All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Saturday, July 13, 2019

Media bullies cheer censorship



Twitter censored Lila Grace Rose in 2015 for being pro-life. There was no reason to censor her. A press that supported free speech would rally behind her. Instead, reporters side with the online oligarchs.

President Trump hosted a White House summit on this online bullying. Rose said, "I’m very concerned about the future of censorship online. It’s corrosive to public discourse and freedom of speech. These are our public forums today. This is where content is shared. This is where news is shared."

Google, Facebook and Twitter have worked in concert to blackball Rose and others.

How did the New York Times react to her complaint?

It mocked her. Just days after celebrating a goofy court ruling that President Trump cannot block people on Twitter -- something every person in the media and in politics does -- the media attacked victim of Twitter blocking them.

Charlie Warzel of the Times wrote, "The decision to invite a collection of Photoshoppers, conspiracy peddlers and grandfatherly, semipro Twitter fighters to the White House was a maneuver designed to outrage. That outrage inevitably led to press coverage, as evidenced by the dozens of curtain-raising pieces from technology and political reporters who’ve covered these personalities from their days of obscurity. Coverage leads to more condemnations. Then, more coverage. An hourlong meeting about technology with a president who has never used email becomes a circus, which boosts the profile of each meeting attendee."

Warzel is part of an industry that for three years has peddled Russian collusion. His newspaper received a Pulitzer for peddling this.

The Mueller Report showed there was no collusion.

Who is he to look down his nose at "Photoshoppers"? Has he checked out his newspaper's graphics department lately?

Indeed, a doctored picture of the White House accompanied his story.



Warzel wrote, "Despite their Island of Misfit Toys status in the mainstream media world, the livestreamers and provocateurs invited to the White House are agitation propaganda machines."

Island of Misfit Toys? Charlie in the Box Warzel should take a good gander in a mirror sometime.

He wrote, "Being a memeknight in Trump’s service might seem more like role-playing politics from a keyboard. But what happens on Reddit, 4chan, Twitter and Facebook can swing a presidential campaign. The worst of it — disinformation, violent trolling, doctored videos falsely labeled satire (like the recent Nancy Pelosi clips) — sloshes into the mainstream and becomes part of the news cycle and forces fact-checkers and candidates to go on the defensive."

Wow.

Holding people accountable.

When the press is too busy mocking conservatives, bloggers are out there getting the truth.

Real journalism from amateurs has exposed Big Media lies for years, from bringing down Dan Rather over his (as the Times put it) "Fake But Accurate" story about Bush 43's military service to proving the media lied about the Covington Catholic High students who were taunted by a bully Indian. The media made it seem like they taunted him.

The Internet has made the media obsolete. This has given online oligarchs tremendous power, which they abuse. That the media sides with the censors.

I suppose it has always been this way. Newspapers ignored black news, for example, throughout most of the 20th century.

But reading a pro-censorship screed in the Times was jarring.

Meanwhile, Rose wrote to LifeSite News.

She said, “Earlier today, I had the opportunity to visit with President Trump and discuss the ongoing efforts by Big Tech companies to suppress and silence pro-lifers like you and me.

“Big Tech is clamping down on Live Action because we are so effective and driving the national debate on abortion.”

“They see our culture turning against the killing of preborn children more and more every day, and that’s why they are going to such lengths to suppress the truth. Their actions have gone above and beyond censorship and are extremely disturbing not just for pro-life Americans, but also for every American’s right to free speech.

“That’s why I am so grateful to President Trump and the White House staff for the opportunity today to speak out against this censorship. I hope we can see the day when free speech is protected and we can continue to speak out in defense of the preborn.”

When companies and political parties no longer respect the right to life, then liberty and the pursuit of happiness will follow.

13 comments:

  1. U.S. media are caca, and they project like maniacs.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Twitter banning her is the same as book burning. Censorship is been in their control for a century but not anymore.

    The more they censor the more that helps competitors to grab market share. It also means they're publishers not platforms.

    And it shows how desperate they are since they are willing to alienate half their customers. Its too late people have already found the alt news of their choice.

    ReplyDelete
  3. what happens on Reddit, 4chan, Twitter and Facebook can swing a presidential campaign.

    Remember Michael Kinsley's definition of gaffe?

    That's it right there.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When Ireland had a abortion referendum recently, Facebook asked the government if it should ban pro-life ads. When the government told them there was no law against it, Zuck said screw it, we'll censor them anyway.

    Even Heritage is lulled into paralysis by some contributions from Google and the Potemkin head-fake of consulting some conservatives. The day after the White House Summit, Twitter was caught shadow-banning the President, erasing "likes" by the thousands.

    These people mean to rig our elections and control our speech while hiding behind private enterprise. Tyranny with cool apps is still tyranny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've learned to copy & paste plain text on Facebook when I want a conservative article seen - I don't name the site until the end of the post, and don't put a URL in the post, I add it to a comment below. I don't have a big following, but my friends actually see those, where as the ones I just "share" from conservative websites, usually don't show up in their feeds.

      Also, I haven't seen it mentioned yet, but Yahoo has been delivering email from whitehouse.gov into the Spam folder for a while. Yesterday, Microsoft Outlook.com (the free webmail) put a whitehouse.gov email into the Spam folder.

      Delete
    2. The spam folder is the prime one to check.

      Even when 99% is actual spam, that 1% can be a helpful indicator of what your specific email service is defining as spam.

      And that is indicative of the intent of said email provider.

      The spam folder may be turning into that box of chocolates so favored by Forrest!!!

      Delete
  5. Anonymous said...

    "I hope we can see the day when free speech is protected

    "The first amendment binds the government from stopping the people's free speech. It has no authority over private interests.

    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

    "See? Only CONGRESS is restrained nobody else is.

    "I know I know y'all say its a public company. Hogwash. Stocks are private property and grant title to a private company traded on a privately owned stock exchange."

    So, I deleted the comment.

    I welcome him to explain to me why -- using his logic -- this is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Two weeks ago my twitter account was suspended after tweeting this to Representative Harris and others," The social media has exemptions from the rules about responsibility for content since they promised to be a platform for all voices.They have violated that agreement, so pull their exemption and let them compete with the rest of the media on a level playing field." The process to challenge the suspension is difficult and convoluted.Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 gives websites and services like Facebook and Twitter protection so that they cannot be held liable for the content created by their users. " 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."Censor citizens as publicans do to prevent lawsuits and you should lose your exemption. Even Senator Cardin in a meeting yesterday agreed with me in principle.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The one thing the old media hates the most about social media is the instant, unfiltered consumer feedback. At least, that's the way it used to be.

    Look how many "news" websites have eliminated their comment sections. And the ones who are constantly blocking and banning.

    The old media has lost the ability to control information. They lost it because of new technology, but they deserved to lose it long before they actually did. Social media not only exposed the old media's lies, omissions and half-truths, it showed that the "expert analysis" provided by the old media wasn't as good as the amateur analysis available on blogs and in tweets.

    OTOH, the old media didn't gather up our personal information and sell it. No hay rosas sin espinas.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Alles Heil Sieg Heil, Charlie! It warms the cockles of my dark Nazi heart to read that there are still True Believers in the world. Ja wohl! Sicher!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Political cartoons have been a staple of the press since there was a press and most newspapers today feature a political cartoonist.

    Pulitzer even gives the category an award.

    Memes are the digital equivalent of print editorial cartoons. Interesting that the media condemns them as "fake news". Isn't that in itself fake news?

    ReplyDelete