AWRM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167776
08/15/2018 02:08 PM
08/15/2018 02:08 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
CNN is desperate to do anything to improve its ratings. They're not only trailing Fox News and MSNBC, they're losing to the History Channel's "Ancient Aliens." In prime time, no less.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167824
08/19/2018 11:17 AM
08/19/2018 11:17 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC

How the Left Is Outsourcing Censorship of the Internet

So liberals have outsourced censorship of the internet to the tech titans of Silicon Valley.

Power Line - August 19, 2018

Liberals control every newspaper in America, as far as I know, except the Manchester Union Leader. They control CBS, ABC, NBC and every cable network except Fox News. They control what is left of the news magazines, and pretty much every other magazine, too. Only talk radio and the pesky internet lie outside their grasp, so that is where they seek to impose censorship.

But they have a problem: the First Amendment. The government can’t suppress conservative speech on the ground that it is “hate speech,” i.e., something that liberals don’t like. That was recently reaffirmed by a 9-0 decision of the Supreme Court.


So liberals have outsourced censorship of the internet to the tech titans of Silicon Valley.

Unfortunately, most political conversation these days occurs not on the “free” internet, where independent sites like Power Line reside, but rather on social media–Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and so on. Other players include Google (in its search capacity), Apple, Pinterest, Spotify, etc. Happily–if you are a leftist–all of these tech companies are run by liberals. And because they are private companies, they are not constrained by the First Amendment. They can restrict or ban conservative communications on the ground that they are “hate speech,” or on no grounds whatsoever, with impunity.

And that is exactly what they are doing. This is a big topic. I brought it up this morning while hosting the Laura Ingraham radio show, and it blew up, ultimately consuming half of the three-hour show. Many aspects of the left’s outsourcing of censorship to liberal-run corporations need to be explored, but for now, this is an astonishing example: “Silicon Valley Strikes Back: Facebook Censors PragerU After Google Lawsuit.”

Dennis Prager is probably the foremost public intellectual of our time. His Prager University has been wildly successful. It brings a much-needed conservative antidote to the liberal nonsense to which so many Americans, especially young people, are subjected. That has made Prager a key target of the Left.

It started when YouTube downgraded PragerU’s videos. Weird: PragerU’s videos are enormously popular, and YouTube makes money when people watch videos. Moreover, PragerU’s videos are among the most high-quality, intellectually sound productions on YouTube. Nevertheless, YouTube (which is owned by Google) has tried to suppress traffic to PragerU’s products. PragerU has sued Google as a result. So this is the latest:

Facebook has shadow banned PragerU into complete silence to its more than 3 million followers, internal analytics revealed.

“Our last 9 posts have been completely censored reaching 0 of our 3 million followers,” PragerU media personality Will Witt posted on Facebook Friday. “At least two of our videos were deleted last night for ‘hate speech’ including a post of our most recent video with The Conservative Millennial, Make Men Masculine Again.”

“Internal Facebook analytics reveal that as of Thursday, Aug. 16, at 10:00 PM PDT, posts by PragerU on the social media platform have been completely invisible to its more than 3 million followers,” PragerU reported in a news release Friday. “Currently, visitors to PragerU’s Facebook page are unable to see any of its most recent posts.”

“This is a first for us,” PragerU Chief Marketing Officer Craig Strazzeri said in a statement. “While we’ve experienced blatant discrimination from Google/YouTube, which is why we’ve filed legal action against them, this represents a whole new level of censorship by Facebook. at this point, Facebook has provided little clarity saying it will get back to us in another two to three business days, which in the world of social media might as well be an eternity.”

Tech titans stick together. Two weeks ago, Apple, Facebook, YouTube and Spotify simultaneously “de-platformed” Alex Jones and Infowars. Twitter held out briefly, and then, in response to demands from liberals, also banned Jones and Infowars. I have never paid attention to Infowars and have no idea whether its content has merit. But simultaneous bans and suspensions across platforms can hardly be coincidental. The phrase “combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade” comes to mind.

In any event, any claim by the Left that companies aligned with it are merely cleansing themselves of disreputable content would be absurd. First, PragerU is among the most reputable content on the internet. Second, they have taken no action against left-wing extremists like the fascist Antifa, which disseminates its hate speech freely on every social media platform I am aware of.

The Left’s attempt to outsource censorship to its Silicon Valley allies is one of the most important issues of our time. The proper solution may lie in creating competitive platforms, or in legislative, regulatory or judicial action. Perhaps platforms fitting a particular legal definition should be regulated as public utilities. After all, Federal Express doesn’t refuse to deliver packages to the National Review office on the ground that they may contain conservative communications, and telephone companies haven’t tried to cut off connections when two conservatives are talking. Why should Facebook, Twitter and YouTube be permitted to engage in political discrimination?

That is a big topic for another day.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167827
08/19/2018 12:18 PM
08/19/2018 12:18 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
It really says something when Bill Maher is the sanest person at Time Warner-CNN-HBO.

Quote
HBO talk-show host Bill Maher spoke out in defense of controversial right-wing host Alex Jones after Jones was suspended from several social media platforms, saying that everyone has a right to free speech.

Maher, noting that Jones has "told crazy lies" about him, said on his HBO show Friday that "if you’re a liberal, you’re supposed to be for free speech."

“That’s free speech for the speech you hate. That’s what free speech means. We’re losing the thread of the concepts that are important to this country,” he continued....


Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167838
08/20/2018 01:06 AM
08/20/2018 01:06 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
President Trump said on Saturday that conservative voices were being unfairly censored on social media, hinting that he might intervene.

“Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter, saying that “censorship is a very dangerous thing.”

“Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen,” he added.

Quote
.....Censorship is a very dangerous thing & absolutely impossible to police. If you are weeding out Fake News, there is nothing so Fake as CNN & MSNBC, & yet I do not ask that their sick behavior be removed. I get used to it and watch with a grain of salt, or don’t watch at all..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 18, 2018

....Too many voices are being destroyed, some good & some bad, and that cannot be allowed to happen. Who is making the choices, because I can already tell you that too many mistakes are being made. Let everybody participate, good & bad, and we will all just have to figure it out!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 18, 2018

All of the fools that are so focused on looking only at Russia should start also looking in another direction, China,” Mr. Trump wrote. “But in the end, if we are smart, tough and well prepared, we will get along with everyone!


In his tweets on Saturday, Mr. Trump urged social media companies to “let everybody participate, good & bad,” saying that while networks like CNN and MSNBC might be “fake news,” he does not “ask that their sick behavior be removed.”


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167844
08/20/2018 12:39 PM
08/20/2018 12:39 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
It isn't often I agree with Trump. This is one of the exceptions.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167858
08/21/2018 06:57 PM
08/21/2018 06:57 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Soros-Backed Groups Gloat Over Colluding With Big Tech To Censor Conservatives

Media Matters documents detail leftist plan to dominate internet ahead of 2020

Jamie White | Infowars.com - August 20, 2018

Soros-funded organizations Media Matters, ShareBlue, and others created a two-year plan to retake power following Hillary Clinton’s humiliating loss in the 2016 presidential election.

The scheme is outlined in a January 2017 document called “Democracy Matters: A Strategic Plan for Action,” released by Democrat operative David Brock during a Florida donor retreat.

“In the next four years, Media Matters will continue its core mission of disarming right-wing misinformation, while leading the fight against the next generation of conservative information: The proliferation of fake news and propaganda now threatening the country’s information ecosystem,” the memo reads (Page 2).

