You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘censorship’ tag.

I intend to return to my reviews of Cannes restaurants.

However, so many strange news stories have appeared that it is worth taking note of a few.

Apple bans LifeSite News

Today, I happened across this tweet:

On July 31, LifeSite News reported:

A little over one week ago, Apple approved LifeSiteNews’ application to publish our news on their Apple News platform.

Today, without warning, Apple News abruptly reversed course, telling LifeSite that they had deleted our channel and all of our content from their platform.

Apple claimed that LifeSite’s channel “didn’t comply with our Apple News guidelines.” Specifically, they stated that LifeSite’s “[c]hannel content shows intolerance towards a specific group.”

Planned Parenthood, perhaps?

Apple would not say:

“We don’t yet know the reason for Apple’s decision to delete our channel,” said LifeSiteNews Editor-in-Chief John-Henry Westen. “However, at a time when there is growing evidence that tech juggernauts are engaging in concerted censorship against even mainstream conservative viewpoints, Apple’s decision – made unilaterally, and without opportunity to appeal – is frightening.”

“It goes without saying that LifeSite would never promote intolerance or hatred against any group,” Westen continued. “However, in our current divisive political climate, even mild expressions of common conservative viewpoints are often written off as de facto hatred and intolerance. We certainly hope that this is not what Apple is doing. However, we urge our readers to contact Apple, and to respectfully demand that they reinstate LifeSite’s channel.”

Anyone who would like to support LifeSite in being reinstated can sign their petition.

LifeSite first applied to be listed on Apple News in November 2018. It took six months before they were accepted. Now they have been denied.

This is pure censorship.

Think of it this way:

El Paso shooting

Speaking of guns, Karl ‘Market Ticker’ Denninger has an excellent essay on the El Paso shooting, which took place on Saturday, August 3, 2019.

‘On El Paso’ is worth reading in full. Denninger makes salient points about the American shootings that cause the most outrage — and which are most easily cleared up.

Inner-city shooting cases rarely get solved (emphases in the original):

The clearance rate (that is, the odds of getting arrested if you shoot someone) in Chicago is 9%.  In Atlanta, 12%.  In almost every other major city (Baltimore anyone?), it’s roughly the same.  Yeah, if you go insane and start shooting people in a WallyWorld en-masse you’re either going to jail and will get the needle or will just get shot where you stand.

But if you shoot people one at a time you have a ten percent chance of getting caught; 9 out of 10 times you get away with it.  I know people who were close with someone who got shot, the dead person was not a gang member or otherwise engaged in activity that typically gets you shot (he was an ordinary businessmanand the perpetrator has not been identified or arrested a full year later.

That is not uncommon.  In fact it’s not only common it’s a 90% probability if you get plugged in a major city right here, right now.

He says that is why law-abiding Americans need guns:

If that doesn’t force your pea-sized brain awake long enough to realize that the cops are worthless in solving crimes and their best, highest and only calling is to zip your ass into a black bag and haul it away after you get killed then you are too stupid to deserve to be able to reproduce.  There is only one way to stop that sort of crap and that is for you to stop it, personally, if someone intends to whack you or someone you love.  To do that, especially if you’re not a 20 year old body-builder male, you’re going to need the only equalizing force ever invented by mankind and you better know how to use it too.

It’s called a gun.

Yet, as he points out, the small town or suburban mass shootings generate all the leftist outrage.

Of course, their cry is always for gun control. However, Denninger explains why gun control will not work:

… cut the crap on the “gun control” nonsense.  Just over the border, a few miles away, there are more guns than you can shake a stick at — everyone of them unregistered in America because they’re in Mexico.  Juarez is an insanely violent area, and it’s right there.  You want a gun and can’t pass a background check here, get it there.  93% of crimes go unreported in Juarez.  Without a real wall and enforceable border, what’s to stop you from bringing that gun here?  Hell, the Mexican you buy it from might have gotten it courtesy of Eric Holder, our former AG, who has never been held to account for running many guns into Mexico!

Every Demonscat on the planet has jumped on this demanding “more gun control” without even waiting for the bodies to reach room temperature.  Yeah, right.  You can blow me, lefties.  Your fantasy-land nonsense would prevent nothing.  Go look in Mexico; there is exactly one legal gun store in the entire country and it takes months to get paperwork processed to buy one.  Possession of even one firearm or one round of ammunition is good for a five year prison sentence there.

That does exactly zippo to prevent all those who want to murder from acquiring and using them in Juarez.

