Home » The internet and political censorship

Comments

The internet and political censorship — 13 Comments

  1. According to a story just posted on Fox Business by George Farmer (CEO of Parler and husband of Candace Owens) the censorship by Big Tech (especially around the issue of COVID) is far more worrisome than many are willing to admit. There is also a very troubling story, just receiving some attention, about Moonshot, a far-left company based in London (with ties to the Obamas) and contracted by our bloated and overfunded and “woke” Pentagon to search for signs of extremism and “white supremacy” (i.e. those with traditional conservative values and ideas) in the military. Apparently, even a seemingly innocuous web search for “the truth about BLM” might be “problematic”, to use one of the left’s favorite weasel words. The increasingly totalitarian synergy between a one-party state and its allies in Big Media, Big Tech, Big Finance, and Big Education poses an ever greater threat to the future of the republic than an ascendant China or a deliberately-broken border.

  2. I’ve always hoped that a decentralized social network (like, for example, The diaspoa Project) would maybe one day catch on. But unfortunately it seems that human nature naturally prioritzes convieniance and familiarity over novel experiences. And a users existing network of connections (friends/followers) means there’s a sort of sunk cost with Facebook and Twitter that disincentivizes migrating to a new network.

    I also hope that one day we could have a truly decentralized internet (perhaps some sort of mesh network that leverages blockchain tech or something?)

  3. I regard the Big Tech censoring of conservative voices on the internet as serious as the “1-6” Reichstag Fire.

    They are rolling us up. Some of the red pill YouTube sites I read are moving to “locals,” which I guess is a free speech version alternative to YouTube.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if WordPress is starting to squeeze its bloggers. If so, I hope neo keeps us apprised.

  4. “I wouldn’t be surprised if WordPress is starting to squeeze its bloggers. If so, I hope neo keeps us apprised.”

    I use WordPress and Neo uses WordPress but we don’t “host” @ WordPress.

    Unless you “host” @ WordPress I don’t think there is anything they can do to silence us or any others that use WordPress.

  5. Honestly, I think a lot of original individual bloggers who started blogging and gained a following around 9-11 or shortly thereafter just got burnt out after a while. When the original milblog, Sgt Stryker’s started, it was just one guy, who eventually got tired, asked some other military veterans to join … and the original Stryker wandered off. I think he was easily bored. I kept it going for a good few years with some cobloggers, but they’ve all burnt out and wandered off to their own thing. Some of the other mil-blogs which were all interlinked (Mudville Gazette, Black Five) developed other interests, or moved on entirely. I look back at my archives, and realize that I don’t blog as regularly as I used to. It’s a good week if I can do two posts. I post now at another group blog, too – Chicagoboyz. Producing content every day is … a bit of a slog, sometimes.

    The thing about blogging on your own site (and have it hosted by someone local that you trust) is that you can’t be sidelined as readily as someone on FB, or Twitter can. I’d like to see a revival of individual blogging, rather than across the big social media platforms.

  6. This is a little off-topic, but still somewhat related to Neo’s post.

    I’m curious whether anybody here, including Neo, has a strong opinion about Substack as an online platform for independent writing.

    I’ve been reading a few people who regularly post at Substack, but I haven’t subscribed to anything so far. I’m on a retirement budget and habitually thrifty, but I’ve been thinking about springing for a subscription or two. Any thoughts?

  7. “now the heads of social media are apparently taking orders from the Biden administration.” neo

    Which, if proved, logically removes their Section 230 protection from lawsuits. The S.C. would then be faced with supporting or gutting the very Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

    “many people don’t seem to give a hoot, because it’s silencing the voices they want silenced.” neo

    Indeed, yet in supporting the silencing of those with whom they disagree, they reject the very basis for liberty and reveal themselves unfit for citizenship in a republic based in individual liberties. That, for justice to be served is the consequence that must be applied.