The 49-page memo, which stated its ultimate goal is to “defeat Trump either through impeachment or at the ballot box in 2020,” makes the alarming admission that these groups worked with social media companies to eliminate conservative content.

The far-left groups gave tech companies “a detailed map of the constellation of right-wing Facebook pages that had been the biggest purveyors of fake news,” in exchange for “access to raw data from Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites” so they can “systemically monitor and analyze this unfiltered data.”

“Internet and social media platforms, like Google and Facebook, will no longer uncritically and without consequence host and enrich fake new sites and propagandists,” the memo continues.

“With this new technology at our fingertips, researchers monitoring news in real time will be able to identify the origins of a lie with mathematical precision, creating an early warning system for fake news and disinformation.”

These groups routinely target Infowars, calling Alex Jones an “extremist” and falsely stating he incites violence and engages in “hate speech.”

In the months since the memo’s release, Facebook and Twitter have frequently been caught shadow banning conservative accounts, including Diamond & Silk, PragerU, and even conservative politicians, in some cases by 99%.

But the purge of conservative voices accelerated earlier this month when Big Tech, including Apple, Facebook, and YouTube, outright de-platformed Infowars and Alex Jones under the vague explanation of combating “hate speech,” without providing a single example to back up their false claim.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167926
08/27/2018 08:13 PM
08/27/2018 08:13 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC

After Lobbying Big Tech to Ban Infowars, CNN Says Big Tech Censorship is a Conspiracy Theory

Claims it's "false" that conservatives are being silenced

By Paul Joseph Watson | INFOWARS.COM Monday, August 27, 2018

After months of having lobbied social media giants to silence Infowars, CNN published an article insisting that President Trump’s complaint that social media companies were silencing conservatives was a conspiracy theory.

In an article entitled Trump props up false claim that big tech is out to silence conservatives, CNN’s Oliver Darcy, the same reporter who repeatedly lobbied YouTube, Facebook and Twitter to censor Infowars, asserts that there is no political agenda to censor conservatives.

Responding to Trump’s tweet about social media giants “silencing millions of people,” Darcy accused the President of “exacerbating a longstanding paranoia from conservatives who have for years erroneously accused social media companies of bias and censorship.”

However, his article is absent the admission that Facebook, YouTube and other Big Tech outlets banned Infowars after months of intense lobbying by CNN, a competitor network, to shut down their competition

Back in February, Darcy began abusing his CNN platform to lobby YouTube to shut down the Alex Jones Show, an effort that was almost successful at the time, before the channel finally was shut down earlier this month.

Darcy then switched his attention to Facebook, attending a Facebook event and asking executives from the social media site, “Why InfoWars is still allowed on the platform.”

Facebook invited me to an event today where the company aimed to tout its commitment to fighting fake news and misinformation.

I asked them why InfoWars is still allowed on the platform.

I didn't get a good answer.https://t.co/WwLgqa6vQ4

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) July 12, 2018

Shortly after Darcy repeatedly demanded to know why Infowars was not banned, Facebook suspended Alex Jones’ personal account and then deleted the official Alex Jones page as well as other Infowars pages altogether.

Not content with YouTube, Facebook, Apple and Spotify banning Jones completely, Darcy kept up the pressure, demanding to know why Twitter had only slapped Jones with a 7 day ban.

Darcy’s campaign to have Infowars banned even led some commentators to speculate that CNN’s senior media reporter had a creepy obsession with Alex Jones.

The deliberate targeting of Infowars was also intensified after top Democratic lawmakers demanded Alex Jones be censored, again illustrating that the silencing of Jones and Infowars was part of a wider political agenda.

Last month, Democratic Congressman Ted Deutch (D-FL) pressured Facebook to ban Infowars during a hearing into social media censorship on Capitol Hill.

This followed another lobbying effort last year by Democratic Congressman Mike Quigley to force Twitter into shadow banning tweets from Infowars accounts.

While Darcy asserts that social media giants are not censoring anyone because of their political opinions, he fails to point out the numerous examples where precisely that happened, such as when Gavin McInnes was banned by Twitter shortly before a right-wing rally in Washington, D.C. despite McInnes and his Proud Boys group repeatedly disavowing violence.

Tommy Robinson was also banned by Twitter for his political activism, while Project Veritas journalist Laura Loomer was banned by Facebook after she confronted two Muslim candidates at a political event.

None of these examples are mentioned by Darcy in his article, because if they were it would prove that conservatives are being discriminated against, thanks in part to underhanded efforts by networks like CNN to pressure social media giants into enacting arbitrary censorship justified by vague claims of violations of terms of service that aren’t even properly identified.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167934
08/28/2018 05:36 PM
08/28/2018 05:36 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC

Exclusive: Ann Coulter Says MSM Pushing Violent Uprising to Blame Conservatives
Fears Trump may lose midterms and Left will launch civil war


By Jamie White | INFOWARS.COM Tuesday, August 28, 2018

The mainstream, corporate media is using the phony “Russian collusion” narrative to facilitate a leftist uprising in the form of political violence and censorship, according to conservative author Ann Coulter.

“Imagine if right wingers started beating up Hillary supporters, as we’ve seen left wingers and Antifa beating up Trump supporters, I think the country would recognize we’re in the middle of a fascist uprising,” Coulter said on The Alex Jones Show Tuesday.

“But no, because the fascist uprising is being cheered on and encouraged by the mainstream media, it just goes without comment. I think it’s like nothing this country has seen before.”

Institutions captured by the left, including Big Tech, feel emboldened to shut down conservatives due to the media’s encouragement and cover they provide.

“Consider how strong liberals consider their arguments. They’ve got all of the mainstream media, one hundred percent,” Coulter said.

“ABC, NBC, CBS, all the cable, the major newspapers, the major news magazines, they’ve got Yahoo, AOL. They have the swamp, they’ve got Hollywood, they have Silicon Valley. And now they’re down to the last corners of the internet.”

Coulter believes Trump can take legal action against Big Tech because they’re taking advantage of the law, operating as publishers when they tout themselves as utilities.

“When you have a total monopoly on how people can communicate with one another, we do have legal concepts like ‘natural monopolies’ and ‘utilities,’ and unless they start living under the First Amendment, I think the law should force them to,” she said.

“Right now, the law is written in such a way so that they are simultaneously publishers so they will determine who can be heard and seen on their airwaves, and are also totally immune from suit.”

President Trump warned Google Tuesday that his administration would address Big Tech’s mass censorship of conservatives.

“Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal?”

Google search results for “Trump News” shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake News Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD. Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal? 96% of….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2018

“96% results on ‘Trump News’ are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation – will be addressed!”

….results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous. Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2018


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167942
08/29/2018 02:06 PM
08/29/2018 02:06 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 70
North Central Ohio
3
30soldier Offline
Member
30soldier  Offline
Member
3
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 70
North Central Ohio
I like Alex Jones and InfoWars, do I think he is the end all be all? No. But there is a reason why he has been targeted so blatently, he has been exposing the NWO for over 20 years and is having a major impact. He is constantly attacking CNN and all the other corporate fake news propaganda outlets. He is effective that is why, he played a big role in helping Trump get elected. He is a threat to the deep state. Granted he makes himself easier to target because he is over the top sometimes and can seem unstable, but so what, I respect him for being himself and not giving a shit what anyone thinks.
Unless this is stopped and I don't have the answers as to how other than start using alternate media platforms, check out https://www.real.video/, for example, Rush Limbaugh is next, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, etc. etc. etc. They are absolute fools if they don't see it coming. Youtube is in the process of banning The Hagmann Report as we speak, if your not listening to this program nightly, you really should be https://www.hagmannreport.com/.
Get Infowars app for your phone, sign up for their newsletter and the Hagmann's newsletter, setup a secure email account that is only for friends, family and news from aforementioned news sources. Buy a good shortwave radio with a good outdoor antenna and why stop there get your amateur radio license while your at it. We had better be finding alternative forms of communications now while we still can. The door and the 1st ammendent are closing rapidly now.


Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: 30soldier] #167944
08/29/2018 04:43 PM
08/29/2018 04:43 PM
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 7
South Dakota
D
Dakota02 Offline
Member
Dakota02  Offline
Member
D
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 7
South Dakota
Originally Posted by 30soldier
I like Alex Jones and InfoWars, do I think he is the end all be all? No. But there is a reason why he has been targeted so blatently, he has been exposing the NWO for over 20 years and is having a major impact. He is constantly attacking CNN and all the other corporate fake news propaganda outlets. He is effective that is why, he played a big role in helping Trump get elected. He is a threat to the deep state. Granted he makes himself easier to target because he is over the top sometimes and can seem unstable, but so what, I respect him for being himself and not giving a shit what anyone thinks.
Unless this is stopped and I don't have the answers as to how other than start using alternate media platforms, check out https://www.real.video/, for example, Rush Limbaugh is next, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, etc. etc. etc. They are absolute fools if they don't see it coming. Youtube is in the process of banning The Hagmann Report as we speak, if your not listening to this program nightly, you really should be https://www.hagmannreport.com/.
Get Infowars app for your phone, sign up for their newsletter and the Hagmann's newsletter, setup a secure email account that is only for friends, family and news from aforementioned news sources. Buy a good shortwave radio with a good outdoor antenna and why stop there get your amateur radio license while your at it. We had better be finding alternative forms of communications now while we still can. The door and the 1st ammendent are closing rapidly now.


WHile I support Alex Jones right to stay on the air I prefer to get my information elsewhere. Usually there is a sliver of truth in Infowars facts and thats about it


Dakota
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167948
08/29/2018 06:29 PM
08/29/2018 06:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,031
Tennessee
Hawk45 Offline
Moderator Officer Contributor
Hawk45  Offline
Moderator Officer Contributor
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,031
Tennessee
For your education look at any news story say on the NY Times web site. Then look at the same story on the web sites for Pravda, The Times (London) and the Jerusalem Post. Of them all the NY Times and Pravda are the most alike if it does not involve the Russian foreign policy or allies. The Times is more like the Wall Street Journal, and the Jerusalem Post comes closest to the truth. Yes, it takes a pro Israeli slant, but it come closest to the plain facts of any news story.

The US has always had Propaganda. Prime example is the papers of William Randolph Hearst that led/lied us into the Spanish-American War of 1898. Hearst needed the war to sell papers, and his friends wanted to move in for minerals and natural resources. IE the sugar industry of Cuba and other things.

A second example was about 35 years ago the number one news story in the world EXCEPT the US was the story that a Japanese TV crew broke about the CIA involvement in trying to over throw the Argentine government. They had the proof and showed the actual documents from the CIA that showed its involvement.

NOW folks see why I always want PROOF and NOT opinion, especially from news sources. Right now I would NOT believe anything from NBC, MSNBC, CNN and 90%+ of anything from any other US source.

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #167952
08/29/2018 10:10 PM
08/29/2018 10:10 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC

Poll: 32% of Conservatives Leaving Facebook Over Censorship
Policing political content backfiring on tech giants


By Infowars.com Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Facebook risks losing over a third of its conservative users over concerns the social media company censors their content.

According to the poll conducted by the Media Research Center, 32% of self-described conservatives who use Facebook have left or are considering leaving the platform due to political censorship.

Additionally, 66% of conservative users agree they don’t trust Facebook to treat users equally and and fairly regardless of political beliefs.

Another 65% stated they believe major tech companies like Facebook, Google, and Twitter deliberately censor conservative content.

“The question Facebook and other social media companies need to ask themselves is this: Do you want to be seen as an open platform for all political beliefs or would you rather be considered a left-wing public interest group that censors free speech worldwide?” MRC President Brent Bozell said in a statement in response to the poll results.

“The latter will prove to be unbelievably costly. Censorship on social media is no longer a hypothetical; it’s reality. So too is the evidence that this censorship is pointing to a massive conservative exodus.”

Facebook not only censored Infowars content, but deleted four of our pages entirely under the guise of fighting “hate speech,” when in reality the social media giant received intense pressure from Democrats in Congress and CNN to de-platform Alex Jones.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: Dakota02] #167969
08/30/2018 09:17 PM
08/30/2018 09:17 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 70
North Central Ohio
3
30soldier Offline
Member
30soldier  Offline
Member
3
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 70
North Central Ohio
Originally Posted by Dakota02
Originally Posted by 30soldier
I like Alex Jones and InfoWars, do I think he is the end all be all? No. But there is a reason why he has been targeted so blatently, he has been exposing the NWO for over 20 years and is having a major impact. He is constantly attacking CNN and all the other corporate fake news propaganda outlets. He is effective that is why, he played a big role in helping Trump get elected. He is a threat to the deep state. Granted he makes himself easier to target because he is over the top sometimes and can seem unstable, but so what, I respect him for being himself and not giving a shit what anyone thinks.
Unless this is stopped and I don't have the answers as to how other than start using alternate media platforms, check out https://www.real.video/, for example, Rush Limbaugh is next, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, etc. etc. etc. They are absolute fools if they don't see it coming. Youtube is in the process of banning The Hagmann Report as we speak, if your not listening to this program nightly, you really should be https://www.hagmannreport.com/.
Get Infowars app for your phone, sign up for their newsletter and the Hagmann's newsletter, setup a secure email account that is only for friends, family and news from aforementioned news sources. Buy a good shortwave radio with a good outdoor antenna and why stop there get your amateur radio license while your at it. We had better be finding alternative forms of communications now while we still can. The door and the 1st ammendent are closing rapidly now.


WHile I support Alex Jones right to stay on the air I prefer to get my information elsewhere. Usually there is a sliver of truth in Infowars facts and thats about it


I would say you must not listen to him or read Infowars at all if that's your opinion. Mainstream media is where you will only find slivers of truth.


Only the dead have seen the end of war-Plato
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168007
09/05/2018 06:12 PM
09/05/2018 06:12 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
DOJ will investigate if social media companies are stifling conservatives.

Quote
The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced today that it will look into whether social media platforms are "hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas."

DOJ spokesperson Devin O'Malley said in a statement Wednesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions will meet later this month with various state attorneys general to examine the issue. According to Reuters, the meeting will be held on September 25.

The DOJ's announcement came the same day that Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee. Both executives answered questions about the steps they're taking to prevent foreign actors from using social media to disrupt the American democratic process.

It seems the Trump administration is more concerned about Silicon Valley's alleged censorship of conservative viewpoints than foreign election meddling. In an interview yesterday with The Daily Caller, President Donald Trump claimed the "true interference" in the 2016 election was the fact that "virtually all of those [social media] companies are super liberal companies in favor of Hillary Clinton."

Conservatives have long accused Twitter and Facebook of censoring their viewpoints. Google has caught some ire, too. Late last month, Trump railed against the internet giant, claiming its liberal bias was evident in the results of a "Trump News" search. Trump even suggested the federal government could regulate Google and other companies accused of censoring conservatives.