Since it is proved that just a few miles south the most-restrictive gun laws imaginable do exactly nothing to prevent hundreds of murders every year in that city alone no, I will not consent to any further infringement of the 2nd Amendment. 

Ben Carson’s visit to Baltimore

Dr Ben Carson, who heads HUD, visited Baltimore last week.

Karl Denninger wrote another great piece, ‘How Come Nobody Is Quoting Carson?’

Although the highly-experienced brain surgeon did not implore the city’s underprivileged youths to stop shooting each other, he did offer — unreported — advice on how to get ahead in life:

What did he say as the solution to poverty (which NPR did not report, as you can see)?

1. Finish High School.

2. Get married.

3. Don’t have children until you have accomplished #2.

Now does this somehow deal with the Federal Government impoverishing people by running fiscal deficits?  No.  But at a micro level — that is, individual people, not macro policy — he’s right.

Absolutely, but because this is a middle class way of living, this will get ignored.

That said, who would know best about those points? Ben Carson himself. The good doctor was raised by a single mother. He almost went to the dark side as a youth, then found religion and did his best to not only graduate from high school but also to go on to university and medical school — to become a brain surgeon, no less.

Denninger expands on the good doctor’s points:

… for the ordinary, average person they mean a lot.  And by the way, remember this rule that I drilled into my daughter:

“1 + 1 can be more than 2.  That’s the only real magic you will ever find in the world, but it is real, provided you choose wisely.  However, 1 – 1 is always 0 and can, if you choose poorly, be worse than that; it can be negative.”

One of the problems with this advice in today’s world is that there are an awful lot of zeros or worse walking around — of both sexes.  And by the way, almost without exception every one of those Hollywood “stars” or pro sports players in any league, ever, are all less than zeros in every respect except for being rich and if you emulate them without being rich first you will be destroyed.

He and Dr Carson are 110% correct.

Please share this advice with your children, if you haven’t already.

Cloud computing and Capital One

This year, a former Amazon.com employee hacked into Capital One Financial Corp. customer data that Amazon.com was storing on its cloud services.

On July 29, Bloomberg reported:

While the complaint doesn’t identify the cloud provider that stored the allegedly stolen data, the charging papers mention information stored in S3, a reference to Simple Storage Service, Amazon Web Services’ popular data storage software.

An AWS spokesman confirmed that the company’s cloud had stored the Capital One data that was stolen, and said it wasn’t accessed through a breach or vulnerability in AWS systems. Prosecutors alleged that the access to the bank data came through a misconfigured firewall protecting one of its applications.

Paige A. Thompson was arrested Monday and appeared in federal court in Seattle. The data theft occurred some time between March 12 and July 17, U.S. prosecutors in Seattle said.

Karl Denninger posted a hard-hitting article about this. Don’t miss ‘I TOLD YOU SO: “CLOUD” IS INSECURE’.

You bet it is. Yet, we have friends who store their personal — including financial — data on the cloud! No!

Denninger explains:

There you have it.  The bank had data that was highly confidential and let another company with thousands of people who could access it, none of whom the bank knew by name or could vet, have said data by intentionally putting it on that other firm’s computer systems in the name of “cloud computing.”

One of those people did allegedly access and steal it.  It doesn’t matter how they did so; the fact that the data was there provided the “honeypot” and a large base of people who knew it was there instead of said data being on your own corporate infrastructure behind access controls that you, and only you, are responsible for.

Gee, how dumb are you?

How many times have I pointed this out?  Dozens

Once you use a “cloud provider” it’s not your data anymore despite your claims otherwise.  The data is, in fact, accessible by anyone who has administrative access at the cloud company and they don’t work for you nor can you vet them.  Further, those people working there now know the data is there which gives them a big fat “target list” to take a crack at.  Those people with that knowledge and at least some expertise in getting in, including perhaps even direct credentialed access through ordinary administrative procedures number in the thousands at large firms like Amazon or Microsoft if not tens of thousands and you not only can you as the “customer” not vet them you have no idea who the hell they are.  Some of them probably aren’t even American citizens! H1b (not this time, but you can bet in general) for the win!

[[Update 7/30 6:50 AM: It appears that the person who did the “hacking” not only was employed by Spamazon the individual claims to be here in the US illegally.  So how’d they get the job?  Spamazon, for its part, disclaims responsibility and says “it wasn’t hacked.”  Disclaim whatever you want Amazon; the fact is the data was on your box and was stolen by what appears to be an ex Amazon employee.  Such a wonderful job of vetting you do eh, never mind all the SJW/insanity connections allegedly present with this individual too.]]

