Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Big Tech, Social media and the government

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

    Lockdowns as class warfare of the rich and the professional class against the working class

    A year after "15 days to flatten the curve" began our lockdowns, we have enough data to answer the classic question about lockdowns (which still exist a year later in many places, including much of California): cui bono? (Who benefits?)

    The answer is, as an individual, Jeff Bezos. His stock in Amazon, the single biggest beneficiary of lockdowns, is worth billions of dollars more than before the lockdown. As a group: educated professionals, able to work from home via Zoom and other internet-based services and able to afford home delivery. The Ace of Spades pungently summarizes:

    The general lockdowns weren't general lockdowns. As a friend said, we didn't have a lockdown, we had poor people delivering s--- to rich people.

    Instead of protecting the people really at risk, the Ruling Class — the "Zoom class," the people who can work completely remotely — protected itself, and killed half a million people.
    Small businesses, the bedrock base of the GOP, have been severely damaged and even bankrupted in mass numbers. Government workers, the base of the Democrats, have not missed any paychecks for the most part.

    Unionized teachers in public schools, members of the lower-income tier of educated professionals, still have not gone to work in schools in many places, as their unions scheme to use taxpayer relief dollars to pay them bonuses for trips to Hawaii and other goodies, while supermarket and other retail clerks have labored unceasingly, interacting with adult members of the public who are a far greater health risk than children.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ing_class.html

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

      Wikipedia Co-founder Warns: ‘Wikipedia Is More One-Sided Than Ever’

      Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia, warned that the online encyclopedia is “more one-sided than ever” in light of the website’s entries for Black Lives Matter, the 2020 election, former President Donald Trump’s two impeachments, and other contentious topics.Sanger, in particular, took issue with how some Wikipedia entries are sourced.“In short, and with few exceptions, only globalist, progressive mainstream sources—and sources friendly to globalist progressivism—are permitted,” he wrote in an article on his website.Several centrist news outlets like The Daily Telegraph, The Wall Street Journal, and The Weekly Standard are sometimes allowed to be sourced, he said, but Wikipedia editors are “careful never to leave the current Overton Window of progressive thought.” Unlike Facebook Inc. and Twitter, which take more top-down approaches to content moderation, Wikipedia, which turned 20 years old earlier this year, largely relies on unpaid volunteers to handle issues around users’ behavior, editing entries, and other aspects of the site’s management.

      Wikipedia has 230,000 volunteer editors who work on crowdsourced articles and more than 3,500 “administrators” who can take actions like blocking accounts or restricting edits on certain pages, according to a Reuters article.Further, Sanger suggested, Wikipedia’s editors have “systematically purged conservative mainstream media sources” because its editors “do not want what they dismiss as ‘misinformation,’ ‘conspiracy theories,’ etc., to get any hearing. In saying so, they (and similarly biased institutions) are plainly claiming exclusive control over what is thinkable. They want to set the boundaries of the debate, and they want to tell you how to think about it.”

      Sanger noted that Wikipedia has banned Fox News’ political reporting, the New York Post, and the Daily Mail from being used as sources. According to a Wikipedia page on the sources that can be used, other conservative websites like Breitbart, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, The Gateway Pundit, and Newsmax are also banned. “Many mainstream sources of conservative, libertarian, or contrarian opinion are banned from Wikipedia as well, including Quillette, The Federalist, and the Daily Caller,” he added. “Those might be contrarian or conservative, but they are hardly ‘radical’; they are still mainstream. So, how on earth can such viewpoints ever be given an airing on Wikipedia? Answer: often, they cannot, not if there are no ‘reliable sources’ available to report about them.” “It is not too far to say that Wikipedia, like many other deeply biased institutions of our brave new digital world, has made itself into a kind of thought police that has de facto shackled conservative viewpoints with which they disagree,” Sanger wrote in a conclusion on his website. “Democracy cannot thrive under such conditions: I maintain that Wikipedia has become an opponent of vigorous democracy.”

