Twitter owner Elon Musk announced Thursday that an “amnesty” for most banned accounts would start next week, following a poll posted Wednesday afternoon.
“The people have spoken. Amnesty begins next week,” Musk posted on the social media site Thursday, before adding the Latin phrase “Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” which translates to “the voice of the people is the voice of God.” He announced the decision just over two hours after the poll on the amnesty closed.
Should Twitter offer a general amnesty to suspended accounts, provided that they have not broken the law or engaged in egregious spam?
Over 3.1 million people voted in the poll Musk posted Wednesday, with 72.4% voting in favor of the “general amnesty” for account that had not “broken the law or engaged in egregious spam.” The Tesla CEO reinstated former President Donald Trump’s account Saturday, following a similar poll in which 51.8% of users voted for Trump’s reinstatement.
Some suspended accounts that could be reinstated include those of Dr. Robert Malone, who was suspended for supposed misinformation, and MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell.
Musk hinted at future plans for Twitter in a response to a Wednesday afternoon tweet by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“Please limit content moderation to illegal content (or, at most, a narrow interpretation of moderation under Section 230) and give users the tools that enable the freedom to choose what content they see,” Fitton tweeted.
Please limit content moderation to illegal content (or, at most, a narrow interpretation of moderation under Section 230) and give users the tools that enable the freedom to choose what content they see.
Musk closed the deal to purchase Twitter on Oct. 27, seeking to restore free speech to the site, The Wall Street Journal reported. The Tesla CEO did indicate there was one type of post whose removal he considered urgent.
Twitter is reportedly nuking pedo accounts. This is eliminating much of Antifa Twitter.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-11-25 05:42:402022-11-25 05:44:53‘The People Have Spoken’: Musk Announces Mass ‘Amnesty’ For Most Banned Twitter Accounts After Poll
The Department of Homeland Security has left open a special feature that allows government officials to flag Facebook posts for misinformation after scrapping a controversial advisory board tasked with developing guidelines for social media censorship, the Intercept reported Monday.
DHS announced plans for a Disinformation Governance Board to “develop guidelines, standards, guardrails to ensure that the work that has been ongoing for nearly 10 years does not infringe on people’s free speech rights, rights of privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in May, according to The Hill. While DHS shuttered the initiative after an onslaught of bipartisan opposition decrying the potential censorship, the Intercept found through an analysis of public and leaked documents that government efforts to police tech companies goes on.
Those activities include a Facebook portal only accessible by government and law enforcement representatives to formally request the platform kill or label alleged misinformation, according to the Intercept. A leaked set of slides contains instructions on how to operate the system, and the URL to access the site — facebook.com/xtakedowns/login — was still active at the time of publication.
“Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov’t. It’s really interesting how hesitant they remain,” a DHS official told a Microsoft representative in February, according to the Intercept.
The U.S. government has for years discussed the scope and scale of online content moderation the government should engage in, as well as how to compel social media platforms to flag or remove “misinformation,” “disinformation” and “malinformation,” the Intercept reported, citing meeting minutes and records appended to a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt.
The department now considers rooting out misinformation online as a critical element of its overall mission, according to a draft of the 2022 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review reviewed by the Intercept.
While the document highlights counter-terrorism as DHS’s primary objective, it acknowledges that “misinformation and disinformation spread online” can exacerbate terrorist threats from “domestic violent extremists,” according to the Intercept. It calls for DHS to use advanced computer analytical software and hire experts “to better understand how threat actors use online platforms to introduce and spread toxic narratives intended to inspire or incite violence.”
However, DHS has defined the “critical infrastructure” threatened by domestic terrorists to encompass trust in government, public health and election security, according to the Intercept.
“No matter your political allegiances, all of us have good reason to be concerned about government efforts to pressure private social media platforms into reaching the government’s preferred decisions about what content we can see online,” Adam Goldstein, the vice president of research at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told the Intercept.
Agencies under DHS — Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Science and Technology Directorate and the Secret Service — all have directives to combat misinformation online, the Intercept reported, citing a DHS Inspector General report from August.
Meta and DHS did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-10-31 15:41:092022-10-31 15:42:58Government Officials Have A Special Portal To Flag Facebook Posts For Censorship
Everything that progressive fascists believe is now an official fact.
“The Big Truth: Upholding Democracy in the Age of the Big Lie,” authored by a CBS reporter and a political activist, is the latest effort by leftists to wrap themselves in the banner of truth.
Media bias has shed its protective coloration of neutrality and blares that its side, leftists, represent the truth and conservatives the ‘lie’. The title of the “The Big Truth”, an otherwise forgettable exercise in virtue signaling, is interesting only because it so perfectly encompasses a media feed that is a mad libs game of “X Republican lied, Y Democrat hopes truth will win out.”
The problem is that this isn’t just propaganda distilled to its raw essence so that every media headline now reads like the title of Al Franken’s “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”.
The problem is that the leftists created the infrastructure of a new truth using the three Cs, credentialism, crisis and censorship, to eliminate debate and the marketplace of ideas.
Credentialism has experts, activists, academics, members of leftist think-tanks and non-profits, wrongly described as non-partisan, and other interested figures with degrees, declaring that a leftist narrative, global warming, systemic racism, transgenderism in children, or election results is a fact backed by studies and research. A crisis is declared accompanied by dire warnings that questioning their manufactured truth will cost more lives. In the final stage, censorship, internet monopolies, allied with the media and politicians, suppress disagreement as misinformation.
Before, in between and after the media serves as the connective tissue, promoting partisan hacks as experts, hammering home the crisis and pressuring tech firms to censor dissent.
While pandemic lockdowns will quickly come to mind, the model was operating before then and has come to be used on virtually any issue from refugees to questioning elections (won by the media party) to crime and school sexualization. Everything the Left believes is now a fact and a crisis, disagreeing with it is disinformation, treason and terrorism. The crackdown swiftly follows.