Congratulations Capital Zero, 100 million records stolen because you were ****ing stupid and put saving a buck in front of data security.  This should be treated by banking regulators as criminal negligence; ditto for any other firm that has its data stolen after employing such a “cloud” environment where there was any expectation of privacy or protection of said data.

This is why you don’t use cloud computing for anything you give a crap about and has to be kept secure …

Yes, yes and yes!

You can read more about the hacker and see photos at the Daily Mail. Definitely worth viewing.

If you think you cannot provide enough resilience on your home computer, think again. This is what one of Denninger’s readers says (emphases mine):

I can buy multi-terabyte drives for a couple of hundred bucks (obviously price varies as a function of quality, intended use, etc.) just about anywhere. For a thousand bucks I can set up a pretty-near foolproof, multi-terabyte, automated RAID system with access times for any computer on my own network that have gotta be less than up- and downloading from the cloud.

Where exactly is the alleged cost savings for anyone to store any data “in the cloud”?

Spot on. If you cannot build it yourself, hire an expert.

———————-

And thus concludes my news in brief.

You couldn’t make it up.

Early last week, James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas team were victims of censorship with their exposés of Instagram and Google algorithms designed to throttle pro-Trump media:

Around the same time, Reddit’s popular The_Donald was ‘quarantined’, just as the 2020 presidential campaign got underway with the Democrat debates:

Speaking of the Democrat debate, watch the blackout during the broadcast:

President Trump tweeted:

But I digress.

Back now to the main story.

The_Donald has been under attack by the Left since 2016. The subreddit (forum) has been enormously popular in red pilling — providing political wake up calls to — wavering Democrats, especially Bernie Sanders supporters.

Naturally, the Left wants to stop The_Donald.

On June 24, Media Matters got involved, claiming posts advocating violence against police on one of The_Donald’s threads.

Oddly, The_Donald’s true posters — and moderators — are very pro-law enforcement. Could there have been an infiltrator?

In any event, Reddit is loaded with questionable ‘subs’ (subreddits) that actually do advocate violence and, in other areas, aberrancy (to be polite):

Hmm. From the same Twitter account holder only a few weeks ago:

Anyway, the end result was a quarantine for The_Donald:

Among other outlets, Gateway Pundit covered the story in brief.

Not surprisingly, The_Donald’s quarantine has attracted more readers as well as active pushback against Reddit (emphasis in the original):

Hi r/the_donald. Since reddit has banned this subreddit, I have gotten 38 people to create accounts just to subscribe.

I just wanted to say that I don’t agree with what’s happening. No matter your belief, you should have a platform without being silenced. Keep fighting.

Someone replied (emphasis mine):

We’ve added 6500 new subs since this morning by the looks of it. 754k to 760.5k

Splendid!

Some will ask why The_Donald doesn’t go elsewhere. They did set up a site with the same name on Voat, but the Left infiltrated it. Blueshare is affiliated with the aforementioned Media Matters:

We need another platform but thedonald sub at voat never took off and was taken over by antisemitic shills from blueshare.

Another issue is that newer platforms lack the capacity to handle large volumes of traffic. Public awareness of alternative platforms is also not very good. People visit platforms with which they are familiar.

One of Reddit’s moderators contacted The_Donald saying that Reddit wants the forum gone, therefore, readers should not give in or go elsewhere. Click on the image to enlarge:

The key points of the moderator’s message are as follows, taken verbatim:

Here is the thing you need to understand, it’s not enough for them to have a community like this put on the backburner. They want it to not exist. To exist means your ideas permeate, which is too much for them to bear. They don’t want alternatives, even if those alternatives are minority viewpoints. They want only one viewpoint to permeate. Their own.

This is where the_donald comes in. Please do not have this community sperg out and go to voat or gab.ai or whatever else. That’s what the wider reddit community wants to see happen. They want you deplatformed and irrelevant. You need to cherish what you have. This community is likely the largest trump community on the internet. It has to be protected, not segmented.

And for every subscriber this subreddit has, there are probably 10x lurkers that just browse without accounts. This subreddit has an important role to play in 2020. Don’t give the admins an excuse to shut you guys down. Don’t play into their hand.

You need to push back. You need to fight for your place in discourse, and you need to legitimize yourselves by existing and refusing to die. That will be your best revenge.

There are members of the reddit do-it-for-free crowd that are sympathetic to the_donald, but we always have to be quiet or we’ll be kicked off our teams. We are out there though. good luck to you.