      But democracy, he argued, “requires that voters be given the full range of views on controversial issues, so that they can make up their minds for themselves.” “If society’s main information sources march in ideological lockstep, they make a mockery of democracy. Then the wealthy and powerful need only gain control of the few approved organs of acceptable thought; then they will be able to manipulate and ultimately control all-important political dialogue,” Sanger concluded. Sanger and another co-founder Jimmy Wales created Wikipedia—of which Sanger gave its name—in 2001. Sanger left the project during the next year and he has, for years, criticized the website.

      The Epoch Times has contacted Wikipedia for comment.

      https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_br...r_3887650.html

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

        Exclusive: Despite Facebook Bias, Breitbart News Destroys Establishment Media on Platform

        Despite the presence of a range of leftist “fact-checkers” with the power to suppress posts on the platform and open censorship of conservative news stories by Facebook, Breitbart News is demolishing its establishment foes on Facebook. Facebook has an established track record of censoring conservative media. It censored the New York Post twice, first for the Hunter Biden laptop story and then for a negative story about a Black Lives Matter co-founder. It censored Tucker Carlson’s page, reducing the Fox News host’s reach on the platform little more than a month before the 2020 election. It censored the Wall Street Journal over an op-ed on coronavirus. And it censored Breitbart News — for a live video of a press conference. Despite this demonstrable bias, over the last three months, the official Breitbart News page on Facebook generated nearly 40 million interactions — more than the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and HuffPo combined.



        Breitbart News’ interaction rate of 39.9 million towers over far-left competitors like Vox, which totaled fewer than one million in the same period. The rankings of some third-party analytics services, like NewsWhip, sometimes give Breitbart News a lower ranking than the above, due to the fact that it does not include native videos and photos in its calculations, an area where Breitbart outperforms its competitors.

        Although Facebook has included Breitbart News in a 200-strong list of approved media outlets (most of which are establishment or left-leaning), Breitbart still faces an uneven playing field on the platform due to the presence of multiple left-leaning third-party “fact-checkers” that have the power to suppress publishers. These “fact-checkers” include direct competitors of Breitbart News like USA Today, which suppressed a Breitbart News post on Facebook-owned Instagram in June 2020. These fact-checkers often decline to target posts from Breitbart’s competitors — for example, when HuffPo published disinformation about President Donald Trump profiting from a drug company’s coronavirus treatment, it was not fact-checked at all — not even with an “additional context” fact-check, the least severe kind.

        Despite this advantage, HuffPo’s engagement fails to come anywhere near Breitbart News. Far-left media is failing on Facebook despite the advantage of biased fact-checkers (even Facebook VP Nick Clegg admits that fact-checkers pursue their own political agenda). As to how much worse the establishment, left-wing media would be faring on Facebook if so many prominent conservatives had not been banned from the platform — we can only guess.

        https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2021/...a-on-facebook/

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

          Twitter Permanently Bans Alex Berenson After Viral COVID Tweets

          It was never a matter of if, but when.Science journalist Alex Berenson has been permanently suspended from Twitter, just one day after a viral series of tweets spotlighting an Israeli preprint study which showed that natural immunity from a prior Covid-19 infection is 13 times more effective than vaccines against the delta variant. "The account you referenced has been permanently suspended for repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation rules," a Twitter spokesperson told Fox News.The last tweet he posted, meanwhile, accurately noted that the vaccine "doesn't stop infection. Or transmission." "Don't think of it as a vaccine," he added. "Think of it - at best - as a therapeutic with a limited window of efficacy and terrible side effect profile that must be dosed IN ADVANCE OF ILLNESS." "And we want to mandate it? Insanity." "This was the tweet that did it. Entirely accurate. I can’t wait to hear what a jury will make of this," wrote Berenson on his substack blog, Unreported Truths.

          Berenson's full speech - where he slams big tech for controlling narratives and censoring divergent opinions:



          https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/t...r-viral-tweets
          From the video...

          “It is sad that people who think they know best won’t even talk to you and won’t even debate you… are they scared or what are they… I don’t know but it needs to stop.” - Alex Berenson

          Just how true is that here at TOL...