Facts, we are often told, cannot be debated. And since everything the Left believes is a fact, there is no longer any room for debate. Reasonable and intelligent people of good faith, the media tells us, would never disagree with these facts. Only bigot, trolls and extremists peddling disinformation, dissent. And since they disagree with the truth and the facts, they’re liars.
And censoring “extremists” and “liars” has become the new civic duty of internet monopolies. This is the ubiquitous progressive fascism of cancel culture, censorship and endless battles against misinformation that have come to define what used to be the marketplace of ideas.
Questioning the credentials of the experts is an attack on science, facts and the very idea of truth. Civil society, the experts tell us, can’t exist unless we trust them. Anyone who disagrees is out to undermine society and tear apart the official artificial truth that is meant to bind us in the digital Mordor being built by mighty tech monopolies one server farm and fact check at a time.
Add on the second C, crisis, and there isn’t even any time or space to debate the ethics of silencing political dissent while people are dying from cow flatulence, law enforcement or an inability to speedily sexually mutilate children. Censorship becomes more urgent than ever.
Declaring that their opinions are “truth” and that any disagreement is a “lie” is a crucial element.
The media’s narrative is more than just propaganda. The rhetoric you used to hear from Franken, Stewart and Colbert has become a crucial part of a massive censorship scheme. But by focusing on the negative, the censorship of dissent, it’s easy to miss what has actually happened, which is a manufactured consensus tying together the government, the media, think-tanks and non-profits, academia and internet monopolies in one totalitarian system.
Progressive fascism suppresses disagreement in order to unilaterally impose its official “truths”.
At the heart of the debate is the question of what truth is and how we arrive at it. Media bias and debates over what objective journalism is run up against the “new truths” every time.
A simple bit of factual objective reporting might be that Bob X shot Jack Y in the head in the middle of Main Street. Caught on camera, what went on down is the indisputable truth. The new truth, the one that increasingly shows up in media coverage, is that systemic racism, income inequality and the lack of gun control laws led to a shooting on Main Street. Bob and Jack, like all individuals, are mere bit players in the larger leftist sociopolitical dramas of class and race.
The school shooter is an afterthought in the scramble to call for new gun control laws, the rapist is just a figment of abortion laws and misogyny, hurricane victims have to make way for reports about global warming. The traditional leftist belief that people are just pawns of the academic phenomena pervades the media because it represents the new truth.
The new truth treats a worldview as a fact. Individuals in the media have become types, irrelevant as people, vital only in that they convey the larger leftist worldview. A school shooting victim who advocates for gun control can easily gain a national profile, but one who calls for locking up criminals never will.
Journalists used to think that truths were personal, not political. The new truth has reversed everything with the ultimate truths being political and personal truths relegated to the anecdotal.
Who, What, When, Where, and Why has been reduced to only the last W. Only the ‘Why’ matters and the answers are always political. The ‘Why’ is systemic racism, global warming, a lack of gun control laws, the patriarchy, capitalism, homophobia, colonialism, and the rest of the attacks on civilization. The other four Ws are just there to provide examples to illustrate the fifth.
The media wraps itself in the banner of the truth because it’s retreating from the facts. Its fact checks, a crucial tool for both credentialism and crisis, will often deem things that are true to be false because they lack context. And given enough of the right context, things that are factually false can be made to seem true and things that are factually true can appear false.
Credentialism makes narratives seem to resemble facts. But the narrative is a belief system that contends that leftist ideas are absolutely true in some higher sense, despite failing to work in real life. It’s the ‘truthiness’ that Colbert made his career mocking, with activists in expert drag to make it seem as if it’s the product of objective research rather than feelings.
The Left is not a movement of facts, no movement is. People are not passionately driven to fight and die, to uproot lives and transform society by objective facts and research studies. They fight out of love and hate, a desire for independence, tribalism, greed, ego, idealism and a search for meaning and a thousand other intangibles that are part of human nature, not for facts.
Emerging in an era where scientific discoveries were changing the world, the Left has always garbed its prejudices, biases, drives and malice in the veneer of academic theory. Its genius has been to bridge the lower realm of the peasant revolt with the intellectualism of the salon, the mind and the heart, claiming the sanction of both reason and empathy when it has neither.
The new truth is more of the same. Its truth is the conviction that the holistic leftist worldview is factually accurate in all of its details. The expert credentialism deployed to create facts and then fact checks is just apologia for an ideological movement. What used to be propaganda, activists in expert drag, has morphed into full progressive fascism that is out to impose its truth on you.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-10-30 05:55:542022-10-30 05:59:05Credentialism, Crisis and Censorship: How the Left Eliminated Debate
After a months long legal battle, SpaceX and Tesla CEO Elon Musk officially reached a deal with Twitter on Thursday to become the sole owner of the social media giant in a historic shakeup of the tech industry, according to multiple sources.
The deal, initially agreed upon in April, takes Twitter private at $54.20 per share, a roughly $44 billion transaction that the tech mogul has previously attempted to escape over claims that he was misled about the number of spam or “bot” accounts on the platform. As one of his first moves, Musk reportedly fired several top executives, including CEO Parag Agrawal, chief financial officer Ned Segal, and Vijaya Gadde, head of legal policy, trust, and safety, The Washington Post reported.
Gadde oversaw many content moderation decisions, drawing criticism from conservatives and Republicans for a censorship-heavy approach, and was heavily involved in the decision to kick off former President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 Capitol riots.