I stopped reading The_Donald a few months ago. I’ll be reading it a bit more often now. I hope others will do likewise.

Trump supporting actor James Woods has thrown in his Twitter towel.

The DC Patriot founder, Matt Couch, broke the sad news on Saturday, May 11, 2019:

Millions of us read Woods’s daily contributions and will retain fond memories of his wit and truth.

Not only did he tweet about the Democrats’ madness, he also cared about the state where he lives and his audience:

So, what was James Woods guilty of on Twitter?

The DC Patriot quoted Woods’s statement (emphasis in the original, the one in purple mine):

Twitter demanded that I rescind my tweet paraphrasing Emerson,” Woods said in a statement to The Daily Wire. “It now seems they have chosen to delete that tweet from my account without my permission. Until free speech is allowed on Twitter, I will not be permitted to participate in our democracy with my voice. As long as Jack Dorsey remains the coward he seems to be, my Twitter days are in the past.

The tweet read:

“If you try to kill the King, you better not miss.” #HangThemAll

I remember reading that tweet when it appeared and agree with Deb:

Fortunately, Woods’s back catalogue of tweets, up through April 19, is still available.

President Trump noticed Woods’s absence:

This is yet another sad day for conservative voices online.

I’m well aware that this closing down of various accounts is to stop the wave of support for Trump in 2020.

However, social media’s efforts to shut people up will not succeed.

Social media censorship must stop.

Why be afraid of another person’s viewpoint? Isn’t that what the Internet is all about — a free exchange of ideas?

Wow.

Twitter just banned a parody account which clearly stated it was a parody account.

Not only that, Twitter banned the account of the person who created said parody account.

The parody account’s creator belongs to a minority religious faith. He happens to be a conservative.

His ban is not a suspension.

It is a permanent ban from Twitter.

Here’s the story via another prominent Twitter conservative:

So, it’s okay to have multiple parody accounts of President Trump, but not one of a freshman congresswoman?

Mike Morrison’s parody tweets were so clever, they seemed like the real thing. That tells one a lot about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Human Events spoke with Morrison, who said (emphases mine):

I think Twitter banned AOC Press for the increasing amounts of attention it’s been receiving lately.

In the past month and a half alone the account grew by roughly 50,000 followers. We’ve had tweets with over 30,000 likes on them, so I think Twitter decided it was time for [the account] to go. They didn’t like how popular an account created by their political opposition had become.

There might have been a different factor at play in Morrison’s personal account having been banned:

As the creator of the parody, Morrison presumes his personal account was banned by Twitter for having mocked their political allies, though many on the service have pointed to Morrison’s Jewish background and the fact he had also tweeted critically of Hamas in recent days.

Other prominent Jewish conservatives were also banned after tweeting about how terror group Hamas should be destroyed.

Overall, however, bans have also gone on at other social media sites:

The ban is the latest foray by Big Tech into the Presidential Election campaign of 2020.

Last week, high profile Trump supporters such as Alex Jones, Paul Joseph Watson, Laura Loomer, and Milo Yiannopolous were banned from Facebook and Instagram.

Morrison is also MAGA.

Message to Jack Dorsey: UNBAN MIKE.

Jack might be interested in studying the 2017 Supreme Court ruling that says participating in social media is a constitutional right, even for convicts:

Quartz has a good article on the ruling. Excerpts follow about Packingham v. North Carolina:

Public space in the digital age has no shape and no physical place. But the US Supreme Court is now sorting out what that means for free-speech rights. Today (June 19), the justices unanimously held that states can’t broadly limit access to social media because cyberspace “is one of the most important places to exchange views.”

… Acknowledging that every advance in technology leads to new abuses by criminals, the notion that states can bar access altogether is anathema to the high court

As justice Elena Kagan put it then, “Everybody is on Twitter.”

Well, nearly everyone. The rest of us do read and enjoy Twitter.

With that 2017 Supreme Court ruling in mind, I hope that Twitter unbans Mike Morrison — and other conservatives — soon.

Many thanks to Martin Geddes for coming out with two very important graphics explaining the Democrats and the media.

I am unfamiliar with Mr Geddes but appreciate the time he put into them. (Click on each one to enlarge.)

Outside of The Daily Caller, Gateway Pundit and Breitbart, most of the heavy lifting for President Trump and his MAGA agenda is done by citizen journalists, everyday people like you and me, whereas the Democrats have most of Big Media at their beck and call:

Note the colour codes. Twitter gives everyone in Big Media a pass. Citizen investigative journalists, not so much.

