outlet Caijing, which is one of the most reputable outlets in the country. In that article, the authors claimed that China significantly underreported both cases and deaths, especially among the elderly. (archive) (translation)

Another country, Singapore, on April 1st proposed a law to combat online fake news. Under the draft law, those who spread online falsehoods with a malicious intent to harm public interest could face jail terms of up to 10 years, Reuters reported.

Activist Post previously highlighted that the CV pandemic would be used as a Trojan horse to take away our rights and be used to push increased digital surveillance via our smartphones. But that’s not all, it also serves a means for other facial recognition technology to be more frequently used. Top10VPN continues to monitor the increase of the police state and decrease of our digital and physical rights noting the following figures.

  • 120 contact tracing apps are available in 71 countries
  • 45 apps now use Google and Apple’s API
  • The U.S. has 23 apps, more than any other country in the world
  • 19 apps, with 4 million downloads combined, have no privacy policy

Digital Tracking Measures:

  • 60 digital tracking measures have been introduced in 38 countries
  • Telecom providers have shared user data in 20 countries

Physical Surveillance Initiatives:

  • 43 physical surveillance measures have been adopted in 27 countries
  • Drones have been used in 22 countries to help enforce lockdowns
  • Europe introduced more surveillance measures than any other region

As Activist Post previously wrote while discussing the increase of a police surveillance state, these measures being put into place now will likely remain long after the pandemic has stopped and the virus has run its course. That’s the everlasting effect that COVID-19 will have on our society.  The coronavirus may very well be a legitimate health concern for all of us around the world. But it’s the government’s response that should worry us all more in the long run.

The post Human Rights Watchdog Says Governments Using Pandemic To Crack Down On Online Dissent first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
behavior modification Censorship central control Coronavirus COVID-19 enabling governments free speech FREEDOM OF SPEECH Headline News human rights Intelwars Internet freedom less free mass surveillance power silenced Social Control social enineerin Society the masses

Human Rights Watchdog Says Governments Using Pandemic To Crack Down On Online Dissent

This article was originally published by Aaron Kessel at Activist Post.

Governments around the world are using the ongoing pandemic to crack down on online dissent according to a human rights watchdog.

Washington-based Freedom House said dozens of countries have cited CV as a means “to justify expanded surveillance powers and the deployment of new technologies that were once seen as too intrusive.” They added that it marks the 10th consecutive annual decline in internet freedom, Barron’s reported.

The expansion of technological systems is enabling governments’ social control, according to the report.

“The pandemic is accelerating society’s reliance on digital technologies at a time when the internet is becoming less and less free,” said Michael Abramowitz, president of the nonprofit group.

“Without adequate safeguards for privacy and the rule of law, these technologies can be easily repurposed for political repression.”

China was singled out in the report noting, Chinese authorities “combined low- and high-tech tools not only to manage the outbreak of the coronavirus but also to deter internet users from sharing information from independent sources and challenging the official narrative.”

The report stated this shows a growing trend toward Chinese-style “digital authoritarianism” globally and a “splintering” of the internet as each government imposes its own regulations for citizens.

Freedom House said that of the estimated 3.8 billion people using the internet, just 20 percent live in countries with free internet, 32 percent in countries “partly free,” while 35 percent were in places where online activities are not free. The remainder live in countries that weren’t among the 65 assessed.

The report cited declines in countries where authorities have imposed internet shutdowns including Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, and India, and in Rwanda for its use of “sophisticated spyware to monitor and intimidate exiled dissidents.”

Activist Post has previously reported that countries were using the pandemic to shutdown online dissent back in May of this year. Expressing that governments around the world were using fake news to hide behind their online censorship efforts. Hungary is one of the countries that began arresting citizens for allegedly spreading fake news related to the CV pandemic as ordered by Prime Minister Viktor Orban.

Hungary isn’t the only country that is using the CV crisis to push draconian laws on its citizens.  Activist Post previously reported early on during the CV outbreak that two individuals were arrested under Thailand’s new “Anti-Fake News Center” for spreading false information about the coronavirus. Malaysia also issued four arrests of its citizens for spreading rumors and “disinformation,” according to a report by Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post. Those “suspects” included a tutor, two pharmacy assistants, and a university student whom if found guilty will face upwards to a $12,000 fine and up to 1 year in prison if convicted.