So are internet companies really biased against conservatives?

Facebook, Google, and Twitter have all insisted the answer is no. Following his testimony before the Senate, Dorsey faced more questions from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, this time about Twitter's alleged anti-conservative bias. He again denied it, while also claiming Twitter is trying "to be as transparent as possible."

It's impossible to say for certain whether or not internet platforms are censoring conservatives. Regardless, that's not necessarily a bad thing. As I argued in July, privately run companies have every right to promote viewpoints they like and censor the ones they don't. But many conservatives can't seem to grasp this idea:

Quote
Conservatives say they're proponents of free speech and free markets, and while that doesn't mean they have to like the political biases of the people who run Twitter and Facebook, they should at least respect a private company's right to promote some views over others. There is nothing stopping right-leaning programmers from creating social media networks that amplify conservative voices at the expense of liberal ones. Some conservatives have done just that, though for many more, it's much easier to complain about bias and argue the law should force private companies to accommodate them.


Social media companies may indeed be "hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas." But that's their right.


Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168010
09/05/2018 08:41 PM
09/05/2018 08:41 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Social media companies are monopolistic public entities who have seized control of 90 percent of the internet and other forms of media. Alphabet, the parent company of Google has bought up over 200 internet companies. They not only stifle free speech but competition as well. Just recently microcrap threatened to shut down a start up company that was an alternative to fakebook and twitter. Their reason...Zukerberg didn't like the competition.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168012
09/05/2018 11:21 PM
09/05/2018 11:21 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
I have to think the DOJ is looking into some sort of antitrust action, maybe a conspiracy to restrain trade lawsuit.

I've been wondering if some hotshot lawyer somewhere might be looking into a class action consumer fraud lawsuit. It would probably take a lot of creativity to come up with damages, but that's what hotshot lawyers specialize in.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168016
09/06/2018 11:58 AM
09/06/2018 11:58 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
Regulating social media companies is a road to tyranny.

Quote
Last week, President Trump tweeted about potentially exploring regulation for companies such as Google, citing a report that claimed searching for “ Trump News” pulls up disproportionately left-leaning results. Seemingly overnight, some conservatives like Laura Ingraham have made an about-face from their usual skepticism of government intervention in private business to floating full-throated support for government regulation of Google on national television.

Conservatives have every right to be suspicious when government seeks to regulate the marketplace. But where is this skepticism when it comes to social media? Only a few months ago, conservatives were mocking the Left for their inflammatory rhetoric on the repeal of Internet regulations like net neutrality.

The crux of the conservative argument in favor of net neutrality repeal was that the free market resolves many, if not all, industry woes. The Obama-era federal government, in the case of net neutrality, wanted to require Internet providers to grant equal access to all content online, regardless of source. This sounds great on its face, until one realizes that this requires Internet providers to offer equal downloading speeds to both a hospital’s emergency room and a guy watching Netflix in his basement. If conservatives agree that this type of government intervention doesn’t make sense for Internet providers, why wouldn’t it also be true for the social media sphere?

Lest we forget, the government hasn’t exactly been kind to conservatives when given expanded powers. During the Obama Administration, the IRS unfairly targeted conservative groups for enhanced review during their application phase for tax-exempt status. More recently, FBI agent Peter Strzok was fired for his inability to be objective in the Russian interference investigation. And, within the Trump administration, staffers at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau formed “ Dumbledore’s Army,” referencing a resistance movement conducted in the Harry Potter books, in an effort to resist the agenda of the Trump administration. The list could go on of government overreach at the expense of conservatives—and that’s just within the last five years.

We should not be so trusting in government that we want to give them the keys to call balls and strikes over something they already mishandle and with power they aren’t reluctant to abuse.

Furthermore, consider the implementation of government regulation on social media giants. There would be many fatal flaws in the process—but some are already obvious. Proponents of such regulation have suggested creating a commission similar to the Federal Communications Commission or the Federal Election Commissions. A president would appoint members and the Senate would confirm. This might sound attractive until one considers that these types of commissions and boards have historically and recently targeted conservatives. For example, the recent Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission comes to mind, where a Colorado commission discriminated against a Christian baker.

Any government involvement in Internet speech also necessarily requires that businesses give the government access to their work. Consider when the FBI ordered Apple to create backdoor technology to unlock one of its phones so the bureau could access the information within. The government thereby attempted to undercut the very premise of Apple creating encryption software in the first place, and put the security of every iPhone at risk. Similarly, by government regulating speech on social media platforms, it is undermining the very purpose of the companies’ respective business models. When the axiom of a business drifts from its headquarters toward Washington, D.C., opportunities for abuse only expand—especially once D.C. is no longer dominated by Republicans.

Still, there is no doubt that Silicon Valley leans heavily to the Left. But that tilt doesn’t require tossing aside years of conservative principle opposing government intervention. Social media companies like Twitter and Facebook have already shown themselves to be conciliatory to conservative outcry over perceived discrimination. They have appeared before Congress to address issues and attempted to curate a space that doesn’t lead to pervasive misinformation. All the while, they’ve tried to maintain a growing business that doesn’t collapse by market forces. Furthermore, when mistakes happen, Facebook has conceded fault and issued apologies to conservative groups like PragerU. But they’ve also pointed out that its algorithms have censored left-wing content. So clearly, there’s no dire need for government to get involved, even if the president feels personally affronted.

It’s tempting to demand regulation when feeling discriminated against. Government, however, is not the answer to issues of left-wing bias in Silicon Valley. We sacrifice our principles when we cede power over private business to government and, in the technology space, we may very well be sacrificing our liberty.


Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168017
09/06/2018 01:01 PM
09/06/2018 01:01 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Fakebook Goggle and other tech giants are creations of the government. They've been funded by and directed by the likes of the cia and nsa from the very beginning. If people were smart that would dump all of these "free" spy services like a hot potato. The internet functioned just fine before we had them and would continue to work if they were all eliminated. These corporations need us; we do not need them.

But, you can bet the government who created this mess will now fix it with more draconian regulations...'problem' solved.

It's past time we exist their matrix and implement alternatives to their control grid.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168018
09/06/2018 07:08 PM
09/06/2018 07:08 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
Twitter has banned Alex Jones for life. I have a feeling Alex Jones will come out of this better than Twitter will.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168019
09/06/2018 07:29 PM
09/06/2018 07:29 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Twitter, another useless app for twits.



Rep. Markwayne Mullin Reads Sarah Jeong’s Bigoted Tweets to Jack Dorsey

Allum Bokhari 5 Sep 2018

Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) made Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey squirm as he read out tweets from notorious racist, verified Twitter “blue checkmark,” and New York Times hire Sarah Jeong, which have yet to be deleted or otherwise acted upon by Twitter.

Speaking to Dorsey at a session of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Mullin brought up the double standard evident in the case of Jeong, who repeatedly published tweets about white people that would have been banned under Twitter’s hate speech rules had they been said about any other race.

Rep. Mullin noted that when conservative activist Candace Owens swapped out “white” for another group, she received a temporary suspension from Twitter, despite the fact that her tweets were intended to highlight the racism in Jeong’s.

Rep. Mullin repeated many of Jeong’s now-infamous tweets, including her complaint that white people “marking up the internet like dogs pissing on fire hydrants,” that she receives “joy” from being “cruel to old white men,” and that whites are “logically … only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.”

Dorsey responded that Twitter “made a mistake” only to be interrupted by Rep. Mullin.