And it’s not just citizen journalists who are banned. On November 26, 2018, The Daily Caller reported that Twitter permanently banned an American veteran who had a radio show (emphases mine):

Conservative veteran and radio host Jesse Kelly was permanently banned from Twitter on Sunday for allegedly committing multiple violations of the Twitter terms of service.

In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller’s Amber Athey, Kelly said Twitter informed him that he was banned with no warning and no explanation of what rules he allegedly broke.

That day, Kelly appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight (Fox News):

The article says that Twitter banned a feminist, too:

Last week, the tech giant banned feminist Meghan Murphy for questioning the ideology behind the transgender movement.

The good news is that Kelly’s Twitter account appears to have been reinstated. Result! Thanks go to the senators who support freedom of speech:

Despite that success and a few others, Twitter can and does stifle those who do not support the leftist agenda. On July 29, The Daily Caller reported that Republican legislators also fell foul of the social media giant:

Twitter’s censorship problem looks like it’s here to stay.

The company faced a sharp backlash last week after a Vice News investigation revealed that Twitter was hiding several prominent Republicans from its search bar.

Those affected included four House Republicans: Rep. Devin Nunes of California, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. All four are members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus. Democrats weren’t affected in the same way, Vice found.

Interesting, especially when the four who were censored are relatively young supporters of President Trump and MAGA. It’s as if Twitter doesn’t want Americans to know that younger legislators support the president. Why, that might influence others in that same age bracket to jump aboard the Trump Train.

The article says that Twitter claims their shadowbanning — hiding the congressmen’s accounts from the search bar — wasn’t to do with anything the congressmen tweeted, but rather their followers. Does the following sound totalitarian?

At the center of the company’s censorship problem is its decision to penalize “bad-faith actors,” who aren’t actually in violation of any rules but still threaten “healthy conversation.”

Much the sorting between good and bad actors on Twitter is done by an algorithm which takes into account criteria like whom you follow and tweet at, and who follows and tweets at you.

Twitter didn’t penalize the congressmen because of anything they said, but because the “wrong” accounts were engaging with their tweets, two Twitter executives conceded in a blog post Thursday. The Republicans were guilty of being followed by the wrong people.

Twitter has since restored the congressmen’s visibility on Twitter, but the underlying issue remains.

The company is still burying accounts it deems “bad-faith actors,” while remaining opaque about who does or doesn’t fit that classification — and which accounts follow or retweet you are still part of the criteria.

The Daily Caller attempted to find out more from Twitter, but the company did not reply.

Remember back in the old days, not so many years ago:

Twitter … once described itself as the “free speech wing of the free speech party”

Earlier this year, Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey:

sparked controversy in April when he endorsed an article calling for a total Democratic victory the “new civil war.” He similarly raised eyebrows in June by apologizing for the sin of eating at Chick-Fil-A.

Moving along, the next graphic from Martin Geddes outlines the fundamental differences between the Democrats and Trump supporters:

Most people following my site will know that Q is a person or small group of people who probably work for President Trump. For over a year now, Q has asked readers via the Socratic method to analyse what has actually been happening in the United States behind the scenes over the past few decades.

Q’s slogan is ‘Where We Go One, We Go All’: WWG1WGA. In other words, we’re all in this together!

By contrast, the characteristics of the Democratic Party are all too destructive, corrupt — and, sadly, real. Please read them carefully.

The MAGA agenda welcomes everyone, regardless of race, colour or creed.

MAGA is a bit old school — a compliment — in that regard. We believe in freedom, duty, sacrifice and the ideals upon which America was founded. We remember and appreciate our history, good and bad. We like tradition and beauty.

Unlike the Dems, we’re not out to destroy. We’re out to conserve and, where necessary, rebuild with care and attention, in the way the Founding Fathers would have wanted.

It was during the 2016 presidential campaign that I first heard of and read articles by Salena Zito, one of America’s great journalists.

Although not fully on board with candidate Donald Trump, Salena Zito nonetheless wrote honest and impartial stories about his supporters when travelling through Ohio and Pennsylvania. She is originally from Pittsburgh.

Recently, Henry Olsen posted an excellent article on American Greatness, ‘Take Salena Zito Seriously and Literally’. When all the polls and all the pundits said that Trump couldn’t win, Zito was the contrarian.

Olsen’s article is in a response to a Huffington Post hit piece, ‘Take Salena Zito Neither Seriously Nor Literally on Trump Voters’. The Left are vilifying her for speaking the truth. From HuffPost:

The critiques amount to a wholesale demolition of the Zito method. Her shtick — which, as she has told us time and again, is absolutely not a shtick — consists of driving to blue-collar Rust Belt towns and letting regular folks tell her in their own words why they support Donald Trump. Thus does she fashion herself as the antithesis of the fake-news coastal elite.