Then there is China, which arrested 8 people who were charged with spreading rumors about a virus before the coronavirus was publicly known. Beyond that, China recently highlighted what can be done with such a law by censoring a media outlet Caijing, which is one of the most reputable outlets in the country. In that article, the authors claimed that China significantly underreported both cases and deaths, especially among the elderly. (archive) (translation)

Another country, Singapore, on April 1st proposed a law to combat online fake news. Under the draft law, those who spread online falsehoods with a malicious intent to harm public interest could face jail terms of up to 10 years, Reuters reported.

Activist Post previously highlighted that the CV pandemic would be used as a Trojan horse to take away our rights and be used to push increased digital surveillance via our smartphones. But that’s not all, it also serves a means for other facial recognition technology to be more frequently used. Top10VPN continues to monitor the increase of the police state and decrease of our digital and physical rights noting the following figures.

  • 120 contact tracing apps are available in 71 countries
  • 45 apps now use Google and Apple’s API
  • The U.S. has 23 apps, more than any other country in the world
  • 19 apps, with 4 million downloads combined, have no privacy policy

Digital Tracking Measures:

  • 60 digital tracking measures have been introduced in 38 countries
  • Telecom providers have shared user data in 20 countries

Physical Surveillance Initiatives:

  • 43 physical surveillance measures have been adopted in 27 countries
  • Drones have been used in 22 countries to help enforce lockdowns
  • Europe introduced more surveillance measures than any other region

As Activist Post previously wrote while discussing the increase of a police surveillance state, these measures being put into place now will likely remain long after the pandemic has stopped and the virus has run its course. That’s the everlasting effect that COVID-19 will have on our society.  The coronavirus may very well be a legitimate health concern for all of us around the world. But it’s the government’s response that should worry us all more in the long run.

The post Human Rights Watchdog Says Governments Using Pandemic To Crack Down On Online Dissent first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
book burning Censorship dollar vigilante Emergency Preparedness Fascism Headline News Intelwars purge SGT Report silenced SLAVERY wake up x22 report Youtube

BLATANT CENSORSHIP: The Great YouTube PURGE

A massive YouTube purge has taken place. Several channels have been removed from the platform proving truth is treason in the empire of lies.

Let me preface this by saying that whether you do or do not agree with the content published by some channels on YouTube, no one deserves to have the boot of tyranny on their throat or their voice silenced for any reason. Ever.   “When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” – George R.R. Martin.

As far as I, personally am concerned, the content published on any of the sites purged is irrelevant. Censorship in any and all forms is immoral all the time.

“Censorship is to society what cancer is to the body.” –Brian, High Impact TV

“Those who burn books today will be burning bodies tomorrow,” Brian says.  Make no mistake, this is digital book burning. It’s time to come together and stand up for basic fundamental human rights. This is extremely serious, and it’s no exaggeration to say so.

After Brainwashing People For Decades, MSM and Governments Are Losing Control of People

This blatant censorship says one thing: the mainstream media and the controllers who pull the strings are scared. If they weren’t terrified of us, they wouldn’t be trying so hard to shut any of us up. The truth will prevail regardless.

Here is the list of the channels that we know about that were removed just today:

Destroying the Illusion

Redpill78

PrayingMedic

Joe M

IPOT

X22 Report

Edge of Wonder

SGT Report

Spaceshot76

WokeSocieties

Amazing Polly

Truth & Art TV

PatriotsSoapbox

Dustin Nemos

InTheMatrixxx

AndWeKnow

Stroppy Me

JustInformed Talk

MouthyBuddha

Know_More_News

The Last American Vagabond

Titus Frost

Dollar Vigilante

World Alternative Media

Try to find as many of these as you can on Bitchute or Steemit. Please try to take a few minutes to find any of these creators and support them on alternate sites.  This is economic terrorism. These people’s livelihoods were removed because they disagree with the official narrative.

Sean from SGT Report is trying to help et the word out about this. But honestly, as Brian from High Impact TV says is “we are all on borrowed time” now. This proves it. Please Tweet to @TeamYouTube and ask them to reverse this for any and all of these channels. I would happily do the same for you regardless of whether I agree with what you are saying or not. This is tyrannical enslavement.