“I’ve heard you say that multiple times; ‘we’ve made a mistake, we’ve made a mistake’ and you’ve been very polite at doing it, but the fact is it’s bigger than a mistake, It’s the environment which I think Twitter has. My point of the first question was, does that fit your political views [which] your company is following, because there seems to be a pattern here.”

Dorsey responded that Jeong’s tweets do not reflect his views and that he values a “variety of perspective” and people from “all walks of life and all points of view.”

Last edited by ConSigCor; 09/06/2018 07:54 PM.

"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168022
09/07/2018 09:58 AM
09/07/2018 09:58 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC

Twitter Briefed Establishment Media Ahead of Alex Jones Blacklisting


Twitter appears to have notified a number of establishment media publications ahead of its permanent ban of Alex Jones.

By Breitbart Friday, September 07, 2018

Twitter appears to have notified a number of establishment media publications ahead of its permanent ban of Alex Jones, while neglecting to inform conservative media.

A tweet from CNN’s Oliver Darcy was published at 4:45 p.m. eastern time, coinciding precisely with Twitter publicly announcing the ban. CNN could not have written the article beforehand unless Twitter notified them of its decision in advance.

🚨 Alex Jones and InfoWars have been permanently banned from Twitter https://t.co/rRoOQZep5p

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) September 6, 2018

Today, we permanently suspended @realalexjones and @infowars from Twitter and Periscope. We took this action based on new reports of Tweets and videos posted yesterday that violate our abusive behavior policy, in addition to the accounts’ past violations. https://t.co/gckzUAV8GL

— Twitter Safety (@TwitterSafety) September 6, 2018

Darcy is the CNN “journalist” who repeatedly agitated for Twitter to purge Alex Jones, publishing articles about the Infowars host’s alleged terms of service violations. Darcy would eventually catalyze Jones’ ban, which Twitter justified by referencing Jones’ heated exchange with Darcy at yesterday’s congressional hearings with big tech executives. Along with Democrat politicians, CNN has ceaselessly lobbied for its competitors in the alternative media to be blacklisted online.

Twitter said the video of Jones calling Darcy an “anti-American, anti-free speech coward” constituted “abusive behavior,” even though it was conducted outside of the platform (Twitter gave itself the authority to police users for offsite behavior earlier this year).

Other establishment publications that ran full articles on Jones’ ban at the same time as Twitter’s announcement included BuzzFeed News, the Associated Press, and the New York Times.

BREAKING: Twitter is permanently banning conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and Infowars for abusive behavior.

— The Associated Press (@AP) September 6, 2018

BREAKING: Twitter is banning Alex Jones and Infowars for violating their abusive behavior policy. https://t.co/jrpjSec1vy

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) September 6, 2018

Twitter has banned Alex Jones for violating its abusive behavior policy. The network was the last holdout after other tech platforms blocked him. https://t.co/O2mJvoe9qz

— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 6, 2018

No conservative-leaning media source appears to have received advance notice. A source at Fox News said they “hadn’t heard anything” ahead of the ban. Fox did not run an article on Jones’ ban until an hour after Twitter’s announcement. The Wall Street Journal posted an article several hours after the ban as well.

Infowars editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson said: “Silicon Valley and mainstream media are working hand in hand to silence competing voices. This is clearly harmful to the very spirit of the First Amendment and must be stopped now. Social media is the public square. It’s time it was legally treated that way.”


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168025
09/08/2018 12:21 PM
09/08/2018 12:21 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC

Twitter Exposes Its Politically Motivated Censorship Policy In Banning Of Alex Jones

Tech giants helping Democrats game the midterms

By Zero Hedge Saturday, September 08, 2018

It has been a busy month for Twitter, and Alex Jones, with Jack Dorsey forced to defend the decision not to ban Jones early last month, only reverse course by suspending Jones shortly after a tense Senate hearing on social media.

The Senate hearing, in which Dorsey spoke alongside Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg, saw the Twitter CEO questioned on his decision not to ban Jones. Shortly afterward, Twitter permanently suspending Jones’s verified account as well as that of Infowars.

The Gateway Pundit reported Jones’s response to the ban:

“I was taken down not because we lie, but because we tell the truth — and because we were popular… And because we dared to go to that committee hearing and stand up to Rubio and stand up to the lies of mainstream media and speak the truth.”

Meanwhile, in a statement regarding the decision to ban Jones, Twitter Safety wrote:

The Tweet is particularly hypocritical, in its bizarre allusion to Jones having committed ‘past violations’ of Twitter rules, even though Jack Dorsey had been forced to defend the company’s policy in regards to not having banned Jones, by stating outright that Jones had not violated Twitter policy.

As reported by the New York Post, after Infowars was banned from a plethora of other social media platforms all within the same 12-hour window in early August, Dorsey Tweeted: “We know that’s hard for many but the reason is simple: he hasn’t violated our rules. We’ll enforce if he does. And we’ll continue to promote a healthy conversational environment by ensuring tweets aren’t artificially amplified.”

Dorsey reiterated this stance during his testimony given to the Senate concerning Twitter’s policy concerning the alleged “Russian meddling” in the 2016 Presidential election.

Essentially, in suspending Jones, Twitter is attempting to have its cake and eat it too – but in doing so, the company exposes the enforcement of its rules as both arbitrary and political. This must raise the alarm among those who value free speech in the dawn of a digital age.

To break this hypocrisy down, we note that Twitter claims it does not engage in politically motivated censorship by explaining that the reason they had not banned Jones in early August hinged on the fact that Jones had not broken Twitter’s rules.

Then, in attempting to assert that the subsequent permanent suspension of Jones’s Twitter account was likewise not politically motivated, Twitter Support reverses this position, arguing that the ban resulted from not only a recent infringement of Twitter’s rules but also hinged on “past violations.”

So, if the latest Tweet from Twitter Safety is to be believed, one might argue that Dorsey protected Jones based on some type of favoritism despite having violated rules. Or, the latest statement is an attempt to justify politically censoring a dissident voice.

In this way, Twitter reveals that its suspension of Jones – and its censorship policy in general – is motivated by political expediency and pressure from the same authorities that interrogated Dorsey on his reasons for refusing to ban Jones just days prior.

Disobedient Media has regularly reported on the politically motivated censorship of other figures and journalistic groups, decrying the brief suspension of Caitlin Johnstone, who, (unlike State Department whistleblower Peter Van Buren,) was rapidly “un-suspended” in the face of a massive online uproar after she was initially banned.

It is this writer’s opinion that the across-the-board escalation in censorship we are witnessing represents the next domino to fall after the gagging of Julian Assange in late March, which has resulted in protests and shows of solidarity ever since, alongside the tightening of technocracy’s stranglehold on dissident voices.

One positive development in the wake of Jones’s suspension was manifested in some legacy press outlets who have finally begun to question silicon valley’s role in determining censorship policies on what amount to public forums for the expression of first-amendment-protected free speech.

No matter what one thinks of Alex Jones and Infowars, the censorship of any dissident or anti-establishment voice is a cause for grave concern. Disobedient Media will continue to report on such censorship as it occurs.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168041
09/10/2018 05:47 PM
09/10/2018 05:47 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
GOP turns its fire on Google

By Ali Breland - 09/09/18

President Trump's fight against Google is making its way down Pennsylvania Avenue to Congress.

Republican lawmakers are ramping up their scrutiny of the tech giant after Trump accused Google of political bias and questioned whether regulators should take a closer look at its market powers.

Google added fuel to the fire on Wednesday by skipping a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on foreign influence operations.