Buying Twitter is an accelerant to creating X, the everything app
While Musk’s exact plans for the platform are not yet known at time of writing, he has made several public comments, primarily on Twitter itself, stressing the importance of the medium as a forum that protects “free speech,” according to The Washington Post. However, Musk has clearly stated that he intends to reverse the ban on former President Donald Trump’s Twitter account, a decision he characterized as “flat out stupid,” at an event hosted by the Financial Times.
“For Twitter to deserve public trust, it must be politically neutral,” Musk tweeted on April 27, weeks after the initial deal was made. “which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.”
Musk has also reportedly told investors supporting his bid to purchase the company that he intends to lay off roughly 75% of the tech giant’s staff, cutting the company to just 2,000 workers, The Washington Post reported. Musk has publicly commented that he believes the company is overstaffed, but former Twitter employees and tech analysts have criticized the move as being too drastic, potentially exposing the company to security and moderation issues.
Musk has been vocal about his intention to use Twitter as a stepping stone to create an app known as X, which he describes as “the everything app.” When a Twitter user claimed that it would have been less difficult to simply build X from scratch, Musk countered that the purchase would shave 3 to 5 years of development time, although he hedged the claim by admitting “I could be wrong.”
Critics have argued that a Musk takeover will cause the platform to be more prone to spreading misinformation and incentivize or encourage dangerous practices that will harm women and people of color on the platform, The Hill reported. Angelo Carusone, president of left-wing media watchdog Media Matters, compared Musk’s attempted acquisition to the formation of Fox News, an organization he characterized as having a “distorting effect” on U.S. media, in an interview with The Hill.
“Elon Musk is about to rip open Pandora’s box and flood the internet once again with hate, misogyny, racism and conspiracy theories,” said Bridget Todd, communications director of feminist advocacy organization UltraViolet in an Oct. 4 statement. “We should all be terrified.”
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals preserved Texas state law Friday that would stop large social media platforms from restricting particular opinions.
Texas’ HB 20 was signed last year and generally prohibits platforms with over 50 million monthly U.S. users from censoring them based on their viewpoints. The Computer Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and the NetChoice organization, representing social media companies, argued that aspects of the law were unconstitutional but failed to convince the court.
“In urging such sweeping relief, the platforms offer a rather odd inversion of the First Amendment,” the court’s majority decision said. “That Amendment, of course, protects every person’s right to ‘the freedom of speech.’ But the platforms argue that buried somewhere in the person’s enumerated right to free speech lies a corporation’s unenumerated right to muzzle speech.”
The appeals court must give the district court that previously decided the case written instructions for the law to become effective, according to Politico. A 5-4 May U.S. Supreme Court ruling had halted the law from going into force after an emergency request by the CCIA and NetChoice.
Appealing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton celebrated the circuit court’s decision Friday, tweeting, “#BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan! The 5th Circuit ‘reject[s] the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”
BREAKING: I just secured a MASSIVE VICTORY for the Constitution & Free Speech in fed court: #BigTech CANNOT censor the political voices of ANY Texan! The 5th Circuit “reject[s] the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say. pic.twitter.com/UijlzYcv7r
CCIA President Matt Schruers decried the ruling, stating, “Forcing private companies to give equal treatment to all viewpoints on their platforms places foreign propaganda and extremism on equal footing with decent Internet users, and places Americans at risk,” according to The Hill.
The Supreme Court could still be asked to directly consider the law’s validity, the outlet reported.
In May, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a block on enforcing parts of Florida Senate Bill 7072, which would require social media platforms to explain the reasons for individual acts of supposed censorship, deplatforming and shadow banning and stop them from censoring a “journalistic enterprise based on the content of its publication or broadcast,” according to The National Law Review.
“We are disappointed that the Fifth Circuit’s split decision undermines First Amendment protections and creates a circuit split with the unanimous decision of the Eleventh Circuit,” NetChoice Vice President and General Counsel Carl Szabo said in a Friday press release. “We remain convinced that when the U.S. Supreme Court hears one of our cases, it will uphold the First Amendment rights of websites, platforms, and apps.”
NetChoice declined the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. The CCIA did not immediately respond to the DCNF’s request for comment.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Daily Callerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Daily Caller2022-09-18 10:06:052022-09-18 11:57:20Federal Court Upholds Texas Social Media Bill, Rules Corporations Do Not Have ‘Right’ To Censor
Charlie Warzel of Galaxy Brain has an Atlantic essay on Google that’s far short of Galaxy Brain. It recapitulates the now famous thread on why searching Reddit is better than searching Google, and offers random speculation on what’s wrong with Google Search and whether it might not be “leaving us behind”.
It’s packed with so many Google apologetics, I certainly hope that Google paid for it, e.g.
Google search might be worse now because, like much of the internet, it has matured and has been ruthlessly commercialized. In an attempt to avoid regulation and be corporate-friendly, parts of it might be less wild. But some of what feels dead or dying about Google might be our own nostalgia for a smaller, less mature internet. Sullivan, the Search liaison, understands this longing for the past, but told me that what feels like a Google change is also the search engine responding to the evolution of the web…
Haynes agrees that ads’ presence on Search is worse than ever and the company’s decision to prioritize its own products and features over organic results is frustrating. But she argues that Google’s flagship product has actually gotten better and much more complex over time. That complexity, she suggests, might be why searching feels different right now.
The problem with Google Search can be easily summarized as a lack of competition. Aside from Bing and satellite search sites like DuckDuckGo that use Bing’s search index, there’s nothing.
Google so thoroughly dominates search that there’s no competition. And so no incentive for it do anything except monetize search up to its eyeballs.
Alphabet doesn’t need good searches. Its searches are so bad because it stopped having any interest in having you find things a while back. What it wants you to do is…
Click on its services
Click on its ads
Search in predictable ways so that it can sell ads
Helping you find things is not on the list because Google does not make money if you spend 2 seconds clicking on the first search result and find what you’re looking for.