SGT Report, for example, had access to both of his channels terminated for releasing a video last night about the new Hunter Biden emails, and the Seal Team 6 information coming from whistleblower Allen Parrot and Benghazi whistleblower Nick Noe.  Sean’s work can still be seen at SGTreport.TV and on Patreon and Bitchute (link above).

We need to rise up and stand together. We DO NOT have to agree on everything. But it’s time to call a spade a spade. The system is eliminating people and that should be intolerable to every single human being with an ounce of compassion left in their soul.

If you have been one of those constantly asking in the comments what you can do, you can at least stand against this and support these silenced channels and those who run them. It’s time to stand against this corrupt system of censorship and fascism.

Get ready, because things could get extremely intense from here.

The post BLATANT CENSORSHIP: The Great YouTube PURGE first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Big tech censorship Censorship Facebook Intelwars jack dorsey Media Bias Twitter

Don’t these false or misleading reports lack ‘authoritative reporting’? Where’s Twitter’s ban-hammer?

On Wednesday, the New York Post published an explosive report on emails the Post claims were obtained from a computer belonging to Hunter Biden. The emails appear to provide more details on Hunter Biden’s ties to Ukrainian energy company Burisma and contradict claims from Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden that he never discussed his son’s foreign business dealings. Critical questions have been raised about the Bidens’ ties to Ukraine and whether the Democratic candidate previously used his position as vice president to benefit his son financially.

The New York Post story quickly became controversial with many journalists disputing the details of the story and questioning the Post’s sources. But outrage was triggered when social media platforms stepped in to prevent users from reading the story and drawing their own conclusions about the Post’s reporting.

Facebook acted first, questioning the veracity of the Post’s report and announcing that distribution of the story on its platform would be limited until an independent fact-checker finished reviewing the Post’s work. Twitter acted next, initially giving some users a warning label stating “headlines don’t tell the full story.”

Then Twitter went further. Engaging in what the New York Post called “extraordinary censorship measures,” Twitter banned users from tweeting the story, from retweeting it, and even from sharing it in direct messages. The New York Post’s Twitter account was locked and subsequently other prominent Twitter accounts that shared the story were locked as well, including the Donald Trump presidential campaign. Twitter also banned a follow-up report from the Post on emails relating to “lucrative” deals with China.

The explanations offered by Facebook and Twitter for their censorship claim that the platforms’ policies are intended to prevent the spread of misleading or inaccurate information. Twitter in particular made the determination that the Post is not a source of “authoritative reporting.”

“Given the lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials included in the article, we’re taking action to limit the spread of this information,” a Twitter spokesperson told the Washington Examiner Wednesday.

In a statement published by Twitter, the company changed its story and said the ban was put in place because “images contained in the articles include personal and private information — like email addresses and phone numbers — which violate our rules.” The images of emails published by the post contain unredacted email addresses. Additionally, Twitter views the emails reported by the post as “violations of our Hacked Materials Policy.”

“Commentary on or discussion about hacked materials, such as articles that cover them but do not include or link to the materials themselves, aren’t a violation of this policy,” Twitter said. “Our policy only covers links to or images of hacked material themselves.” The company explained that this policy, created in 2018, “prohibits the use of our service to distribute content obtained without authorization.”

This public statement made no reference to Twitter’s original rationale for suppressing the New York Post story: That it lacked “authoritative reporting.”

How does Twitter determine what constitutes “authoritative reporting?” The standard clearly isn’t suppressing misleading or inaccurate information. If that were the case, why were the following stories were never censored by Twitter?