The committee sought top executives from each company to testify and successfully secured commitments from Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey.

Google offered to send Kent Walker, its vice president of global affairs. Committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-N.C.), though, rejected that offer in hopes of securing a more senior executive. Google ended up only submitting written testimony from Walker.

That move infuriated lawmakers, who took turns blasting Google during the hearing, which included an empty chair.

Burr said that he was “disappointed that Google decided against sending the right senior-level executive,” to the hearing.

The anger was bipartisan. Sen. Mark Warner (Va.), the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, piled on in his opening remarks.

“I’m deeply disappointed that Google — one of the most influential digital platforms in the world — chose not to send its own top corporate leadership to engage this committee,” Warner said.

Lawmakers used the incident to bring attention to their own issues with Google.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) speculated that Google didn’t attend either “because they’re arrogant” or because they didn’t want to answer hard questions about their business dealings with China, an issue he has hammered the company over.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) also slammed Google for ending programs with the Pentagon while keeping ties with Huawei, a Chinese telecom company that U.S. intelligence agencies have raised security concerns about.

“Perhaps Google didn’t send a senior executive today because they’ve recently taken actions such as terminating cooperation they had with the American military," Cotton said, "programs like artificial intelligence which are designed not just to protect our troops and to help them fight and win our country’s wars but to protect civilians as well."

“Perhaps they didn’t send a witness to answer these questions because there is no answer to these questions,” he added.

Tech experts said Google can expect more trouble ahead and worry the company missed an important chance to publicly defend their practices.

“Google is going to see long-term pain because of this,” said Christian Hertenstein, vice president of the right-leaning political strategy group Definers.

Hertenstein highlighted GOP concerns over China.

“Google avoiding the committee is only going to raise suspicion on how they operate in China,” he added.

The hearing largely crystallized in a public setting the building frustration on Capitol Hill and in the Trump administration with one of Silicon Valley's titans.

Google and other tech and social media companies are already taking heat from Trump over claims of political bias.

Despite the denials, Republicans see a potent political issue and one that resonates with their base. Attorney General Jeff Sessions last week said he would convene a meeting with state officials to discuss those concerns.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is seen as a potential Speaker if Republicans retain the House, has also been a prominent critic of what he sees as efforts to silence conservative voices online.

Google could also face a serious challenge on the regulatory front.

Trump said Google and other companies may have a “very antitrust situation,” but stopped short of saying whether he thought they should be broken up.

Following those remarks, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to investigate Google over its market dominance.

The agency has not responded to Hatch's calls. But the FTC is launching a new round of hearings this month on competition and consumer protections, which could touch on a host of concerns involving Google and other tech companies from their handling of customer data to market share.

The domestic scrutiny also comes at a difficult time for Google, which is already facing a regulatory assault in Europe. Earlier this year, the company was fined a record $5 billion by the European Union for antitrust violations involving its Android system.

To many tech watchers, Google's business ties with China could pose a particular problem. They see an issue that can unite lawmakers from both sides of the aisle. Democrats have also raised national security concerns about Chinese companies, including ZTE and Huawei.

It is unclear though what steps lawmakers will take next.

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) before Wednesday's hearings told The Washington Post he did not want an "adversarial" relationship with Google, but floated the possibility of a subpoena if the company did not willingly come and testify.

One tech sector lobbying source suggested Google could be vulnerable through reforms to Section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act.

The provision was established to keep internet companies from being liable for what users post on their sites, however, some lawmakers have begun to talk about making changes to it. Their ranks include Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who helped draft the law and has long defended it.

“I just want to be clear, as the author of Section 230, the days when these [platforms] are considered neutral are over,"
Wyden said during a hearing in August.

Republicans have also questioned the merits of those protections.

“CDA 230 [reform] may actually happen. People are zoning in on that,” the source, who said they were not authorized to speak on the matter, told The Hill.

But that would be a nuclear option, and would shake up the business model not just for Google but for all web companies.

For now, Trump's public criticisms and GOP calls for regulators to step up make it clear that Google is navigating a tougher political landscape.

Some drew contrasts between how Google handled Wednesday's hearing with Facebook and Twitter. Those companies scored points with lawmakers, who praised them for attending.

During a second hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where Twitter's Dorsey testified alone on allegations of conservative bias, Walden offered praise for his outreach efforts.

“I do want to take a moment to recognize that you have worked in recent weeks to reach out to conservative audiences and discuss publicly the issues your company is facing,” Walden said.

Hertenstein said Google missed an opportunity.

“The only thing that mattered was the picture of Sheryl and Jack raising their arms and the Google placard in front of an empty seat next to them,” he said.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168042
09/11/2018 12:27 AM
09/11/2018 12:27 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Trump Campaign Manager: Google A Direct Threat To Democracy & Online Freedom

'Google and YouTube shape our online reality,' says Parscale

[Linked Image]

By Jamie White | INFOWARS.COM Monday, September 10, 2018

Google poses a dire threat to democracy and online freedom, according to President Trump’s 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale.

In a USA Today op-ed, Parscale laid out point-by-point how Google and other tech giants operate as the “gatekeepers” of online information and as political instruments of the left.

“As the internet has become an increasingly central part of modern life, Big Tech giants such as Facebook, Twitter and Google have increasingly sought to become the gatekeepers of the internet and political discourse,” Parscale wrote Monday.

“Without any sort of democratic mandate, these companies have appointed themselves the arbiters of acceptable thought, discussion and searches online.”

.@realDonaldTrump is right: More than Facebook & Twitter, Google threatens democracy, online freedom. https://t.co/VMtZI1FaoG

— Brad Parscale (@parscale) September 10, 2018

“These companies’ pervasive command of the internet — and blatant desire to control how we interact with it — is a direct threat to a free society. And arguably the worst offender is Google,” he added.

He then described just how extensive and all-encompassing Google’s control is over the internet, accounting for over 90% of all online searches.

“Google’s broad and pervasive role in the lives of almost every American today cannot be overstated. More than 90 percent of all online searches are conducted through Google or YouTube. The media giant’s video-sharing site has 1 billion active users a month, many of whom go there to learn and share conservative ideas only to find their quest for knowledge subverted by faceless ideologues,” he explained.

Parscale went on to extensively list how Google blacklists, manipulates, and outright removes content it alone deems undesirable, which is usually right-leaning.

“Google’s eager adoption of the role of censor should come as little surprise. Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google’s parent company, Alphabet Inc., has a demonstrated track record of combining the role of Democrat activist with his job,” he wrote.

Additionally, Google colluded with the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, and cozied up with the Obama White House in regular weekly meetings, demonstrating the platform’s political bias.

“Google is clearly manipulating and controlling the political narrative in favor of Democrats and the left, and silencing conservatives and Republicans,” Parscale wrote.

“A company with such power and influence cannot simply be allowed to play the biased gatekeeper of political discourse.”

Members of Congress demanded Big Tech leaders testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee about their companies’ roles in political censorship, fighting “fake news,” and addressing foreign influencers.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg appeared for the hearing last week, but Google CEO Sundar Pichai and co-founder Larry Page both snubbed the high-profile event.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168046
09/11/2018 11:02 AM
09/11/2018 11:02 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
DOJ and state Attorneys General threatening social media companies over m0deration and censorship practices is a First Amendment issue.