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

            Mother of Marine killed in ISIS bomb attack has her Instagram account disabled after she blamed Biden for her son's death and claimed President 'rolled his eyes' and 'turned his back on her' when she confronted him

            * Shana Chappell's son Kareem Nikoui, 20, was killed in Kabul on Thursday
            * Thousands flooded her page - where she has complained about Biden in the past - afterwards
            * On Thursday, her Instagram account was suddenly disabled
            * She had posted on Facebook, blaming Biden for her son's death in Afghanistan
            * Instagram says it was a mistake, has restored the account and apologized
            * They won't explain how Ms. Chappell's account was flagged to them
            * It is another example of Silicon Valley censoring conservative voices
            * Trump has been banned from Facebook and Instagram since January and a host of his supporters have been censored
            * Chappell had also described meeting Biden on Sunday at Dover Air Base
            * She said he 'rolled his eyes' at her and 'turned his back' as she confronted him
            * White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to comment on Biden's meeting with the Marines' families on Monday


            Facebook temporarily deleted the Instagram account of the mother of one of the Marines killed in Afghanistan by an ISIS bomb last week after she publicly blamed President Biden for his death and the deaths of the other servicemembers killed.Shana Chappell is the mother of Kareem Nikoui, 20, who was killed in the ISIS bomb attack at Kabul airport on August 26.She has been vocal in her criticism of President Biden and says she blamed him for her son's death, along with the deaths of the 12 other troops who were killed. Chappell, a Trump voter, posted frequently about her disdain for Biden, before her son's death.

            On Friday, she posted a tribute to her son on Instagram that received thousands of messages of condolence. In the days since, she shared another tribute and a video of the country singer Coffey Anderson volunteering to sing at a funeral for the slain troops. On Facebook, Chappell has repeatedly blamed Biden for her son's death and in a post on Monday just before she had her Instagram account disabled, she wrote a long Facebook post directed at Biden where she described meeting him on Sunday at Dover Air Base. She said she looked him 'straight in the eyes' and told him she did not want to hear about his late son Beau, who the President mentioned repeatedly, and told him he had her son's blood on her hands.Chappell also alleged that Biden 'turned to walk away' then threw his hand 'up behind him as if he was saying "ok whatever" when she yelled at him that her son's blood was on her hands. The White House has not addressed those allegations.

            Her account was suspended yesterday and was restored after she posted about being disabled on Facebook, and a Facebook spokesperson has since told DailyMail.com that it was deleted 'incorrectly' but it won't say how the 'mistake' came about. It adds to the many cases of left-leaning Silicon Valley censoring conservative voices, even if the voice in question belongs to the grieving mother of a murdered American hero. Chappell says she thinks Facebook disabled her account after she posted four days ago about her son's death where she didn't mention Biden, but which went viral and directed people to her page. 'As soon as I posted about what happened to my son Instagram started pulling up my posts from months ago and sending me notifications that if I kept posting stuff like that they would disable my account! Posts from months ago!' she said on Monday.

            In other posts, she has said 'President Joe Biden, THEIR BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!!!!!!'...



            https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...SUSPENDED.html

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

              The FDA's cozy relationship with Big Pharma

              As people rush to tout the recent FDA approval of Pfizer's mRNA vaccine as if it were some great scientific victory, the institution's shady history seems to be all but forgotten.No matter how you slice it, the pharmaceutical industry is the central engine of the global health establishment. The industry's larger corporations (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, etc.) provide funding for the FDA, the CDC, the WHO; they do this both directly and through NGOs like the EPDA. It was recently reported that pharmaceutical giants are raking in the money with the sale of their novel and inadequately tested COVID-19 vaccines. Pfizer expects to earn $33.5 billion in 2021. J&J estimates its full-year COVID-19 vaccine sales to be $2.5 billion, while Moderna forecasts $19.2 billion. These enormous figures will be grossly surpassed when one considers the forthcoming round of booster shots and the profits those will yield.

              When it comes to lobbying money spent in 2021, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America group ranks number three nationally. Interestingly, the fourth, fifth, and sixth positions are also members of the health establishment. These are the American Hospital Association, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and the American Medical Association. Respectively. Pfizer by itself is number 15.The ties between the FDA and Big Pharma run deep, and their relationship has become so symbiotic that neither could exist without the other unless massive reforms were to take place. Big Pharma relies on the FDA to approve and rush its products to market, and the FDA relies on Big Pharma to receive its funding. Not only that, but there seems to be a revolving door of FDA commissioners landing on the boards of these pharmaceutical companies.