Google makes more money when you can’t find things than when you do. It makes more money when it serves you bad results. It makes more money when it ignores what you searched for and instead serves up the results that make it money.
This is the definition of why monopolies are terrible. But Google has a monopoly on internet search for reasons I’ve gone into before. And so internet search is terrible and as Google, like most big companies, gets hungrier, they’re going to get worse.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-06-25 06:52:202022-06-25 06:52:56Google Search is Bad. On Purpose.
Free speech on the internet endangers democracy, Barack Obama told Stanford University.
The widely hailed speech at Big Tech’s favorite university claimed that autocrats are “subverting democracy” and that democracies have “grown dangerously complacent.” In the slow parade of teleprompter clichés he even warned that “too often we’ve taken freedom for granted.”
To Obama, the threat to democracy doesn’t come from government power, but the lack of it.
“You just have to flood a country’s public square with enough raw sewage. You just have to raise enough questions, spread enough dirt, plant enough conspiracy theorizing that citizens no longer know what to believe. Once they lose trust in their leaders, in mainstream media, in political institutions, in each other, in the possibility of truth, the game’s won,” he summed up.
Like every Obama speech, “Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm” didn’t offer anything new, just a distillation of familiar talking points and misplaced assumptions.
The assumption at the heart of Obama’s speech and that of the range of arguments depicting free speech as a cultural and national threat is that the purpose of discourse is state power.
Obama, like many post-liberal lefty critics of free speech, reduces speech to its social impact and its social impact to its political impact. This holistic integration is so fundamental to Marxists and many lefties that they don’t even think twice about the idea that everything we do is reducible to a move on the great abacus of social justice. The food you eat, the car you buy, and the words you say have the potential to either save or damn the planet and humanity.
This quasi-religious conception of mass social mobilization pervades American society. It’s the precondition for wokeness because the only possible moral justification for terrorizing random people on social media is the conviction that governance isn’t political, it’s social, and that the only way to avert climate change and social inequality is by controlling what everyone believes.
Wokeness collapses the distinction between the private and public spheres, and between government and individuals. In a national social crisis, the only conceptual framework through which the Left ever really governs, there’s no time for such liberal niceties as private spheres.
Obama’s speech neatly illustrates the fascism at the heart of this panopticon political project.
Introduce disagreement and you “raise enough questions” that people “no longer know what to believe” and then “lose trust in their leaders”, “mainstream media” and even “truth”. Stripped of all the Brookings Institute globalist prose, what Obama is really saying is that individual disagreement undermines the state. And that truth is dependent on public faith in the state.
This is a value system utterly at odds with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, one which envisions an intimate link between individual speech and state authority that would have horrified King George III, but absolutely delighted Hitler or Stalin.
It assumes that there can be no other legitimate points of view other than the official one and that there should be no leaders except those who share them. Limiting the range of opinions is necessary to protect state power because there is no distinction between them and the state.
Or as a certain Austrian artist once put it, “One people, One state, One leader”.
When he was promoting his last book two years ago, Obama made the same arguments. “If we do not have the capacity to distinguish what’s true from what’s false, then by definition the marketplace of ideas doesn’t work. And by definition our democracy doesn’t work.”
The assumption that the democratic process leads to truth rather than choice, absolute rightness rather than people power, is an undemocratic paradigm. Its inevitable conclusion becomes that of Obama, that democracy must be protected by controlling the people.
Not only elections, but ideas, are too important to be left to the public.
Obama doesn’t want a marketplace of ideas because people might get the wrong idea and vote him and his political allies out of office. The explicit goal of internet censorship is to control election outcomes by filtering what information the public is able to access.
Like the provenance of a certain Delaware artist’s laptop.
Narrowing the range of acceptable information in order to narrow the range of acceptable opinions, candidates and political systems is the first fundamental trick of tyrannies. It takes a certain chutzpah and a stock of Orwellian buzzwords to redefine that as protecting democracy.
Obama complains, “China’s built a great firewall around the Internet, turning it into a vehicle for domestic indoctrination” and proposes a democratic firewall around the internet under a “regulatory structure” to be designed with “communities of color” to slow “the spread of harmful content.” The democratic people of color firewall will be so much better than China’s firewall.
Pro-censorship elites have the same assumptions as China about the interaction between speech, society, and the state which is why they, like Obama, arrive at the same conclusions. They can dress up those conclusions in buzzwords about “democracy” and “people of color”, but those are differences of style, not substance. The trains all end up at the same station.
Obama speaks about “bugs” in the Constitution. While he is always happy to critique America, the particular totalitarian bug here is deeply embedded into the leftist worldview which denies that people have individual agency, insists that everyone is a prisoner of their social context, and contends that the purpose of the society and the state is an enlightened intertwining. The bug, which is really more of a feature, directly leads to the same outcome as in China or Stanford.
A free society requires healthy breathing spaces between politics and life. The difference between a politicized society and a tyranny is only time. The question at the heart of this debate is “What is discourse for” which is really the question of, “What are people here for?” To believe, as the Left does, that people primarily exist as vehicles for political change is to enslave them.
That’s why every leftist revolution invariably slides toward tyranny along the same worn tracks.
The Founding Fathers believed that people would self-define their purposes. That was why America’s revolution uniquely led to freedom and why leftist revolutions lead to tyranny.
America defined freedom as individual power while lefties define it by the power of the state.
Obama is simply replaying what happens when liberation is treated as a collective enterprise, a journey toward rather than from, that can only be achieved collectively, through the exercise of state power rather than individually through personal choices. The internet, once individualistic, has become collective, and social media, the ultimate embodiment of that collectivism, has become the battleground between individualist expressers and collectivist censors.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2022-05-05 07:42:132022-05-05 07:46:51Only Internet Fascism Can Save Democracy
“This is real life.” To Babylon Bee creator Adam Ford, it was important to make that distinction, since even the world’s greatest satirists couldn’t imagine a scenario like this one. Twitter, king of conservative censorship, wielder of the all-powerful on/off switch, had done it again. In the growing genre of it-sounds-like-fake-news-but-isn’t, Big Tech’s thought police locked the Bee’s account for recognizing something all of us have been tested on since high school: biology.