    There is no justice when people escape accountability for profound offense against Constitutional governance. Absent justice, there is no rule of law. Such a society inevitably devolves into “might makes right” and that is the prerequisite for violent conflict.

  8. John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson of Power Line blog have written that somehow their traffic is being throttled and that drives down their numbers. I don’t know the details, but these guys are straight-shooters.

    The Left loves to censor because they can’t win a fair debate in the marketplace of ideas.

  9. Gab.com

    You can say anything you like there. People might say mean things back to you and there’s nothing you can do to shut them down.

    The owner might not be the world’s greatest philosemite but he doesn’t care one whit if all you do is post reports of Palestinian atrocities 24/7.

    So what’s not to like? It’s Free Speech… that magical thing we all love to love except when it’s too Free.

    @Cornhead: The Left loves to censor because while they might be mad and bad, *their* apex predators get that censorship and deplatforming are tools which *work*. Only a Conservative would be so dumb as to think that political censorship of one’s enemies to the left is a bad idea. Muh Marketplace of Ideas in Muh Public Square (To get there you turn left at the end of Jaffa Avenue. Or is that two turns left and one turn right? Directions for getting there are always a bit muddled and no two seem to agree — maybe the place doesn’t even exist.)

  10. Try saying this on Twitter:

    https://gab.com/MrJoePrich/posts/106621089312886996

    You’d think that a Senator from Oklahoma would be interested in matters pertaining to Oklahoma and Oklahomans. But then you’d be a complete #%*&ing idiot Normie, wouldn’t you? 🙂

    The people who bankroll this muppet puppet didn’t rock up anywhere on the prairie in a Surrey With a Fringe on Top…. But they sure do know a whole lot of other useful timeless stuff.

    Senator Wotshisname is just a Girl Who Can’t Say No. Not to his Donor-Masters anyway.

  11. At the top, j e cites George Farmer of Parlour, interviewed by Maria Bartaromo at Fox Business stating that free speech is much more vulnerable than we know.

    This is because Woke culture pervades California, where most servers and tech corporations are based. And they control the App Platforms from there, and therefore they get to decide if they accept you or not.

    Farmer states that Parlour had to reinvent a lot of technology to get back up and running. Ergo, dissent is easily shut down and out.

    The piece is easily searched out, the terms George Farmer and Fox Business.

    Elsewhere, at climatologist Judith Curry’s blog, a poster was unable to post hot links, but shared a list of Wake Up to The Censors*yte themed recent pieces, nearly all seen discussed here.

    It’s a list worth saving and sharing, unfortunately:

    1. Sheryl Atkinson, The definitive list of mistakes the media made in the Trump era.
    2. Tablet magazine. Journalists against free speech?
    3. Glen Greenwald, substack. How big media outlets so often get it wrong.
    4. The Hill. US finishes dead last in media trust among 46 countries heres why [A Big Reuters/Oxford study taking 2,000+ samples from all 46 countries. US at 29% trusting media.]
    5. Berri Weiss’ resignation letter from the New York Times.
    6. Jonathan Turley, The Hill. shadow state embracing corporate governance to escape constitutional limits

    The last one is an issue more and more are seeing as the biggest threat to our Republic since the Civil War.

  12. The Turley article brings up a good point that too many on the libertarian right are ignoring.

    Free speech is not just another term for the First Amendment; it’s an Enlightenment principle that has spread throughout the world. And when you have people disregarding the principle, it doesn’t bode well for a free society.

    The left continuously tries to convince the public that the constitution isn’t important, anyway. They don’t intend to hide behind it for long.

    “The common refrain from the left is that corporate censorship is not a limit on free speech because the First Amendment only addresses government limits on speech. That not only maximizes the power of corporations but minimizes the definition of free speech. Free speech is not exclusively contained in the First Amendment. It includes the full range of speech in society in both private and public forums. Yet, liberals — who once opposed the recognition of corporate free speech rights in cases like Citizen’s United — are now great advocates for corporate speech rights, in order to justify the censorship of opposing views.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>