HNewsWire-Social-media companies involved in the effort to cleanse the Internet of “thought crimes” have tried to downplay concerns, pretending that it has nothing to do with politics. Twitter, for instance, released a statement claiming its censorship regime is not political. “We enforce our rules without political bias,” the company claimed, even as a growing barrage of lawsuits claims otherwise. Based on recent developments, the claim rings hollow, purge victims say. YouTube has even partnered with the far-left Southern Poverty Law Center, widely described as an anti-Christian hate group, to censor video content.
The unprecedented crackdown on conservative and Christian speech has ensnared some of the most powerful and influential voices in American media, including conservative talk-radio titan Alex Jones and his Infowars media empire. Other targets of the recent purges include “Health Ranger” Mike Adams of Natural News, an enormously influential service focusing on natural health. Also caught up has been Prager University, a non-profit education service that has attracted a massive following. A number of popular YouTube channels were taken down for allegedly promoting “conspiracy theories.” Facebook even censored popular Christian evangelist Julio Severo for posting a well-known Bible verse, which the company deemed “hate speech” before reversing its decision in the wake of an international outcry.
Investigative journalist and best-selling author Jerome Corsi, whose own YouTube channel was taken down before being put back online without explanation, told The New American that the status quo when it comes to social media is unacceptable. While conservatives are typically reluctant to call for federal action, Corsi argued that it has now become hard to tell where the Internet giants end and the government begins.
In Corsi's case, YouTube pulled some of his videos that had been up for weeks, claiming they had allegedly violated some “community standard” against “harassment and bullying.” Except his videos were neither harassing nor bullying. Then they pulled his whole channel. Corsi, who serves as Washington bureau chief for Infowars, got to work fighting back, challenging former Google boss and Hillary Clinton backer Eric Schmidt — a regular attendee at the secretive Bilderberg meetings — while making as much noise as possible. Eventually, his story was picked up by top media outlets across America.
Corsi also said the agenda behind the accelerating purges was clear. “The mainstream media is desperately fighting for its survival,” he said. “And the way to do it is to get the social-media companies to throw out every other viewpoint.” Noting that violent “Antifa” hate is welcome across the social-media platforms, while the Bible and the support for Second Amendment are increasingly being purged, Corsi said the establishment was trying to eliminate the visibility of views that are not aligned with its agenda.
In particular, Corsi expressed frustration over the fact that the far-left leadership of the Internet companies was completely in bed with government and left-wing politicians such as the Clinton family. “These companies are so penetrated by the intelligence agencies you wonder if they aren't just new names for the agencies,” he said, noting that the U.S. government's intelligence apparatus had even funded many of the firms and was harvesting unfathomable amounts of data about Americans from them. “When you get to the heart of what's going on in social media, it's an intelligence operation. That's what I was seeking to expose. This is no longer just a private enterprise.... Social media has become a backdoor for Big Brother.”
Because of the intimate government involvement and because the Internet companies could ramp up the purge ahead of the 2018 elections and swing the vote, Corsi said it was time for government to take action. Among other ideas, he touted the concept of an “Internet Bill of Rights” that would apply to the online world the free speech protections, due process protections, and protection from surveillance and data-gathering without warrants contained in the U.S. Constitution. Alternatively, he suggested anti-trust investigations could be helpful. And finally, Corsi called for an official investigation into what the companies have been doing.
Another victim of the purge, Natural News' Adams, said the mass take-down of voices exposing the establishment was a precursor to something much worse. “What you need to understand about what’s happening is that this is the opening salvo of an actual war that the Left will soon take kinetic,” he said, arguing that the silencing of pro-America voices across the Internet was merely step one. “Then they stage another mass shooting false flag and use it to abolish the Second Amendment.”
“At this point, you have no First Amendment rights left, and you have no Second Amendment ability to defend yourself against left-wing tyrants,” continued Adams, whose health-focused website has become enormously popular among liberals and conservatives. “From here, they then fabricate fake accusations against their political targets and call for their arrest, knowing that people who have been silenced have no way to defend themselves against false accusations, as they’ve all been silenced by decree.” The mass purges are also a precursor to more election fraud, assaults on liberty, and worse, he added.