The offending post was meant to be a mockery of USA Today, which last week decided to name a female-identifying man, HHS’s Rachel Levine, as one of the newspaper’s “Women of the Year.” The announcement, which was second in absurdity only to Joe Biden appointing him in the first place, showed what kind of outrageous, science-defying dogma is being pushed on unwilling Americans. The Bee, seizing the moment to make a point as only it can, declared Levine its first-ever “Man of the Year,” writing: “Levine is the U.S. assistant secretary for health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services… He often wears a dress, which some people think is weird — but he doesn’t care one bit. Come on! Men in India wear dress-type garments, don’t they?”
Apparently, the sarcasm hit a nerve at Twitter, and the Silicon Valley titan — who has a reputation for pulling the plug on uncomfortable truths — let Bee CEO Seth Dillon know that its post violated the company’s “hateful content” policy. In a message to fans, Dillon confirmed, “We’re told our account will be restored in 12 hours, but the countdown won’t begin until we delete the truth that violates the Twitter rules.” But, he vowed, “We’re not deleting anything. Truth is not hate speech. If the cost of telling the truth is the loss of our Twitter account, then so be it.”
Of course, the irony of this whole uproar is that USA Today is the one “harassing other people on the basis of… gender.” What does it say to billions of real women — that they’re completely indistinguishable from men? That the sum total of being a woman is throwing on a dress and some make-up? The so-called “party of women” is now a party of make-believe. It’s one reason feminists, who stood outside the NCAA swim meet this weekend, now say they’re “politically homeless.” “I was historically liberal,” one woman vented outside of the girls’ collegiate championship where Lia Thomas was racing. Now? “I don’t think the Democrats care about women and girls. They [want] to put men in [women’s] prisons and men on [girls’] sports teams… I think that we’re going to have a lot of people walking away, really.”
The same Left who preaches that we shouldn’t judge people by their appearance in the race debate suddenly wants to define an entire gender by it. Forget the 6,500 genetic differences between the two sexes. Change your name and you can race as women, compete for jobs as women, win awards for women — erase women. And Babylon Bee doesn’t want any part of it. That would be “ideological surrender,” Dillon told NRO. Twitter could easily take down the tweet themselves, he pointed out, but instead, they want you to “bend the knee and admit wrongdoing by deleting the tweet yourself.”
“It’s not just that expressing these views is not allowed, you have to deny that you meant it. They want you to concede something. They’re forcing you to grovel and adopt an ideological position that you don’t actually hold,” Dillon shook his head. In this case, it’s not even an ideological position that Twitter demands submission to — it’s an outright lie. “We stated the fact that a man is a man and got [punished] for it,” Editor-in-Chief Kyle Mann tweeted. “We are living in a clown world.”
And from college pools to classrooms, Americans are refusing to play along. They feel confident confronting this culture of delusion because teams like the Babylon Bee are brave enough to do it too. Deep down, Twitter feels incredibly threatened by the growing number of people willing to challenge the woke agenda. If they can shut down the ring leaders — the Christians with the biggest microphones — they think they’ll have a much better chance of forcing the rest of us in line.
At FRC’s ProLifeCon earlier this year, Mann was frank about the hurdle of censorship. Big Tech, Big Government, the mainstream media, the fact-checkers, “They all kind of work together to silence us… And that’s obviously really scary for us,” he admitted, because that’s how they can “deplatform us.”
At the end of the day, though, the more cowardly we are as a movement, the more likely it is that the cancel culture will take over the marketplace of ideas. “And we don’t want that to happen. So I think we need to be more bold… and more open about [our] beliefs…” The best way you can help, Dillon agrees, is “never censor yourself. Insist that 2 and 2 make 4 even if Twitter tries to compel you to say otherwise…. Continue to say what’s true even if it has consequences. Make them ban tens of millions of us.”
Suzanne Bowdey returned to FRC in 2006 after a three-year absence. In her role as Senior Writer, she drafts commentary on topics such as life, religious freedom, media and entertainment, sexuality, education, and other issues that affect the institutions of marriage and family. Her op-eds have been featured in publications ranging from the Washington Times to the Christian Post. As part of the team that plans FRC Action’s Pray Vote Stand Summit (formerly the Values Voter Summit), she oversees the event’s schedule, speakers, and select publications. Since 2020, she has also produced FRC’s weekly broadcast, “Pray Vote Stand.”
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Family Research Councilhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFamily Research Council2022-03-22 06:07:112022-03-22 06:12:07Twitter’s Plan Bee: Censorship
“Remember that truth is the greatest thing in the world. If you will be great, you will be true.” – Jack London
Let’s call a spade a spade. Let’s tell it how it is. Understand I do not personally care if I offend anybody with my opinion. It is my opinion and guess what? This is my blog and I will tell it how I see it. If you don’t like it go elsewhere for your information and thoughts.
So with that polite disclaimer let’s go!
Transgender participants in sports … wrong or right? From this man there is only one clear answer. WRONG! Period.
What we are watching is the destruction, planned or otherwise, of females in sports. Why in Gods name are young girls going to train and sacrifice everything to be the best they can be only to be beaten by a dude who wants to suddenly be a girl? A dude with more strength and endurance than they could ever generally train to.
Let’s be clear here. Again my opinion. There are ONLY two sexes. They are dictated at birth by your X or Y chromosomes. male=XX and female=XY. They dictate if you sit to pee or stand. Period.