              Scott Gottlieb, who stepped down as FDA commissioner in the spring of 2019, soon found himself sitting comfortably on Pfizer's board of directors. Gottlieb's predecessor, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, landed a cushy position on the board of directors for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Steven Hahn, former FDA commissioner under Donald Trump, wound up at Flagship Pioneering, the venture capital firm that launched Moderna.The list goes on and on. In fact, nine out of the last ten FDA commissioners — representing nearly four decades of agency leadership — have gone on to work for pharmaceutical companies. The lone exception is David Kessler, who joined the ranks in academia before eventually settling in his current position as chair of the board of directors at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

              Criticism toward the modern medical-industrial complex has triggered many arguments, and this is particularly true in the age of COVID. Regardless of what stance you take on any medical debate, it is undeniable that the industry operates in the same mafia-esque fashion as the Media, Big Tech, and Big Government.

              https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ig_pharma.html

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

                Originally posted by Docker View Post
                The FDA's cozy relationship with Big Pharma

                As people rush to tout the recent FDA approval of Pfizer's mRNA vaccine as if it were some great scientific victory, the institution's shady history seems to be all but forgotten.No matter how you slice it, the pharmaceutical industry is the central engine of the global health establishment. The industry's larger corporations (Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, etc.) provide funding for the FDA, the CDC, the WHO; they do this both directly and through NGOs like the EPDA. It was recently reported that pharmaceutical giants are raking in the money with the sale of their novel and inadequately tested COVID-19 vaccines. Pfizer expects to earn $33.5 billion in 2021. J&J estimates its full-year COVID-19 vaccine sales to be $2.5 billion, while Moderna forecasts $19.2 billion. These enormous figures will be grossly surpassed when one considers the forthcoming round of booster shots and the profits those will yield.

                When it comes to lobbying money spent in 2021, the Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America group ranks number three nationally. Interestingly, the fourth, fifth, and sixth positions are also members of the health establishment. These are the American Hospital Association, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and the American Medical Association. Respectively. Pfizer by itself is number 15.The ties between the FDA and Big Pharma run deep, and their relationship has become so symbiotic that neither could exist without the other unless massive reforms were to take place. Big Pharma relies on the FDA to approve and rush its products to market, and the FDA relies on Big Pharma to receive its funding. Not only that, but there seems to be a revolving door of FDA commissioners landing on the boards of these pharmaceutical companies.

                Scott Gottlieb, who stepped down as FDA commissioner in the spring of 2019, soon found himself sitting comfortably on Pfizer's board of directors. Gottlieb's predecessor, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, landed a cushy position on the board of directors for Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Steven Hahn, former FDA commissioner under Donald Trump, wound up at Flagship Pioneering, the venture capital firm that launched Moderna.The list goes on and on. In fact, nine out of the last ten FDA commissioners — representing nearly four decades of agency leadership — have gone on to work for pharmaceutical companies. The lone exception is David Kessler, who joined the ranks in academia before eventually settling in his current position as chair of the board of directors at the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

                Criticism toward the modern medical-industrial complex has triggered many arguments, and this is particularly true in the age of COVID. Regardless of what stance you take on any medical debate, it is undeniable that the industry operates in the same mafia-esque fashion as the Media, Big Tech, and Big Government.

                https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ig_pharma.html
                It has always been about the Benjamin's

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

                  Originally posted by Docker View Post
                  Mother of Marine killed in ISIS bomb attack has her Instagram account disabled after she blamed Biden for her son's death and claimed President 'rolled his eyes' and 'turned his back on her' when she confronted him

                  * Shana Chappell's son Kareem Nikoui, 20, was killed in Kabul on Thursday
                  * Thousands flooded her page - where she has complained about Biden in the past - afterwards
                  * On Thursday, her Instagram account was suddenly disabled
                  * She had posted on Facebook, blaming Biden for her son's death in Afghanistan
                  * Instagram says it was a mistake, has restored the account and apologized
                  * They won't explain how Ms. Chappell's account was flagged to them
                  * It is another example of Silicon Valley censoring conservative voices
                  * Trump has been banned from Facebook and Instagram since January and a host of his supporters have been censored
                  * Chappell had also described meeting Biden on Sunday at Dover Air Base
                  * She said he 'rolled his eyes' at her and 'turned his back' as she confronted him
                  * White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki refused to comment on Biden's meeting with the Marines' families on Monday