Describing recent developments as the “worst purge of conservative voices in the history of the Internet,” popular Christian writer and congressional candidate Michael Snyder vowed to keep fighting. “There appears to be a coordinated effort to target conservative viewpoints, because similar voices on the left are not receiving equal treatment,” he explained. “If I win my race for Congress on May 15th, I am going to make fighting this sort of censorship one of my top priorities once I get to Washington.”
A number of major Christian voices are speaking out, too. “First they came for Infowars, and I did not speak out — because I found them offensive,” wrote Dr. Michael Brown, a nationally syndicated radio host at Charisma News. “Then they came for Geller and Spencer, and I did not speak out — because I found them obnoxious. Then they came for Prager U, and I did not speak out — because I found them opinionated. Then they came for a host of others, and I did not speak out — because I have my own life to live. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.”
In response to the purges, a number of prominent voices are calling for an all-hands-on-deck effort to fight back. And some top lawmakers are taking note. At a recent Senate hearing, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) began by asking representatives of the Internet giants — Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube — whether they consider themselves to be “neutral” in providing a forum for public discussion. All of them answered yes.
But then Cruz highlighted the fact that a Twitter official was caught on hidden camera by Project Veritas investigators bragging about “shadow banning” conservatives, a tactic that hides the victims' posts from others without the targeted individual even realizing that his content is not being seen by anyone. The senator from Texas also noted that Twitter initially blocked an announcement by Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) due to the content being pro-life.
“The pattern of political censorship we are seeing across the technology companies is highly concerning,” Senator Cruz said in his closing remarks. “And the opening question I asked of whether you are a neutral public forum — if you are a neutral public forum, that does not allow for political editorializing and censorship. And if you are not a neutral public forum, the entire predicate for liability immunity under the CDA [Communications Decency Act] is claiming to be a neutral public forum, so you cannot have it both ways.”
A number of prominent conservative, Christian, and patriotic voices have called for the social-media giants to either remain neutral, or be subjected to liability under the Communications Decency Act. But while it has become clear that conservative and Christian speech is not welcome on establishment-controlled social media, the companies claim to be responding to market demands in a politically neutral manner. Of course, it is clear that there is no political neutrality. But it is true that same prominent establishment-controlled companies have been lobbying for precisely the sort of purges that have recently taken place.
Unilever, for example, which has been hard at work pushing the man-made global-warming hypothesis and promoting the scandal-plagued United Nations as the savior of humanity, recently threatened to quit advertising unless social-media companies censor more viewpoints that the extremist company considers “extreme,” “divisive,” or “fake news.” CNN, meanwhile, which has been widely ridiculed by President Trump and his supporters for peddling “fake news,” has been working overtime to have YouTube shut down Alex Jones and his channels, which collectively have more than two million subscribers and over 1.5 billion views on the Google-owned video platform.
But Alex Jones and Infowars, working with others, are not going to take it lying down. According to various sources, the alternative media giant is preparing to unveil an alternative to YouTube very soon. The goal is to make the establishment-controlled video platform obsolete. At the same time, with Facebook facing a crisis as users spend less and less time on the manipulative platform, a number of new social-media firms are popping up, hoping to become an alternative to the establishment-run giants that received government backing and continue to partner with government.
Some of the lawsuits and regulatory efforts targeting the purges by Internet giants may succeed. But as the establishment's propaganda becomes increasingly obvious and outlandish, truth-seeking people will continue seeking out the facts that the establishment wants hidden. Already, the election of Trump has exposed the establishment media as fringe, and far-less powerful than commonly believed. If the social-media companies keep it up, they, too, may end up destroying their own businesses. Preserving the free market and the First Amendment will be key. Regardless of what happens, though, the growing hunger for truth is not going away — and as long as a market for truth exists, the truth will be supplied. Source
Prominent conservatives are being shut down all across the internet. They have videos deleted, posts removed and accounts suspended or banned. The targets read like a Who’s Who of the the right: Michelle Malkin, Dennis Prager and Rep. Marsha Blackburn have all been targets of our new censors. It’s not just a war on free speech. It’s a war on conservative speech.