Much of her gimmick rests on the idea that her interlocutors are apostate populist Democrats who swung to the Republican Party. This is the story many conservatives prefer to tell about Trump — that he is a populist phenomenon, not the product of regular country-clubs-and-chambers-of-commerce Republicanism. Certainly these left-to-right populists exist in America, but Zito has a knack for finding the ones who, apparently unbeknownst to her, have become Republican Party officials. This is why the criticisms of her are so damning. Zito is supposed to be the one telling you how it actually is. 

There are two lines of attack on her journalism. The first is the straightforward accusation that she makes stuff up. A number of people have pointed to her always on-the-nose quotations.

This is basically unprovable without access to the recordings that Zito insists she always makes.

The article shows that leftist attacks carried over to Twitter.

After that, Zito responded with an article, ‘The Twitter trolls attacking my work are all wrong’, which begins with this (emphases mine):

“Dad, it’s not true,” I said, fighting to keep my voice steady through tears.

My 81-year-old father had just seen a Huffington Post headline — “Take Salena Zito Neither Seriously Nor Literally On Trump Voters” — with a picture of me next to it. The piece accused me of fabricating stories and omitting facts. None of that is true, but that didn’t stop the attack from ricocheting to every corner of political journalism’s Twitter-sphere.

It began days earlier with a story I wrote for The New York Post about President Trump’s followers continuing to support him after Michael Cohen’s guilty plea and Paul Manafort’s conviction. Facebook took that story down from my Facebook page, and others who re-posted it soon found it removed from their pages as well. With the story marked as “spam,” or not meeting “community standards,” I tweeted, then wrote about the experience.

That’s when things got worse. Within hours, an anonymous troll with an account created only a few days earlier went on the attack. The thread tossed false accusations that I withheld information from the book I co-authored this year. The troll and his followers alleged that some Trump supporters who struggled with their decision in the 2016 election and were profiled in the book are actually elected Republican officials who (in the trolls’ opinion) could not possibly have struggled with that decision.

First, that wasn’t true. Half the thesis of the book I co-wrote with Brad Todd, “The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics,” is that Trump’s polarizing style causes many Republicans to fit uneasily, if at all, into his coalition. Many people in the book were profiled explicitly because they are Republicans, not in spite of it.

Within minutes, the initial Twitter attack was retweeted by other anonymous trolls and online bullies who have attacked my writing before — some continuously since I first reported in the summer of 2016 that this political shift was happening. They demanded that the publications for which I write, including The Post, the Washington Examiner and Crown Publishing, address their allegations or fire me.

That is madness.

Now onto Henry Olson’s article for American Greatness, which tells us:

Zito’s reporting chops aren’t what’s really at issue. What’s really at stake is her narrative, that Trump’s victory was due to millions of fed-up, blue-collar Americans angry at coastal elite condescension and the failed policies that flowed from that conceit. Strike her down, and the most prominent advocate of that explanation for 2016 gets removed from the conversation—and with her, perhaps the narrative itself drops by the wayside.

See, NeverTrump resisters—Left and Right—still don’t want to admit this is why he won. They would prefer to chalk it up to Russian hacking or to misinformation, the political nerd’s version of Area 51 and Roswell. Or they contend it’s all a matter of latent racism, which somehow never expressed itself when Barack Obama twice won in these same areas or when two Hispanics and a black man won majorities of the votes in early GOP primaries and caucuses. Anything—anything—but that Americans who have different cultural interests than coastal or suburban college graduates were mad as hell and didn’t want to take it anymore.

Olson then goes into an examination of voter polls from 2016, which you can read.

Olson tells us when Zito first contacted him:

Zito saw all of this as she traveled throughout the Midwest. She called me in the summer of 2016 for data on a piece she was writing, the first time we came into contact. Her anecdotes and reporting confirmed what my data were telling me: Trump was riding an enormous tidal wave of support among blue-collar whites. I saw it firsthand when I drove the backroads of Pennsylvania in October for speaking gigs: hundreds of Trump signs, many obviously not made by the campaign, decorated lawns across the land, more than I had ever seen in over 40 years in politics.