                  Facebook temporarily deleted the Instagram account of the mother of one of the Marines killed in Afghanistan by an ISIS bomb last week after she publicly blamed President Biden for his death and the deaths of the other servicemembers killed.Shana Chappell is the mother of Kareem Nikoui, 20, who was killed in the ISIS bomb attack at Kabul airport on August 26.She has been vocal in her criticism of President Biden and says she blamed him for her son's death, along with the deaths of the 12 other troops who were killed. Chappell, a Trump voter, posted frequently about her disdain for Biden, before her son's death.

                  On Friday, she posted a tribute to her son on Instagram that received thousands of messages of condolence. In the days since, she shared another tribute and a video of the country singer Coffey Anderson volunteering to sing at a funeral for the slain troops. On Facebook, Chappell has repeatedly blamed Biden for her son's death and in a post on Monday just before she had her Instagram account disabled, she wrote a long Facebook post directed at Biden where she described meeting him on Sunday at Dover Air Base. She said she looked him 'straight in the eyes' and told him she did not want to hear about his late son Beau, who the President mentioned repeatedly, and told him he had her son's blood on her hands.Chappell also alleged that Biden 'turned to walk away' then threw his hand 'up behind him as if he was saying "ok whatever" when she yelled at him that her son's blood was on her hands. The White House has not addressed those allegations.

                  Her account was suspended yesterday and was restored after she posted about being disabled on Facebook, and a Facebook spokesperson has since told DailyMail.com that it was deleted 'incorrectly' but it won't say how the 'mistake' came about. It adds to the many cases of left-leaning Silicon Valley censoring conservative voices, even if the voice in question belongs to the grieving mother of a murdered American hero. Chappell says she thinks Facebook disabled her account after she posted four days ago about her son's death where she didn't mention Biden, but which went viral and directed people to her page. 'As soon as I posted about what happened to my son Instagram started pulling up my posts from months ago and sending me notifications that if I kept posting stuff like that they would disable my account! Posts from months ago!' she said on Monday.

                  In other posts, she has said 'President Joe Biden, THEIR BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!!!!!!'...

                  https://easycaptures.com/fs/uploaded...0234045709.jpg

                  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...SUSPENDED.html
                  Trump's reply...

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

                    Quantitative Brainwashing

                    We’re all familiar with the term, “quantitative easing.” It’s described as meaning, “A monetary policy in which a central bank purchases government securities or other securities from the market in order to lower interest rates and increase the money supply.” Well, that sounds reasonable… even beneficial. But, unfortunately, that’s not really the whole story.When QE was implemented, the purchasing power was weak and both government and personal debt had become so great that further borrowing would not solve the problem; it would only postpone it and, in the end, exacerbate it. Effectively, QE is not a solution to an economic problem, it’s a bonus of epic proportions, given to banks by governments, at the expense of the taxpayer. But, of course, we shouldn’t be surprised that governments have passed off a massive redistribution of wealth from the taxpayer to their pals in the banking sector with such clever terms. Governments of today have become extremely adept at creating euphemisms for their misdeeds in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the populace.

                    At this point, we cannot turn on the daily news without being fed a full meal of carefully-worded mumbo jumbo, designed to further overwhelm whatever small voices of truth may be out there.Let’s put this in perspective for a moment.For millennia, political leaders have been in the practice of altering, confusing and even obliterating the truth, when possible. And it’s probably safe to say that, for as long as there have been media, there have been political leaders doing their best to control them.During times of war, political leaders have serially restricted the media from simply telling the truth. During the American civil war, President Lincoln shut down some 300 newspapers and arrested some 14,000 journalists who had the audacity to contradict his statements to the public.As extreme as that may sound, this practice has been more the rule in history than the exception.

                    In most countries, in most eras, some publications go against the official story line and may very well pay a price for doing so. But, other publications go along with the official story line to a greater or lesser degree and are often rewarded for doing so.It should come as no surprise, then, that media outlets often come to report the news in a less than accurate manner.