All these liberal and plainly damaging agendas from the left that are trying their damndest to tell our kids that instead of being the best they can be, they are teaching them from a young age that they can be what they want. They want our kids to accept that however they want to identify that day, be it male, female, animal or a curious mixture of all or any, is perfectly acceptable.
IT IS NOT. Not in the slightest.
Back to the main message and my gripe.
The NCAA has in a stroke destroyed female competitive sports. They are reducing girls and young women’s chances for a college sports scholarship if they have to compete with some dude, whose physical makeup and natural strength and endurance, will beat them every time. Those who miss out on the scholarship may miss out on a college career. Where are all the woman’s libbers? Strangely quiet in this crazy world where you are encouraged not to have an opinion other than the libtard crazy opinion.
We just saw Penn’s Lia Thomas narrowly beat out Yale’s Iszac Henig in the 100 yards freestyle competition. One is a dude who wants to be a female and the other a female wanting to be a freaking dude. By the way the dude turning to a woman beat the woman turning into a guy. Both are pathetic individuals who should never be able to compete in these or any other sports except against members of the sex they were at birth. Both should be ashamed at their so called accomplishments and the amateur athletic governing board should all be fired. There is not an iota of common decency, critical thinking or logical thinking in either the cheating competitors or the NCAA Board.
Now. Why are MSM calling these transgenders her or him when the opposite is the truth? A dude can do all he wants to do, take whatever drugs he wants, cut off any appendages that upset him but at the end he is a he. Not a freaking she. Every time their idiocy is given credence by media or the public, their claims and evil ambitions grow. It’s bad enough we have schools etc. allowing boys into girls bathrooms because that is how they want to identify. I have to tell you all here that if some guy in a dress or whatever had attempted to enter a bathroom my daughter was using, he wouldn’t have got near the door. Period.
It’s wrong America. It a big part in the destruction of all that was right in our constitutional republic. The breakdown in family values. The complete eradication of morals and ethics in our society. The very fact that evil people pose as men and women of religion, like the Universal Universalists, and give this sickness a credible but warped platform, is a big part of the damage.
I pray that the IOC make corrections to this mockery and put a stop to all transgender sports participation. Will they? Anyone can guess but in this political climate I am not confident they will do the right thing.
Anyway folk. There you have it! As I said if you are thin skinned, liberal Democrats and commies, you will hate my message. All I can say is go suck a lemon!! I don’t care.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00Save America Foundationhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSave America Foundation2022-02-20 10:44:512022-02-20 10:44:51I Am Sick of Political Correctness BS.
The mainstream social media platforms are ruthlessly censoring conservatives. As such, President Trump’s social media platform could be a game changer. It will enable conservatives to have the ability to express their views to a large audience. President Trump’s 150 million plus social media supporters must (and will) support his social site. Expect alternative social media platforms to explode in popularity between now and 2024.
(Reuters) -Former President Donald Trump’s new media venture plans to launch its social media app Truth Social on Feb. 21, according to an Apple Inc App Store listing.
TRUTH Social, the Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG) alternative to Twitter, is available for pre-order before going live on the U.S. Presidents’ Day holiday.
Similar to Twitter, the app offers features to follow other people and trending topics, according to demo photos. Its message equivalent of a tweet will be dubbed “truth”.
The app’s launch would come 13 months after Meta Platforms Inc’s Facebook and Twitter banned Trump for encouraging his supporters to participate in the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol based on unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
Marking the one-year anniversary of the attack, U.S. President Joe Biden said on Thursday that his predecessor’s false claims could unravel the rule of law and subvert future elections.
TMTG and Apple did not respond to requests for comment, but a source familiar with the matter confirmed that Feb. 21 is the planned launch date of the app.
The launch is expected to be the first of three stages in TMTG’s development. The second would be a subscription video-on-demand service called TMTG+ with entertainment, news and podcasts, according to the company website. A November investor presentation indicated that TMTG also wants to launch a podcast network.
TMTG is valued at $5.3 billion based on the stock price of Digital World Acquisition Corp, which rose 20% after Reuters reported the app’s listing on the App Store. TMTG agreed in October to merge with the blank-check firm at a valuation of $875 million.
Trump supporters and retail investors have snapped up Digital World’s stock, betting that Trump’s popularity with his Republican political base will translate into commercial runaway success.
The blank-check acquisition deal faces regulatory risk. Democratic U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren asked Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler last month to investigate the planned merger for potential violations of securities laws around disclosure. The SEC has declined to comment on whether it plans any action.
TMTG last month raised an additional $1 billion from private investors.
Trump canceled a news conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida that had been scheduled for Jan. 6, marking the one-year anniversary of the Capitol attack. He said he will instead deliver remarks at a rally in Arizona on Jan. 15.
Quick note: Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. We will not waver. We will not tire. We will not falter, and we will not fail. Freedom will prevail.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America’s survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00The Geller Reporthttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngThe Geller Report2022-01-08 05:00:412022-01-08 05:03:39Trump to Launch His Social Media App in February
The censorship of Trump and Section 230 have far-reaching ramifications.
The events in Washington DC last Wednesday, and the subsequent permanent suspension by Twitter of the account @realDonaldTrump, throw into the spotlight the question of how responsible social-media companies are for the material that users post by the technical means that the companies provide. They add urgency to a question that was already being raised: should Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 be modified or repealed?
The critical part of Section 230 has been hailed as “the twenty-six words that created the Internet,” which is also the title of a book by Jeff Kosseff. In case you’re wondering, the twenty-six words are: “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
To see how these words apply to, for example, the thousands of tweets from President Trump, read “Twitter” for “provider. . . of an interactive computer service” and “President Trump” for “another information content provider”.