Since then, she has made many media appearances. Imagine how that’s destroying the received media narrative:

Salena’s books, CNN appearances, and columns give voice to these people. Her interviews and stories put faces and names on real concerns. This means she reaches many more people than do analysts and writers like me, focused as we are on numbers and data. That makes her dangerous, someone who must be brought down. That is why Twitter trolls are poring over her work to find any error, no matter how slight, to discredit her.

Zito will survive this onslaught. She’s too careful, too competent not to …

How sad for her.

Haven’t her opponents ever heard the old saying ‘Don’t shoot the messenger’?

Happening around this time was the revelation that the priest from her childhood was among 99 named as child molesters in a grand jury report:

Excerpts follow from Zito’s article for the Washington Examiner.

In it, she captures many of my memories of a Catholic childhood back in the 1960s:

I adored Fr. John Maloney, a young priest who came to our church when I was five years old, and going to church at five meant different things than it does to an adult. For me it was the honor of wearing a lace covering over my head the way the grown-up women did. (Before Vatican II, it was mandatory for females.)

But it also meant the mysterious rhythms of the Latin Mass that seemed to be telling sacred secrets. Mass meant being with my parents, sometimes my entire extended family of aunts and uncles and grandparents — all warm, comfortable, safe feelings that helped draw me in to what faith would mean for me as an adult.

Children then really looked up to priests as true representatives of the Lord:

We were taught to respect and revere his station, it wasn’t hard, he was young, handsome, and charismatic. When he talked about the Scripture or Jesus he made you feel as though he knew Jesus personally and he was simply sharing the stories that his close friend wanted you to know.

All decent Catholics remember their First Holy Communion:

It was he who administered my first two sacraments outside of my baptism: He heard my first confession, (I do not remember what sins I committed, but I do remember it did not require me to be sent to the principal’s office) and my first Holy Communion, which for a young Catholic child is a monumental moment.

When Fr. Maloney was transferred to another parish when I was 11, I was sad.

Then, years later, in August 2018:

When Fr. Maloney’s name appeared last week on the list of deviant offenders, I was devastated.

How could someone who had our complete trust abuse it in such a heinous way? How could he have robbed children of their childhood?

The grand-jury report named 99 priests in the Diocese of Pittsburgh. Three of them served in my parish when I or one of my siblings attended the school: Fr. Maloney, Fr. Ray Rhoden, and Fr. James Somma.

How can we trust the bishops that allowed this to happen?

Simply, we cannot. All of those responsible must be held accountable.

The actions of those priests and those in charge cannot take our faith away, but they have made it impossible for me to trust this Church.

Too right — and well said. Despite these heinous events:

I will stand by my faitha faith that has guided and shaped me at my core and is difficult to square with the corrupt institution that allowed sick men to steal my classmates’ lives and then facilitated them to do the same elsewhere.

Even then, a question remains:

The only things that are uncertain now is how I find forgiveness.

How true.

I know a fellow Anglican in England whose headmaster, an Anglican priest, was found guilty at an advanced age of molesting his pupils when my friend attended his prep school decades ago. He expressed the same sense of shock and betrayal as Salena Zito, since a faith school and church provided — or was supposed to provide — a safe, happy environment.

But I digress.

Happily, Salena Zito was blessed with a grandson last week:

God provides what we need, when we need it. Best wishes to Ms Zito in her role as a new grandmother!

May God also bless mother and baby.

On Monday, August 6, 2018, Alex Jones’s Infowars was banned by several social media outlets.

Previously, these media outlets issued partial bans, but now, some have made no secret about removing him from their platforms entirely.

Contrary to what Big Media would have you believe, Infowars is the 7th most popular app in the US. Look at what Infowars is beating in the ratings:

Jones had anticipated this for at least three years. His apprehension started in 2015. After the election in 2016, even though Trump won, he was even more concerned about social media trying to cut off his access to viewers and listeners.

He details the various reasons for the ban in this video of his, made on the day it happened. It’s a keeper. Start with the video below (courtesy of variety) and continue on the link they recommend:

For a start, Apple and Google are working separately with China to develop censored social media projects and a search engine that filters and/or bans people and sites that go against the Establishment way of thinking. He says that the EU has also brought in censorship. (I recently heard a discussion about this on French radio, explained as, ‘They’re doing away with alarmist fake news, nothing more’, but it’s the same thing: silencing the opposition.) Then, there are the Democrats (example here) and their water carriers in the media who want to stifle support for Trump and the Republicans for the November mid-terms.

Jones says that none of the media outlets banning him have given him a specific reason why, other than to say ‘hate speech’. He says that there are people voting Infowars material down or flagging it as offensive.

Jones closed his video by saying people can still watch Infowars and read the news there on his own platform.