  • A February 2017 story from the New York Times alleging that the Trump campaign had repeated contacts with Russian intelligence was riddled with “misleading and inaccurate” information, FBI notes revealed. The story was based on unsubstantiated claims from anonymous sources and was never updated to reflect how it became discredited.
  • CNN claimed in June 2017 that then-FBI Director James Comey would, in congressional testimony under oath, dispute a claim made by President Trump that the FBI director had assured the president he wasn’t under investigation. Comey did not dispute the president in his testimony and CNN was forced to issue a correction to its story.
  • The New York Daily News in 2018 published a report claiming the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooter was “trained by the NRA.” In reality, the National Rifle Association had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting.
  • After the Parkland shooting, CNN misleadingly claimed in a graphic posted on Twitter that 22 “school shootings” had already occurred that year. The inaccurate number was inflated by including accidental discharges of firearms on school campuses, gang violence, domestic violence, and university shootings and incidents that did not even include pupils.
  • Remember the massive Cambridge Analytica scandal covered in-depth in by CNN and others in 2018? The UK investigation into digital marketing firm found that allegations of colluding with Russia to influence the results of the Brexit referendum and break U.S. campaign laws were unfounded.
  • The New York Post’s Sohrab Ahmari highlights how the Mueller Report’s release in April 2019 debunked several media narratives that were shared on social media without censorship, including reports that Trump campaign chief Paul Manafort met with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange at Ecuador’s embassy in London; that Jeff Sessions lied when he said he didn’t meet the Russian ambassador as a Trump surrogate; that Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to meet with Kremlin officials; that Trump ordered Cohen to lie to Congress; and of course the salacious and allegations from the Steele Dossier. All inaccurate or false stories.
  • In 2019 CNN, the Washington Post, and other outlets pushed a false narrative that high school student Nicholas Sandmann had provoked an encounter with Native American activist Nathan Phillips in Washington, D.C., near the Lincoln Memorial. The media claimed that Sandmann and others taunted Phillips, claims which viral video showed were false. The Post and CNN went on to settle million dollar defamation lawsuits brought by Sandmann.
  • In September 2019 the New York Times published a smear of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The Times wrote about a previously unreported sexual misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh from his undergraduate days at Yale, but failed to mention that the supposed victim did not recall the alleged incident.
  • In April 2020, Politico issued a lengthy correction and apology for falsely claiming that President Trump owed “tens of millions” to the Bank of China. Tweets propagating the original false story remain undeleted.
  • In September 2020 The Atlantic published claims from four anonymous sources that President Trump referred to a cemetery for fallen WWI soldiers as “filled with losers.” Over 20 witnesses went on-the-record to dispute the Atlantic’s account.
From these examples, which can still be shared on Twitter’s platform, it’s clear that “authoritative reporting” does not mean accurate or well-sourced material.

It’s code for “stories the censors at Twitter agree with.” An unfavorable report about Joe Biden doesn’t qualify.

Share
Categories
arrest Australia CDC Censorship Conspiracy Fact and Theory Coronavirus COVID-19 Emergency Preparedness experts face masks Flu Force Government Headline News Idaho Intelwars Latah County LIES Mainstream media Manipulation Medical Tyranny Moscow New World Order outbreak plandemic Police State propaganda scamdemic United States zero deaths

Does The Coronavirus Make Our Constitutional Freedom Of Assembly Obsolete?

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.us.

Over the past couple of weeks, a trend has become apparent in the state of Idaho, specifically in Moscow, Idaho in Latah County. The city council of Moscow has issued a mandatory mask order, and they are using police to enforce it. Bizarrely, the city had ZERO deaths from Covid at the time the mask order was instituted, meaning their action was in response to…nothing.

Idaho has had a total of 500 deaths from Covid since the beginning of the outbreak. To put this in perspective, the state also has around 400 deaths from diabetes every year, and 250 deaths from the flu/pneumonia according to the CDC. Perhaps they should ban sugar, and make masks mandatory for the flu as well, just to be safe…

The residents of Moscow are not too happy with the city council’s attempt to unilaterally enforce such mandates. Church congregations in particular are fighting back by holding outdoor services without masks. The city has responded by ARRESTING the pastors of any church that dare to defy mask laws.

I bring up this specific instance of coronavirus enforcement because the circumstances surrounding it are disturbing…

First, it is not surprising that Latah County is one of the ONLY counties in Idaho that leans to the far-left politically, and the majority of the city council of Moscow is made up of leftists. Moscow is also the home of the University of Idaho. It seems wherever the political left sets up shop, constitution violating mandates on the coronavirus is prevalent. Even if a state government is predominantly more conservative and less antagonistic on lockdowns, left-leaning city and county officials have decided they are going to enforce their own restrictions anyway.