The tech companies will deny it, assuredly. But I know a fight when I see it because I’ve seen my share. This is just a new kind of battlefield. Unfortunately, I also know conservatives are losing. For now.
Top tech companies are the problem -- sites like Twitter, Facebook, Google and Google’s video site, YouTube. Malkin had one YouTube video removed for years. PragerU is suing YouTube claiming many of its videos have been targeted and demonetized.
Blackburn even had Twitter censor a pro-life ad she tried to run. They eventually caved for her because she’s in Congress, but Live Action still can’t advertise on Twitter. The company tried to make the pro-life group remove content off its own site before they would let it even buy ads.
If we don’t do something, conservative speech and ideals could easily be wiped out online. I think that makes this a battle worth fighting.
And we saw Project Veritas reveal the bias behind the scenes at Twitter. Veritas showed how engineers admitted on camera that they shut down accounts they thought were automated -- because they used the words “God” or “America.”
I guess I’m a bot, as well. I use those words all the time. Proudly.
There are many more examples. If I listed all the major examples, it would end up being a report nearly 20,000 words long. I know, because the Media Research Center just did that report, called: “CENSORED! How Online Media Companies Are Suppressing Conservative Speech.” Even with that many words, it can’t begin to touch on everything. We saw more about the problem when Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified on Capitol Hill and was pressed about how conservatives are mistreated online.
MRC focused on the worst of the worst. That starts within the companies themselves.
The left-wing groupthink at Twitter, Facebook, Google and YouTube is astonishing. Google and Facebook actually rely on “hate” list information from the anti-conservative Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to see who to censor.
You might remember the SPLC. That group conflates “hate” with disagreement. They have an online list of anyone they oppose, calling them “hate groups.” They go after organizations that support traditional marriage and lump them in with the evil that is the Ku Klux Klan.
Back in 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins used the list to target the headquarters of the pro-marriage and pro-life Family Research Council (FRC), so he could “kill as many people as possible.” Thank God a hero stopped him and took a bullet in the process.
Corkins got 25 years for charges that included domestic terrorism. But the SPLC didn’t learn its lesson. I went to its website this week and the “Featured Group” among its “Extremist Groups” was still the FRC. That’s who Google and YouTube are relying on to identify hate speech.
Twitter is just as bad. It has a “Trust and Safety Council” with 25 members and nearly half are liberal. Just one is conservative. They rely on the LGBT group GLAAD and the Anti-Defamation League, both of which regularly go after organizations on the right.
That 12-to-1 ratio is typical for how conservatives are treated now online and off.
Just ask former Google engineer James Damore. He was fired from the world’s No. 1 search engine company for a memo that criticized the firm’s “Ideological Echo Chamber.” They refused to hear his argument that men and women might have different interests. His lawsuit against Google said the company uses “illegal hiring quotas” and discriminates against men, conservatives and white people.
A recruiter is suing YouTube for similar reasons. According to The Wall Street Journal, he claims YouTube “discriminated against white and Asian male applicants in favor of hiring other people of color and women.”
It’s no shock that Eric Schmidt, the head of Google’s parent company, advised Hillary Clinton. Google donations during the election went 63 times more for Clinton than for Donald Trump.
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is also liberal and Gizmodo reported that his staffers were manipulating the newsfeed back in 2016 to downplay conservative content and promote their own agendas.
These top tech companies push progressive values within their organizations. We shouldn’t be surprised when they inflict them on the rest of us online.
So what do we do?
Any military man worth his salt will tell you that you can’t win if you don’t fight. Silicon Valley needs to understand conservatives won’t take this lying down.
If we don’t do something, conservative speech and ideals could easily be wiped out online. I think that makes this a battle worth fighting.
Allen West is a retired Lieutenant Colonel in the United States Army. Source
You are shepherds of the flock. Shepherds protect, speak out, and defend.
What do you think? Scroll down to comment below!