                    Mark Twain is claimed to have said, “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you do read the newspaper, you’re misinformed.” Quite so. Still, only fifty years ago, much of the then “Free World” enjoyed a relatively objective Press. Even on television, reporters such as Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, etc. presented the news in a bland manner. It wasn’t very exciting, but at least it was relatively balanced and, to this day, most people who were around then still have no idea as to whether reporters like Walter Cronkite were liberal or conservative. Although he was a committed Democrat, he never allowed that to significantly colour his reporting.But today, we have a very different corporate structure as regards the media. The same six corporations hold the controlling interest of over 80% of the media. And those same corporations also own a controlling interest in the military industrial complex, Wall Street, the major banks, Big Pharma, etc.

                    What we’re witnessing today is media having been transformed into something more akin to a three-ring circus than journalism of old. This is no accident.The present travesty that is the 21st century media, is journalism in name only.So, why should this be so? Well, as it happens, people tend not to like governments dominating their lives – simple as that. And yet, the primary objective of any government is to increase its size and power as rapidly as the populace will tolerate it. The only reason that they rarely do this quickly, is that they can’t get away with it. Like boiling a frog, it takes time to lull the populace into submission, bit by bit. Once having had enough time to do so, there comes a point at which the government becomes woefully top-heavy, as well as unworkably autocratic. At such times, all that’s necessary to make people rebel is an economic crisis.

                    Such is the case in much of the world today – the EU, the US, Canada, etc.. Even in their arrogance, the powers that be have to be aware that they’re right at the tipping point. An economic crisis would almost certainly push the situation over the edge. When truth threatens to undermine machinations for self-aggrandizement, individuals tend to obfuscate in order to delay the inevitable fallout. Governments are no different. So it was that, in 1999, the largest banks entered into a massive lending scam that would most certainly collapse within a decade. However, before putting the scam in place, they arranged for a “bailout” by the government, which would effectively pass the bill to the taxpayer, while the banks themselves simply increased their own wealth massively. Of course, QE, as massive as it was, was a mere Band-Aid solution. All those involved (big business and the government) understood that it would hang like a sword of Damocles over the economy until it inevitably came crashing down – a fate far worse than if QE had never been implemented.

                    And so, for those entities to have invested into the domination of the media was, in fact, essential. Had they not done so, it’s entirely likely that, with a free press, the man on the street would, by now, have figured out that he’d been hoodwinked.Thus do we see the journalistic equivalent of Quantitative Brainwashing, in which the inevitable realization is delayed for as long as possible. And, in order to make sure that the public do not figure out what’s been done to them, the news reporting becomes Orwellian in its endless repetition of a false narrative. It is, however, true that, “You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Eventually, the Band-Aid peels back to reveal an infection that’s far beyond what had been generally perceived. It then falls away in layers, as increasing numbers of people become aware that they’ve been scammed – that the media is entirely corrupt and that the media’s owners – big business - have, with the enthusiastic compliance of the government, robbed them on a wholesale basis. Historically, that’s when the jig is up. What happens then is a matter of historic record.

                    https://www.zerohedge.com/economics/...e-brainwashing

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government



                      Facebook Weaponizes Fake Fact-Check To Censor Posts Blaming Joe Biden For High Gas Prices

                      Facebook appeared to censor a meme on Wednesday that placed blame for high gas prices on President Joe Biden, citing a USA Today fact-check to justify the censorship.

                      “Fact check: Rising gas prices due to high demand and low supply, not Biden’s policies,” a pop-up explained, with a link to the supposed fact-check from USA Today.



                      In the paper’s nearly 1,500-word attempt to exonerate Biden’s aggressive climate agenda as the culprit for seven-year-high gas prices, USA Today explained that surging costs as the gas pump were a product of post-pandemic demand outpacing supply met with an already upward trend as shown below. “We rate FALSE the claim President Joe Biden is to blame for the current higher gas prices. The upward trend in gas costs we see now began months before Biden took office,” the paper wrote, with a note at the end that Facebook funded the fact-check it now uses to censor posts contrary to its preferred political narrative. “Our fact check work is supported in part by a grant from Facebook,” the paper wrote. Despite the mild rise immediately before Biden took office, gas prices were still far below what they were during much of 2019. The spike after Biden entered office would have been avoidable had the president not launched an assault on the oil industry on day one.