What this section did was to place the then-infant Internet in the category of common-carrier communications providers such as telephone companies, and not in the category of news providers such as the New York Times. The traditional “old media” (newspapers, radio, TV) were regarded in law as the originators of what they printed or broadcast, and could be sued if their material proved libelous or otherwise harmful. But if a blackmailer, for instance, called his victim on the phone and made a threat, the idea of suing the phone company because of the blackmailer’s actions would be regarded as ridiculous.
So for the next two decades or so, the industries spawned by the internet — notably Facebook, Twitter, Google, and their ilk — grew without concern for possibly crippling lawsuits regarding the content that their users posted. Legally, it wasn’t their fault what people put on their sites, generally speaking.
Few people (or lawmakers, who are also people) anticipated that the main source of news and information for millions of US citizens would shift from the old-media world to the social-media world, but that is exactly what happened. The techno-optimists who foresaw a brave new world of egalitarian news sharing have been disappointed to find that lies get halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its pants. (Neither Winston Churchill nor Mark Twain apparently wrote “the truth is still putting on its pants”, but it’s worth saying anyway. The author of it is unknown, but researchers have traced the saying back at least to the 1700s.)
In particular, the elaborate structure of lies coming from @realDonaldTrump since the November 3 Presidential election has convinced many millions of people that (a) the election results were manipulated by evil conspirators who managed to hide their tracks from everyone except a few off-the-wall news sources and President Trump himself, (b) President Trump actually won the election and deserves to be president for another four years, at least, and (c) the alternative is the end of America, as the evil Biden administration takes charge and sends us all straight to perdition in a wicker container.
After concocting increasingly incredible lawsuits challenging state vote counts, the President issued a call via Twitter for his followers to show up in Washington on January 6, when a joint session of Congress would count the Electoral College votes and certify the result. He fraudulently claimed that Vice-President Pence had the power to discard the results and reinstate the President, whereas nowhere in the Constitution or elsewhere does the Vice-President receive this power.
But by the technique of saying lies and repeating them over and over in the echo chamber of the Internet where people who like certain kinds of material get more of it, the President drew a crowd of thousands to Washington last Wednesday. He spoke to them in person in a long, inflammatory speech that repeated many of the lies he originated over the past two months, and then sent them down the street to disrupt, invade, and vandalize the building where the duly elected representatives of these United States were legally carrying out their Constitutional responsibilities. And Twitter helped him do it.
On Friday, January 8, Twitter announced that it was permanently suspending @realDonaldTrump, citing that the President had violated their “Glorification of Violence policy”. To those who would say that Twitter is violating the President’s freedom of speech, I would counter along with Justice Holmes that someone who is “falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic” has forfeited his right to free speech, at least with regard to that particular statement. And the President has abundantly shown that he is incapable of tweeting without straying into falsehood sooner or later.
But in doing so, Twitter has admitted that they do indeed bear the responsibility for the effects of information provided by another information content provider. In a world where the main source of news for the bulk of the public is social media, social media can no longer pretend that they are a small, insignificant, hobby-type operation that people use mainly for amusement and sharing cookie recipes.
They now play a critical, essential role in the conduct of public affairs, and their increasing censorship of one kind or another (of which the strangling of @realDonaldTrump is only the chief example) amounts to rump editing, essentially no different from what the ink-stained newspaper editors of yore did with their letters to the editor columns. To choose one letter is to reject all the rest, and to censor one tweet is to accept all the rest.
I have no easy solution to the problem of Section 230, but it is clear that things cannot go on the way they are now.
As for President Trump, I hope that Congress has sense and guts enough to impeach him with the penalty of never holding a federal office again. But social media firms cannot have it both ways. They must not enjoy the financial and cultural benefits of being the main purveyors of news while shirking the responsibility for the news (and lies) that pass through their hands.
Karl D. Stephan
Karl D. Stephan received the B. S. in Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1976. Following a year of graduate study at Cornell, he received the Master of Engineering degree in 1977… More by Karl D. Stephan.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png00MercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexitieshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMercatorNet - Navigating Modern Complexities2021-01-15 03:58:032021-10-07 21:09:00Time for Twitter & Co to take responsibility for news — and lies
Trump Responds to Twitter’s Permanent Account Suspension
By Mimi Nguyen Ly, The Epoch Times, January 8, 2021:
President Donald Trump responded to Twitter’s move to permanently suspend his account from its platform late Friday, condemning the big tech giant and saying that it does not stand for free speech.
The president also said he anticipates a “big announcement” soon and that his team is negotiating with other sites and is also looking at building a separate platform.
“As I have been saying for a long time, Twitter has gone further and further in banning free speech, and tonight, Twitter employees have coordinated with the Democrats and the Radical Left in removing my account from their platform, to silence me—and YOU, the 75,000,000 great patriots who voted for me,” Trump said in a statement.
“Twitter may be a private company, but without the government’s gift of Section 230 they would not exist for long,” he added.
“I predicted this would happen. We have been negotiating with various other sites, and will have a big announcement soon, while we also look at the possibilities of building out our own platform in the near future. We will not be SILENCED!” he said.
“Twitter is not about FREE SPEECH. They are all about promoting a Radical Left platform where some of the most vicious people in the world are allowed to speak freely,” Trump continued. “STAY TUNED!”
The statement came from the account @POTUS but the Twitter posts were gone within a few minutes.
“Using another account to try to evade a suspension is against our rules,” Twitter said in a statement to news outlets. “We have taken steps to enforce this with regard to recent Tweets from the @POTUS account.”
“For government accounts, such as @POTUS and @WhiteHouse, we will not suspend those accounts permanently but will take action to limit their use.”
Publishers can be held liable for any content they post, but social media platforms and tech companies are protected by the Communications Decency Act‘s Section 230, which provides blanket liability protections from content generated by third-party users.