Quote
Earlier this month, President Trump made it explicitly clear that he expects the Jeff Sessions' DOJ to use its power for political purposes, protecting his friends and going after his enemies:

Quote
Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018

Big story out that the FBI ignored tens of thousands of Crooked Hillary Emails, many of which are REALLY BAD. Also gave false election info. I feel sure that we will soon be getting to the bottom of all of this corruption. At some point I may have to get involved!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 25, 2018


And, while the DOJ hasn't done that concerning indictments of Trump's friends and cronies, it appears that Sessions may be moving towards it with another "enemy" in the mind of Trump. Over the last few weeks Trump has also made it clear that he (incorrectly) believes that the big internet companies are deliberately targeting conservatives, and has threatened to do something about it.

On Wednesday, just after Twitter and Facebook appeared before Congress, the DOJ released a statement saying that it was investigating whether or not actions by the big internet companies was "intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas." The full statement was short and to the point:

Quote
We listened to today's Senate Select Committee on Intelligence hearing on Foreign Influence Operations' Use of Social Media Platforms closely. The Attorney General has convened a meeting with a number of state attorneys general this month to discuss a growing concern that these companies may be hurting competition and intentionally stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms.


The competition question is one that the DOJ's antitrust division clearly has authority over, but alarms should be raised about the DOJ or state AGs arguing that these platforms are "stifling the free exchange of ideas on their platforms." Because while -- on its face -- that might sound like it's supporting free speech, it's actually an almost certain First Amendment violation by the DOJ and whatever state AGs are involved.

There are lots and lots of cases on the books about this, but government entities aren't supposed to be in the business of telling private businesses what content they can or cannot host. Cases such as Near v. Minnesota and Bantam Books v. Sullivan have long made it clear that governments can't be in the business of regulating the speech of private organizations -- though those are both about regulations to suppress speech.

But there are related cases on compelled speech. Most famously, perhaps, is West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette which said schools' can't make kids say the Pledge of Allegiance. In that case, the court ruled:

Quote
If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.


Forcing platforms to carry speech would clearly go against that.

Miami Herald v. Tornillo actually seems even more directly on point. It was in response to a Florida state law demanding "equal space" for political candidates, but the court ruled, pretty definitively, that as private publications, the government could not compel them to host speech they did not want to host. The ruling even discussed the issue of a lack of competition -- which Sessions' statement alludes to -- and concludes that's not an excuse for compelling speech. In CBS v. the Democratic National Committee, the Supreme Court clearly noted:

Quote
The power of a privately owned newspaper to advance its own political, social, and economic views is bounded by only two factors: first, the acceptance of a sufficient number of readers -- and hence advertisers -- to assure financial success; and, second, the journalistic integrity of its editors and publishers.


In other words, if a private speech hosting platform is too one-sided, that is for the market to decide, not the government.

So, yeah, there are concerns raised here about freedom of expression... but it's by Attorney General Jeff Sessions and whichever State Attorneys General decide to participate in this clown show. Oh, and just to put a little more emphasis on why this is clearly a political move designed to suppress free speech rights? So far only Republican Attorneys General have been invited -- a point I'm sure any court would take note of.


Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168047
09/11/2018 01:38 PM
09/11/2018 01:38 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Goggle, fakebook, twitter and others have never been "private" companies. They've had a incestuous relationship with the government from the very beginning of their existence. And, have used that relationship to stifle all their competition. They are monopolies and should be broken up.

Quote
Google's entire business model is based on you surrendering to corporate surveillance. That's it. All they do is repackage mass corporate surveillance into convenient, free, trendy applications that suck up all your data.

Your private information is the "secret sauce" to their entire business. And when you use any Google product, you feed them more data. Your data makes them powerful and allows them to:

Dominate the online advertisement industry.
Partner up with governments for mass surveillance and other "projects". Google (or Alphabet) is one of the largest lobbyists in the world, spending money to influence regulations, bribe politicians, and get tax breaks. Classified documents revealed Google has been helping the NSA with mass surveillance since early 2009
.


Just the other day Fox and Breitbart released emails from Google executives in which they openly admitted toattempting to influence the election in favor of Hillary Clinton. Some of their activities are in direct violation of federal election law.

Last edited by ConSigCor; 09/11/2018 02:01 PM.

"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168048
09/11/2018 02:15 PM
09/11/2018 02:15 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
That would be an antitrust action, which can certainly be done with violating the Fourth Amendment. I generally take a dim view of antitrust regulations, but there are exceptions. If they want to break up Google, I have no objections.

Originally Posted by ConSigCor
Just the other day Fox and Breitbart released emails from Google executives in which they openly admitted toattempting to influence the election in favor of Hillary Clinton. Some of their activities are in direct violation of federal election law.


And we all know how effective they were. grin

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168051
09/11/2018 10:48 PM
09/11/2018 10:48 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
My point was that they want to yell about Russian collusion when in fact they were in collusion with the democratic party in a bid to rig the election.

https://www.newswars.com/silent-don...who-they-thought-would-vote-for-clinton/


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168052
09/11/2018 11:18 PM
09/11/2018 11:18 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
Yep. And it's looking more and more like they're going to pay some sort of price for that. I just hope that doesn't come at the expense of the First Amendment.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168082
09/16/2018 12:47 PM
09/16/2018 12:47 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
Voldemort, Alex Jones, and my Facebook account. After a friends had his Facwbook account suspended for 30 days for linking to Infowars, Stewart Baker had his "I am Spartacus" moment. Or not.

Quote
For those who've been waiting (and maybe hoping) that I'd be suspended from Facebook after I linked to infowars.com, we have an answer.

I began the experiment when a guy named Brandon Straka, leader of the conservative #WalkAway initiative, announced that he had been given a 30-day account suspension for linking from Facebook to his upcoming interview on infowars. I couldn't believe Facebook was banning people for mentioning Alex Jones or his site, so I decided to put my own account at risk by doing the same. (If I were Cory Booker, I'd call it my "I am Spartacus" moment. But I'm not.)

A few hours later, with Straka getting a lot of clicks for his complaint, Facebook rescinded the ban, calling it a mistake. Straka claims Facebook didn't tell him the ban was lifted but did tell a hostile journalist, who then wrote a snarky article about the incident.

So that's where things stand. Facebook's messages to Straka clearly show that his link to infowars triggered a 30-day suspension. Then the suspension was quickly reversed. Why? Presumably, whoever pulled the plug on Straka was overruled. But we don't know who issued the ban, or who lifted it, or why. Facebook apparently hasn't said anything publicly.

Lessons? First, now that being censored on social media is a surefire way to win conservative clicks, it's fair to assume that claims of censorship will proliferate, and not all of them will be true. Second, that doesn't mean they're all false, either. When it comes to the right, Silicon Valley almost certainly suffers from what the Valley used to call "epistemic closure" before the Valley embraced it. In that climate, "Sorry, mistake" isn't likely to mollify anyone.

So the right has good reason for its suspicion, and no way to get good evidence that might rebut it. To see if Alex Jones had indeed been turned into Voldemort, I had to put my Facebook account -- and a bit of my reputation -- at risk. And even then, the fact that my account stayed up might simply show that the censors saw it as a trap that they were smart enough to avoid.

Bottom line: conservative concern about platform bias will continue to grow, and only radical transparency about platform standards and due process is likely to address that concern.


Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168087
09/17/2018 02:20 PM
09/17/2018 02:20 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,031
Tennessee
Hawk45 Offline
Moderator Officer Contributor
Hawk45  Offline
Moderator Officer Contributor
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,031
Tennessee
As the Left controls twitter, the left is VERY afraid the POTUS is going to use the Emergency Broadcast System when he tests the Phone notification system at 1418 EST on 20 September. Going to find it interesting to see if it also lists on my old style flip phone.