                      The sharp rise in gas prices was a direct consequence of Biden’s immediate offensive, stifling capital investment with pressure on Wall Street in a capital-intensive industry, plus repeated pledges for a cascade of taxes and regulation to phase out fossil fuels.“You don’t have to ban something if you regulate it to death,” former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler explained to The Federalist in October last year as Biden ran on a platform to do just that. On his first day in the Oval Office, Biden began to make good on his promises with an executive order implementing a moratorium on leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Sixty miles west of the coastal plain, home to between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels of recoverable oil, millions of dollars of equipment stand ready for deployment in Prudhoe Bay to the 1.6 million out of the nearly 20 million-acre refuge once opened for drilling.



                      Biden continued to suspend new oil and gas leases on federal lands pending a review of the federal leasing program from the Interior Department. The review, promised for release by late summer, is still pending.The suspension on leasing remained in place until a federal judge overturned the ban to set up auctions next spring, but headwinds from a hostile administration hamper incentives for risking millions in new investment.Biden has successfully suppressed a ramp-up in production through a combination of Wall Street pressure, new regulation, and outright bans where possible on new drilling. “We would be happy to increase our production, but this administration is doing everything in its power to run us out of business,” Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Denver-based industry trade group Western Energy Alliance, told The Federalist. “I think if they stop manipulation markets the problem would be solved.” Meanwhile, the administration is begging the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to fill gaps in supply created by the White House to the detriment of American workers.

                      https://thefederalist.com/2021/10/27...gh-gas-prices/

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

                        FBI and Southern District of New York Raid Project Veritas Journalists’ Homes...

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: Big Tech, Social media and the government

                          YouTube Hides "Dislikes" Following Mass Downvoting Of Biden Administration Videos

                          YouTube has announced it will hide ‘dislikes’ from videos to curb “creator harassment,” with critics pointing out that this is merely a way of removing the huge amount of downvotes on videos posted by the Biden administration. “YouTube has announced that it’ll be hiding public dislike counts on videos across its site, starting today,” reports The Verge.“The company says the change is to keep smaller creators from being targeted by dislike attacks or harassment, and to promote “respectful interactions between viewers and creators.” The dislike button will still be there, but it’ll be for private feedback, rather than public shaming.”

                          Quite how viewer feedback in the form of a thumbs down icon represents “harassment” is anyone’s guess, but the immediate response to the announcement from many was that the Google-owned company was merely moving to protect the Biden White House from ridicule.

                          “Is this the reason?” asked one respondent, highlighting how Biden speeches and White House press briefings receive massive dislike ratios, sometimes at a rate of ten to one.



                          With the recent popularity of the ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ meme, this seems like another transparent attempt to protect the plunging popularity of Biden, whose approval rating just fell to a record low. As we previously highlighted, despite being “the most popular president in U.S. history” after his *totally not unusual* vote record, Joe Biden didn’t fare too well on YouTube in the days after his inauguration, where every single video posted to the official White House channel received massive downvote ratios.

                          Thanks to YouTube, those ratios will never be a problem again.

                          https://www.zerohedge.com/technology...tration-videos

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Twitter Locks Out Federalist Editor For Stating Truth About Rachel Levine

                            Federalist Senior Editor John Daniel Davidson was locked out of his Twitter account on Saturday for stating the fact that Biden administration official Rachel Levine is a man. The moment came following a Friday tweet from Davidson on the growing Big Tech censorship of “everyone who dissents from their ideology.” In it, he correctly referred to Levine, who falsely claims to be a woman, as a male. “They’re not even trying to hide it anymore,” wrote Davidson. “If you say that Rachel Levine is a man, they will come after you. Doesn’t matter that Levine is in fact a man. Truth is no defense.”

                            Less than 24 hours after Davidson posted this, Big Tech censors at Twitter removed the tweet from being viewed by the public and locked Davidson out of his account, claiming it “violated the Twitter Rules” and that he would “be able to unlock [his] account” within 12 hours. “Note: you may need to complete some additional tasks to resume using Twitter,” the message said.