Second, the mask rules are being used against people who held meetings outdoors, and this is something I am seeing all over the world right now. Why is the science of virus behavior in outdoor open-air environments not being discussed AT ALL in the mainstream? Why is no one talking about the fact that open air and UV rays from sunlight KILL microorganisms? The chance of contracting the coronavirus outdoors is next to zero, yet mask rules are being strictly instituted from Melbourne, Australia to New York, New York to Moscow, Idaho.

Government officials must surely be aware that the science contradicts these orders. And if this is the case, then this only confirms that such restrictions are not about saving lives; they are about control.

Third, the use of targeted arrests against organizers of group events is clearly an attempt to frighten the public into compliance without confronting their concerns directly. The goal is to encourage self-censorship and to manipulate citizens to avoid public assembly without coming out openly and saying “We are banning public assembly”. It’s an end-run around the constitution, and these actions are increasing in the US.

As I have noted in past articles, I have been watching the draconian coronavirus measures in Australia and New Zealand very closely. My concerns rest on the other side of the world because what I see happening there is perhaps a beta-test for high-intensity lockdown restrictions in other western nations including America.

Restrictions in these countries are rooted in what they are calling “Level 4 lockdowns”, and include mandatory mask orders (even outside), mandatory social distancing, bans on public assembly, church closures, citizens are not allowed to travel more than 3 miles from home (essentially people are under house arrest, with only one hour per day outside to exercise), people who contract the virus or are suspected of being infected can be locked up in Covid camps for as long as government officials deem it necessary, and in New Zealand, these camps are managed by the military.

People speaking out against the lockdowns online are being arrested for “incitement”. Free speech in Australia is nearly dead.

I believe the establishment of medical tyranny is moving so quickly in Australia because the vast majority of the population has been disarmed and they have limited means to fight back. It’s an easy place to test out control measures. Protests are taking place, but without a means of self-defense the citizenry is at the mercy of government and law enforcement. If the government wants to crack down violently on anti-lockdown groups, there will be little the public can do to stop them.

What I see happening in places like Moscow, Idaho is the initial stages of medical tyranny similar to what is happening in Australia. What I see is an incremental form of totalitarianism, and it simply cannot be tolerated.

We have heard it often during this pandemic event that we are “all in this together” and the lockdowns are “serving the greater good”, but this is nonsense. The constitutional rights of public assembly and freedom of religion in particular are being stifled, and these rights ARE the greater good. They are far more important than the lives of the select few people who are susceptible to the virus.

Beyond that, why are we not talking about the number of people that are losing their jobs due to the lockdowns? How about the number of people that will die over time from poverty or depression or economic collapse because of the lockdowns? Is it not a matter of the “greater good” that we end the restrictions rather than increase them?

No virus is worth this. It would not matter if we were talking about the Black Plague. Ultimately, though, Covid affects a very small portion of the US population. The real solution to the pandemic is simple:

The people who are most susceptible should voluntarily stay home and quarantine, and the rest of us should get on with our lives with an open economy and normal constitutional rights. Why is this option not being presented?

Mask laws in particular are truly bizarre. There is little evidence that cloth masks are effective in the slightest, but the idea that “everyone must wear a mask” in order for the masks to work reveals the true nature of the restrictions.

If your mask is useless unless I also wear a mask, then the masks we are wearing are not offering much protection and their enforcement should be questioned. The fact that numerous states and counties across the US have had infection spikes even with strict mask mandates suggests to me that the masks are pointless. Even the CDC questions the effectiveness of cloth masks and recommends N95 masks for healthcare workers until there is some evidence that cloth masks function.

If the CDC doesn’t believe they work very well, then why are people even wearing them, and why are people being arrested for refusing to use them? Again, the science does not support the mandates, so they must be about control rather than saving lives. If you can get a population acclimated to having the government involved in the smallest intricacies of their lives on a daily basis then freedom goes out the window and the establishment enjoys total power to do whatever they please.

Don’t get me wrong, if a person WANTS to wear a mask, or take other precautions no matter how dubious, then I have nothing bad to say about them. That is their decision. If a business wants to require masks before entering, then that is also their right as property owners. I can choose to not shop there if I don’t like it. But it is not anyone’s right to attempt to force others to comply with their baseless rules just so they can personally feel safer. If I’m not wearing a mask and you don’t like it, then don’t come near me; it’s very easy.  As leftists like to say:  My body my choice.