Last edited by Hawk45; 09/17/2018 02:23 PM. Reason: Added EST which I forgot
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168095
09/18/2018 12:34 PM
09/18/2018 12:34 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Alex Jones Wins Info War, Site Traffic Soars In August

by Joe Mandese @mp_joemandese, September 14, 2018

[Linked Image]

Despite -- or maybe because of -- being blacklisted from the major social media platforms, traffic to Alex Jones’ Infowars.com spiked in August, according to an analysis of monthly visitor data to major conservative websites released this morning by watchdog The Righting.

Infowars site traffic surged by a third in August vs. July, representing the largest gain of any leading conservative site, according to The Righting President Howard Polskin.

“I think the massive media coverage created enormous brand awareness and drove people there,” Polskin said, adding, “I don't think that it's as dependent on social media as one might think.”

He said September data will be “key” to determining whether Infowars spike is a sustainable trend.


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168119
09/22/2018 10:43 AM
09/22/2018 10:43 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
The White House is considering an executive order for an intitrust act against Facebook and Google, alleging bias against conservatives. Here is a draft order. Note that this is a preliminary draft leaked to Business Insider, and a final draft may be quite different.

[quote]EXECUTIVE ORDER TO PROTECT COMPETITON AND SMALL BUSINESSES FROM BIAS IN ONLINE PLATFORMS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to protect American consumers and workers and encourage competition in the U.S. economy, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Policy. Online platforms are central to American commerce and the free flow of news and information. Whether reading news or looking for local businesses, citizens rely on search, social media, and other online platforms to provide objective and reliable information to shape a host of decisions ranging from consumer purchases to votes in elections. Because of their critical role in American society, it is essential that American citizens are protected from anticompetitive acts by dominant online platforms. Vibrant competition in the online ecosystem is essential to ensuring accountability for the platforms that hold so much sway over our economy and democratic process.

[Can expand this section, if necessary, to provide more detail on role of platforms and the importance of competition]

Section 2. Agency Responsibilities. (a) Executive departments and agencies with authorities that could be used to enhance competition among online platforms (agencies) shall, where consistent with other laws, use those authorities to promote competition and ensure that no online platform exercises market power in a way that harms consumers, including through the exercise of bias.

(b) Agencies with authority to investigate anticompetitive conduct shall thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws, as defined in subsection (a) of the first section of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12, or any other law intended to protect competition.

(c) Should an agency learn of possible or actual anticompetitive conduct by a platform that the agency lacks the authority to investigate and/or prosecute, the matter should be referred to the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Competition of the Federal Trade Commission.

(d) Not later than 30 days from the date of this order, agencies shall submit to the Director of the National Economic Council an initial list of (1) actions each agency can potentially take to protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias; (2) any relevant authorities and tools potentially available to enhance competition among and protect the users of online platforms.

(e) Not later than 60 days from the date of this order, agencies shall report to the President, through the Director of the National Economic Council, recommendations on agency-specific actions in response to paragraphs (d) of this section. Such recommendations shall include a list of priority actions, including rulemakings, as well as timelines for completing those actions.

Section 3. General Provisions. (a) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(b) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the requirements of this order.

(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to a department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168305
10/12/2018 10:47 AM
10/12/2018 10:47 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
ConSigCor Offline OP
Senior Member
ConSigCor  Offline OP
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 19,714
A 059 Btn 16 FF MSC
Facebook Purges Over 800 Accounts With Millions Of Followers; Prominent Conservatives Vanish

Tyler Durden October 12th, 2018
Zero Hedge


SHTFplan Editor’s note: Many prominent Libertarian and alternative media pages were also removed from Facebook without warning. Some were removed from Twitter as well, leading many to believe this is a coordinated purge. The Free Thought Project, The Anti-Media, and Press For Truth are all independent media sites (non-partisan) that were removed from both Facebook and Twitter.

***

Just in time for midterms, Facebook has removed 559 pages and 251 accounts they claim have been spreading misinformation and spam. Several of the pages however – some with millions of followers, were pro-Trump conservatives who had spent years cultivating their followings.

Facebook has unpublished our page

After 5 years of building fans Facebook has officially unpublished our page (3.1 million fans) so we can’t post on it anymore. This is truly an outrage and we are devastated. We will do everything we can to recover our page and fight back. pic.twitter.com/H3AmHTT8Qo

— Free Thought Project (@TFTPROJECT) October 11, 2018

I’ve been memory holed from FaceBook! 350k followers poof gone! There is a dangerous precedent being set here where the big tech companies have appointed themselves as the gate keepers of political thought and opinion! Retweet this if you care about free-speech! #FreeDickspic.twitter.com/LsnZvaJyOL

— Dan Dicks (@DanDicksPFT) October 11, 2018

Our @facebook page with over 2.1 million followers has been unpublished, along with over 800 other pages and accounts. The purge of alt-media is upon us. pic.twitter.com/6Q2oswVpBI

— Anti-Media (@AntiMedia) October 11, 2018

Facebook claims that “domestic actors” have been creating “fake pages and accounts to attract people with shocking political news,” reports Bloomberg.

“The people behind the activity also post the same clickbait posts in dozens of Facebook Groups, often hundreds of times in a short period, to drum up traffic for their websites,” Facebook said in a Thursday blog post. “And they often use their fake accounts to generate fake likes and shares. This artificially inflates engagement for their inauthentic pages and the posts they share, misleading people about their popularity and improving their ranking in news feed.”

Some pages Facebook removed had large followings of real and fake accounts. Nation in Distress, a conservative meme page, was followed by more than 3 million people, according to the Internet Archive, which stores historical versions of websites and other online content. –Bloomberg

Facebook has removed “559 Pages and 251 accounts” in the US “that have consistently broken our rules against spam and coordinated inauthentic behavior.” They include:

-Nation in Distress
-Reasonable People Unite
-The Resistance
-Reverb Press
-Right Wing News
-Snowflakes

— Craig Silverman (@CraigSilverman) October 11, 2018

That said, not all of the accounts with large followings were conservative; Reverb Press, for example, had over 700,000 followers and constantly attacked President Trump and Republicans, who they referred to as “cheating scumbags.”

A third left-leaning page, Reasonable People Unite, posted a screen shot of a Twitter user who said, “Somewhere in America, a teenage girl is listening to her parents defend Brett Kavanaugh and she is thinking to herself, if something like that happens to me, I have nowhere to go.” –WaPo

The digital nanny state strikes again…

First they came for Alex Jones and now @facebook has taken down @DanDicksPFT Press For Truth page! This is insanity, Dan has been one of the most inspirational and rational independent journalists of our era! @DewsNewz @PrisonPlanet @LeighStewy @PressForTruth pic.twitter.com/EA5WatAHUI

— Jason Bermas (@JasonBermas) October 11, 2018


"The time for war has not yet come, but it will come and that soon, and when it does come, my advice is to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard." Gen. T.J. Jackson, March 1861
Re: Dems Pressure Facebook to Ban Infowars [Re: ConSigCor] #168307
10/12/2018 12:35 PM
10/12/2018 12:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
airforce Online content
Administrator
airforce  Online Content
Administrator
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 23,873
Tulsa
Facebook also blocked Cop Block and Police the Police. And why they banned the Free Thought Project, I'll never figure out.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Page 2 of 2 1 2

.
©>
©All information posted on this site is the private property of the individual author and AWRM.net and may not be reproduced without permission. © 2001-2020 AWRM.net All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.1.1