Twitter late on Friday permanently suspended Trump’s Twitter account @realDonaldTrump, citing violation of its “Glorification of Violence” policy. It cited two of the president’s most recent posts as justification for its action.
The first post read, “The 75,000,000 great American Patriots who voted for me, AMERICA FIRST, and MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, will have a GIANT VOICE long into the future. They will not be disrespected or treated unfairly in any way, shape or form!!!”
Subsequently, the president posted, “To all of those who have asked, I will not be going to the Inauguration on January 20th.” This was the last Twitter post before Trump’s account was removed from the platform.
Twitter said that the two posts had violated its “Glorification of Violence policy,” which aims to “prevent the glorification of violence that could inspire others to replicate violent acts.”
Its assessment determined that Trump’s last two Twitter posts are “highly likely to encourage and inspire people to replicate the criminal acts that took place at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.” Twitter said its determination is “based on a number of factors,” including five points it listed in its statement.
The Epoch Times cannot independently verify the claims made by Twitter in its determination. The Epoch Times has reached out to Twitter asking whether it had any evidence that Trump’s statements were directly linked to any violence. Twitter did not immediately respond.
The White House and the president have on Jan. 7 both separately condemned the violence that broke out on Capitol grounds on Jan. 6, when lawmakers gathered for a joint session of Congress to count and certify electoral votes from the Nov. 3, 2020, election. The events of the day left at least five dead, three of whom died due to medical reasons, according to DC police.
“America is and must always be a nation of law and order. The demonstrators who infiltrated the Capitol have defiled the seat of American democracy,” Trump said. “To those who engaged in acts of violence and destruction, you do not represent our country. And to those who broke the law, you will pay.”
Earlier in the day, Twitter suspended the accounts of former national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn and lawyer Sidney Powell, citing “Coordinated Harmful Activity.” Powell told The Epoch Times that there “was no warning at all” about her account being deleted.
The account deletions suggest that Big Tech firms, including Twitter, are moving to suspend or penalize the accounts of people on their platforms who post claims of voter fraud and irregularities about the Nov. 3, 2020, election.
There have also been multiple claims by various Twitter accounts of having lost followers, sometimes in the thousands, within the past 24 hours.
Brandon Straka, the head of the conservative WalkAway movement, told The Epoch Times Friday that Facebook removed the group’s page and banned individual accounts belonging to the team.
Google (1.00) and its parent company Alphabet, Inc has long promised to provide a “free and open web” in their Mission Statement. One would be justified in wondering if this is how they really feel given that the company and its employees provided lopsided donations to massively partisan causes such as President-Elect Joe Biden’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. Billions of cross-partisan consumers entrust their sensitive data to Google every day — via Google Search, YouTube, and many other services — but Google clearly doesn’t care to treat consumers equally.
The lopsided donations – many from Google employees – match Google’s online censorship. While certainly some liberal concepts and projects are canceled on Alphabet’s platforms, there is some compelling evidence that the search engine contains a “conservative blacklist”. More obviously, Google subsidiary YouTube (1.00) has started placing “fact-checking banners” under an overwhelming amount of videos, particularly those of conservatives contesting the 2020 election. In other cases, they’ve taken down videos and banned creators for “unspecified violations of Community Guidelines” or supposed “hate speech” when someone dares to question the liberal narrative.
If Google and other companies want us to trust them, they must stop funding partisan politics and start putting money into the things that improve their services. They should put their millions of dollars into a better user experience through hiring and training competent employees, or through developing new, useful products. Companies have control over an economic sphere that sorely needs improving, and that should be their focus — not controlling free speech in the way the left sees fit.
http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png002ndvote .comhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.png2ndvote .com2020-12-19 09:13:072021-10-07 21:10:27ISSUE 1ST AMENDMENT: Google’s ‘Free and Open Web’ Promise Countered by Dem Donations
Breitbart: Twitter is blocking users from sharing links to lawyer Sidney Powell’s lawsuit relating to widespread voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election.
A number of users across Twitter have reported being unable to share links to lawyer Sidney Powell’s lawsuit relating to voter fraud in the 2020 Presidential election. When attempting to share the link to the document, users receive a notification stating that the link has been identified as “potentially harmful.”
Twitter’s policy on blocking links states: “At times, Twitter will take action to limit or prevent the spread of URL links to content outside Twitter. This is done by displaying a warning notice when the link is clicked, or by blocking the link so that it can’t be Tweeted at all.”
The platform describes the categories of links it will block:
Malicious links such as malware and phishing
Spammy and misdirecting links
Links that break Twitter rules on such topics as terrorism, child sexual exploitation, illegal goods, hateful conduct, violence, etc.
Twitter also claims it will block links that include “Content that interferes with civic and election integrity.” The example given in this category is: “Misleading information about how to vote or register to vote.” It is not yet clear if Twitter is justifying its censorship of a filed lawsuit based on this policy.
Some users have since tweeted about the situation:
Powell’s lawsuit makes a number of claims about voter fraud in multiple states, discussing Georgia the lawsuit says:
Mathematical and statistical anomalies rising to the level of impossibilities, as shown by affidavits of multiple witnesses, documentation, and expert testimony evince this scheme across the state of Georgia. Especially egregious conduct arose in Forsyth, Paulding, Cherokee, Hall, and Barrow County. This scheme and artifice to defraud affected tens of thousands of votes in Georgia alone and “rigged” the election in Georgia for Joe Biden.
[ … ]
[V]ideo from the State Farm Arena in Fulton County shows that on November 3rd after the polls closed, election workers falsely claimed a water leak required the facility to close. All poll workers and challengers were evacuated for several hours at about 10:00 PM. However, several election workers remained unsupervised and unchallenged working at the computers for the voting tabulation machines until after 1:00 AM.