Take note of how many instances we have seen so far of Mask Nazis physically attacking people not wearing masks. Isn’t this the exact opposite of what they have been preaching?  Also, take note that Mask Nazis tend to be avid supporters of BLM and Antifa mobs that ignore pandemic restrictions.  Again, they don’t care about health issues, they are angry because you are not submitting to their control.

Another terrifying development during the pandemic is the use of executive orders and executive authority to initiate restrictions without public oversight. Here is the bottom line: No government, whether it be federal, state, or local, has the power to violate your constitutional rights. Period. If a law or executive order tramples on the Bill of Rights, then it is automatically null and void and should be defied. National emergencies do no supplant the constitution, regardless of what statists might claim.

Executive orders in particular are based on nothing other than the color of law. In most cases, they do not legally apply to the citizenry, only to government employees. Real laws are passed by the legislature and are often added to a ballot to be voted on by the public. No governor, mayor, city council, or president has the authority to assert new laws without oversight like a dictator.

The political left has been quick to point out these facts whenever Donald Trump issues executive orders, yet they are also quick to defend those orders issued by states and cities to enforce unconstitutional and illegal lockdowns.

In the end, whether you respect the Bill of Rights or not, laws are meaningless unless they are backed by principles. A law that is immoral and unjust should not be followed. Government representatives that abuse their positions to assert powers that are not granted them by the constitution should be unseated. The coronavirus changes nothing – Not a thing.

I would suggest that anyone who lives in a place that is trying to enforce restrictions that are contrary to the Bill of Rights act now to disrupt what is likely an incremental march towards medical tyranny. If you don’t stand in opposition to these actions now, they will only grow over time until a majority of people become conditioned to accept them.

The post Does The Coronavirus Make Our Constitutional Freedom Of Assembly Obsolete? first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Ads Bans Big Pharma bill gates censoring Censorship DISINFORMATION Facebook forced vaccines free speech Headline News Intelwars LIES Mainstream media mandatory MISINFORMATION official narrative People posts propaganda Social Media Vaccination

Censorship: Facebook Bans Anti-Vaccine Ads Ahead of COVID Vaccine Rollout

Facebook announced on Tuesday that the social media giant will ban all ads encouraging people to avoid vaccination. Facebook is now censoring factual information on the adverse health and side effects of getting vaccinated.

Anyone paying attention knows that there will be a COVID-19 vaccine, and it will, for all intents and purposes, be mandated for all and distributed by the military. This is not news to most, however, the propaganda campaign has begun, and Facebook will assist the tyrants with censorship.

“Our goal is to help messages about the safety and efficacy of vaccines reach a broad group of people while prohibiting ads with misinformation that could harm public health efforts,” Facebook’s head of health initiatives, Kang-Xing Jin, said in a blog post, according to the Hill.We don’t want these ads on our platform.”

The truth is, doctors and others have expressed concerns about vaccine safety, and this is not new. But the push to make sure everyone is vaccinated is new. So is the blatant censorship. As with other tightenings on free speech, enforcing the new ban on anti-vaccination ads will be crucial.

Trump: “The Military Is Ready To Deliver A Vaccine”

Facebook has chosen sides.  They did a long time ago. They are not on the side of the people and will do what is necessary to see the elitists rollout the New World Order.

The military is still set to distribute a vaccine to all 324 million Americans and this censorship is part of the propaganda campaign pushed by Bill Gates to attempt to manipulate people into getting vaccinated.

Medical Journal: Get The COVID-19 Vaccine, Or Be Punished HARSHLY

According to the report by TheHill, Tuesday’s policy update will not affect user-generated content about vaccines, including the private Facebook groups and Instagram pages. So far, Facebook claims they will allow critics of vaccination the free speech that was already their birthright.

 

The post Censorship: Facebook Bans Anti-Vaccine Ads Ahead of COVID Vaccine Rollout first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
ban all political ads Bob Ferguson campaign finance violations Censorship election bias globally Headline News Intelwars jack dorsey King County political advertising social media giant Twitter Washington

Twitter Fined For Multiple Campaign Finance Violations

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge.