                            The social media platform sent an additional message to Davidson on Sunday, telling the Federalist senior editor that, to have his account restored, he would have to “acknowledge that [his] tweet violated the Twitter Rules” and delete it. Davidson says that he has no intention of deleting the post.


                            Davidson’s Twitter lockout comes days after a major crackdown on Federalist content by Twitter, with the social media company recently diverting users who click on Federalist articles “to a landing page warning that links ‘may be unsafe.'” The actions were reversed following an inquiry by The Federalist, with a Twitter spokesperson claiming “the URLs referenced were mistakenly marked under our unsafe links policy“ Other notable figures recently suspended for making factual statements about sex include Kyle Mann and Adam Ford of The Babylon Bee, as well as Fox News host Tucker Carlson.

                            https://thefederalist.com/2022/03/28...rachel-levine/

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              The big payoff for the lies of the Russian collusion hoax

                              We have many laws against lying to the public. You can't sell securities in the capital markets by making statements that are either knowingly false or are made with reckless indifference to the truth. You can't sell your house and hide material defects. Same for your car. It's against the law to call a cake a banana cake if contains no banana. Don't even think about selling candy as chocolate bars just because it tastes like chocolate.

                              But believe it or not, there is no law against trying to win the presidency or any other election by fraud. There's no law against trying to advance your career in politics by fraud. There's no law against a politician trying to get or retain power by lying to the public, and we all know that goes on 24/7. You must know that you can't lie to Congress; if you do, you can go to jail. But members of Congress can lie to you, and we all know they regularly do. Same for governments, presidents, governors, and all manner of political people. But don't even think about lying about a candy bar.

                              The truth about the Trump Russian collusion story is that it was undisputedly a hoax planned by the Clinton campaign, the DNC and their law firm Perkins Coie, and their opposition research firm Fusion GPS. This is reflected in the recent filings of special counsel John Durham. But the mainstream media never honestly cover it.

                              We hear a lot of concerns by the media and politicians about "threats to our democracy," but we don't hear that about the Russian collusion hoax. Yet if the attempt to subvert an election and deprive the voters of an honest vote by fraud and then to follow up by trying to destroy the administration of the elected candidate by that same fraud isn't the biggest attack on our democracy in our lifetimes, I don't know what is. But the mainstream media never refer to it as a threat to our democracy and never cover the story honestly because it's against their preferred narrative and that of their customers.

                              In fact, if they were told the truth, their customers would be angry. They would blame the messenger and reject the message. For far too many people, it doesn't matter whether the information provided them is false so long as it fulfills their preferred narrative. That's why people like Rachel Maddow, who promoted the Trump Russian collusion falsehoods over and over, are still on the air with a big following. That's why people still read the Washington Post and the New York Times. To these people, it just doesn't matter if the information is false — just so long as it damages their political opponents.

                              https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...sion_hoax.html

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Big Tech platforms censored in favor of President Biden 646 times in two years

                                Between March 10, 2020, and March 10, 2022, there were 646 instances where Big Tech has censored criticism of Biden, according to an analysis by the Media Research Center.

                                In its CensorTrack database, MRC recorded over 600 cases where Big Tech platforms censored criticism of Biden. 140 of those cases involved the New York Post’s story about Hunter Biden’s potentially corrupt foreign deals when his father was president.

                                Twitter censored the story by blocking it from getting shared, suspending the New York Post’s account for more than two weeks, and suspending any account that dared reference the story, which was authenticated by the liberal New York Times this year.

                                Most of the censorship cases, 232, surrounded criticism of Biden’s inappropriate behavior around kids and women. In one of the cases, Facebook deleted a post featuring three photos of Biden kissing his granddaughter on the lips. Facebook claimed the post violated its policy on “nudity or sexual activity.”

                                Big Tech platforms even went after posts quoting controversial and embarrassing statements made by the president. For example, Facebook deleted a video posted by Heritage Action showing Biden and officials from his administration saying his policies would result in an increase in fuel prices.

                                MRC’s analysis underscores Big Tech’s liberal bias and proves the lengths these companies will go to squash criticism of the president.

                                https://reclaimthenet.org/big-tech-p...-in-two-years/

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X