[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Israel/Zionism See other Israel/Zionism Articles Title: Can the Ukraine Win the War Against Free Speech? The two most pressing issues of the day are Elon Musk’s plan to reinstate freedom of speech on Twitter and an impending war with Russia. Maybe these two issues can be tied together? First, let’s take a trip down Memory Lane and remember how we got to the point where we are begging a billionaire to please just allow us to state our opinions in public. The initial explanation of mass internet censorship was that people were saying mean things and that it was hurting the feelings of protected groups. In 2015, Chuck Johnson was the first person to be banned from Twitter for political reasons. That was followed shortly thereafter by the banning of MILO. Both were banned for allegedly hurting the feelings of black people. Daily Stormer was banned from everything in 2017, ostensibly for joking about a morbidly obese woman dying at the Charlottesville rally. Alex Jones was banned from YouTube and Facebook for allegedly hurting the feelings of Sandy Hook parents, and then banned from Twitter for allegedly hurting the feelings of a journalist who was working to get him banned from everything. The word “safety” was then introduced into the discourse by every Silicon Valley mega corporation. This was apparently derived from the term “safe space,” which was a buzzword used at universities and in HR departments to denote a special area where allegedly oppressed persons were able to flee from harmful “triggering” words, ideas, or people. The idea was that certain ideas caused oppressed people – women, racial minorities, and paraphiliacs – to become emotionally unstable, and that this emotional instability was dangerous. The entire mainstream internet quickly became a “safe space” for all of these groups, which meant that you were not allowed to say anything they did not like. Of course, that was all a massive and ridiculous ruse. The actual force behind the censorship was the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish and Israeli lobbying group. The ADL was going around threatening companies with defamation for years if they didn’t engage in mass censorship of “hate speech.” The group is obviously worried exclusively about the threat of people riling up the population against the Jews by posting information about them, but since the Jews are the single wealthiest and most powerful group in the world, demanding exclusive protection for the Jews from “harmful speech” would have been ridiculous. For this reason, the ADL and the larger Jewish lobby dragged in all of these other groups to use as human shields, demanding protections for “women, people of color, and the LGBTQ+ community.” The ADL’s demands against Silicon Valley with regards to mass censorship go back over a decade. I remember them heating up in 2014, when then ADL chief Abe Foxman began publicly demanding that Facebook remove pages criticizing the Jews. Here is an article he wrote at the time for CNET, whining about how Mark Zuckerberg would not censor “racist speech and hateful propaganda, including Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism.” Johnson and MILO were banned for alleged anti-black speech during the first round of Black Lives Matter, and several others deemed “too extreme” were picked off over a period of a couple years. However, it was not really until the election of Trump, and then Charlottesville, that the ADL was really able to get its hooks into Silicon Valley. Along with the moral panics over Trump and “white supremacy,” there were sub- panics relating to “fake news,” the most prominent of which was Pizzagate, which spun into the QAnon disinformation threat. The claims of “fake news” were ultimately more damaging to perceptions of what it means to live in a free society than “hate speech” claims. The claim was that citizens – people who vote, who ostensibly have the wherewithal to decide who runs the government – were incapable of looking at different types of ideas and drawing conclusions about them, and therefore needed to be babysat by multinational corporations. Once again, it was the Jewish lobby that presented the concept of “fact checkers” to decide whose news items people were allowed to consume. FactCheck.org had been founded all the way back in 2003 by the Annenberg Foundation, a Jewish activist and lobbying group run by the Annenberg family. In September of 2017, as politically biased “fact-checking” was becoming key to censorship, the Association for Psychological Science published a paper from the Annenberg Public Policy Center giving instructions on how to most effectively “fact-check.” This was effectively a guidebook that was then followed by Snopes and other fact- checkers. With the ADL already heavily involved in regulating speech on all major platforms via “Trust and Safety Committees,” these alleged checkers of facts – primarily FactCheck.org and Snopes – were contracted out as “third-party” censors. The tech companies would point to fact checks as a reason for deleting articles, banning accounts, or simply “deranking” (shadowbanning) the content in question. It goes without saying that very few actual facts were checked, and that the supposed fact checkers understood that their role was to simply declare that whatever the New York Times said was the de facto word of God. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||