Attorney General Bob Ferguson announced Tuesday that Twitter would pay $100,000 to Washington’s Public Disclosure Transparency Account after violating state campaign finance disclosure laws.

From 2012 to 2019, Twitter received nearly $200,000 for campaign ads but failed to follow Washington disclosure laws by unlawfully failing to maintain public records about the political ads that ran on the platform has resulted in a $100,000 fine.

Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s chief executive, said in October 2019 that the social media platform would ban all political ads due to misleading messaging by some candidates.

“We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought. Why? A few reasons…,” Dorsey tweeted last year.

The judgment, filed Tuesday in King County Superior Court, notes that at least 38 Washington candidates and political committees paid $194,550 for political advertising on the platform between 2012-2019.

“Transparency in political advertising is critical to a free and informed electorate,” Ferguson said. “Whether you are a local newspaper or a multinational social media platform, you must follow our campaign finance laws.”

“The Public Disclosure Commission appreciates the shared commitment of the Attorney General’s Office to vigorous enforcement of the state’s campaign finance laws,” Public Disclosure Commission Chair David Ammons said. “The people of Washington, in their overwhelming vote for the disclosure Initiative 276 nearly a half-century ago, created one of the nation’s most emphatic demands for transparency and accountability in campaign finance reporting. As powerful new platforms and commercial advertisers emerge in the campaign world, we must stay vigilant in demanding full compliance with all disclosure laws of Washington state.”

Washington’s Public Disclosure Commission first received notice from an independent researcher on Oct. 30, 2019, about Twitter’s potential violations.

The irony here is, of course, that Twitter – which has been doing everything it can to crack down on political “misinformation” – is now being dinged for failing to share information about its political advertising operation.

The post Twitter Fined For Multiple Campaign Finance Violations first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Censorship Intelwars solutions Videos

The Corbett Report . . . Now on IPFS!


Did you know The Corbett Report is on IPFS? Well, you do now! Do you know what that means? Well, you’re about to! (Spoiler: The Corbett Report is now censorship resistant).

Share
Categories
Censorship First Amendment free speech Free speech on campus Free speech online Intelwars online speech

Majority of Americans — including 60% of Democrats — say feeling ‘welcome and safe’ is more important than being able to speak freely online

What’s more important, protecting Americans’ feelings or protecting Americans’ ability to speak freely?

The ability to speak one’s mind has come under attack in everyday life — from social media companies’ attempts to keep controversial content off their sites to college campuses’ efforts to create safe spaces and squash offensive speech.

Apparently most Americans are OK with that, at least according to a
new survey from the Pew Research Center.

What’s that now?

Americans have grown more intolerant when it comes to speech — particularly speech they say hurts their feelings.

For example, there has been a concerning movement on college campuses to stifle speech that some students find offensive. Some students, Campus Reform revealed, say they’re willing to
give up free speech so others can “feel comfortable.” And a FIRE survey shared this month showed that nearly one-fifth of college students say its OK to use violent means to shut down speech they deem offensive.

Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have long been criticized for reportedly censoring conservative voices that some people find offensive. For example, just last week, Blaze Media’s Mark Levin
went after Facebook for throttling the reach of his media page, accusing the company of trying to influence the election.

With current attitudes of some Americans and the actions of social media and online video companies in mind, it probably will not surprise most readers to hear that a majority of Americans believe people’s feelings are more important than being able to speak one’s mind online.

According to
Pew, 53% of U.S. adults say “being able to feel welcome and safe online” is more important than “people being able to speak their minds freely online.”

Democrats were more likely than Republicans to feel that way — but many free speech advocates are likely not thrilled with the share of GOPers who also backed feelings over free expression: 60% of Democrats and 45% of Republicans said feeling safe is more important than free expression.

These results are a six-point jump for Democrats and a six-point drop for Republicans since 2017.

Broken down by party and gender, it’s clear that within parties, women are more likely than men to put concern over feelings ahead of freedom of expression.

A majority of GOP women (54%), Democratic women (64%), and Democratic men (55%) ranking feelings ahead of freedom in this survey. Only among GOP men does a minority (36%) believe feeling safe is more important than speaking freely.

Share