A lot of people don’t like Alex Jones, but, as he warns in the video, anyone could be next.

One rapper on Twitter says:

I don’t support or believe [what] ALEX JONES says but I don’t want powerful tech companies dictating what society is allowed to hear or see. They are too powerful. If they can delete anyone’s voice they want from the internet Who will be next?

Before going into further reactions, let’s look at two news reports about the Infowars ban. Emphases mine.

Howard Kurtz wrote a piece for Fox News, excerpted below:

Facebook said it has taken down some Jones pages “for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.”

Apple said it removed the “Alex Jones Show” and other podcasts from iTunes and its podcast app. The company said it “does not tolerate hate speech, and we have clear guidelines that creators and developers must follow to ensure we provide a safe environment for all of our users.”

Google’s YouTube dropped the ax on Jones’ channel, telling The Washington Post that it terminates users who violate “our policies against hate speech and harassment or our terms prohibiting circumvention of our enforcement measures.”

And Spotify banned Jones altogether after earlier removing some podcasts, telling the Post: “We take reports of hate content seriously and review any podcast episode or song that is flagged by our community.”

Hate content is not representative of the Infowars many know, and, unlike cable news networks, at least Jones apologises when he gets it wrong. Even Kurtz had to admit that in his editorial.

CNBC had more:

Pinterest removed the official InfoWars board on Monday afternoon after multiple people alerted the company to policy violations.

“Consistent with our existing policies, we take action against accounts that repeatedly save content that could lead to harm,” a Pinterest spokesperson said. “People come to Pinterest to discover ideas for their lives, and we continue to enforce our principles to maintain a safe, useful and inspiring experience for our users.”

CNBC’s article got to the crux of the issue:

Tech giants have faced calls from both sides of the political spectrum to be more transparent about the way they approach content flagging and banning. On the left, there are critics who say these firms are not doing enough to take down harmful and offensive content, while on the right there are some who think internet firms are routinely censoring conservative posts.

As private companies, there is nothing in law to bar them from removing user-generated videos and audio as they see fit. But a number of mostly conservative commentators have framed the issue as a matter of freedom of speech.

The Conservative Treehouse made excellent observations:

The corporate thought police moved in unity today to unperson Alex Jones and his Info Wars media site from popular social media platforms.

Imagine if BP, Exxon, Chevron and Sunoco all moved, on the same day, at the same time, to charge $5.00/gal for gasoline at their service stations.  That would be illegal collusion to take advantage of a monopolistic positionThat’s essentially what happened today when Facebook, YouTube, Apple and Spotify simultaneously banned the Alex Jones broadcast from their platforms; in an effort to purge him from the internet …

Oddly enough this was entirely predicted.  Back in the Fall of 2015 Matt Drudge appeared on the Alex Jones broadcast to warn of this exact situation.  Drudge talked about the need to stay off their platforms, because he could see the political use of platform control was likely to happen in the next few years.  In hindsight Drudge was eerily prescient:

 

The political left, and all the control elements of the Marxist Silicon Valley monopoly gatekeepers are moving in unity, taking action they deem will influence the 2018 elections and beyond. In the big picture this coordinated effort is a move to attack political opposition by weaponizing and controlling social media platforms.

Regardless of anyone’s opinion of Alex Jones, all should take this action seriously and think through the long-term ramifications….

Meanwhile, many social media platforms allow questionable content, including what were once deviant, criminal practices — and still are, to many of us. Yet, when Alex Jones tries to expose the ugly, painful truth behind them, perverts want him censored:

Then, there are the foul television shows, but they’re okay, because that’s free speech:

And let’s not forget newspapers like the New York Times which recently appointed a woman with a history of racist tweets to its editorial board:

Yes, it’s odd that Twitter never called Ms Jeong out.

And what about the death threats against President Trump that are allowed to stay on social media?

And isn’t incitement to war an example of ‘hate speech’? Alex Jones is not guilty of that, but what about Big Media?

One woman called the Jones ban what it is — censorship:

Alex Jones would agree:

I said above that Jones will issue lengthy apologies and explanations when he gets things wrong. Others in media are not so inclined, like CNN’s Brian Stelter, host of Reliable Sources (!?):

Media analyst Mark Dice compared the Jones ban to book burning:

An independent journalist said:

Infowars’ English editor-at-large Paul Joseph Watson had this to say about Facebook:

And censorship in general:

Another Englishman agrees:

So, is it time to break the social media monopoly?

In the meantime, this will not go down without a fight. Here’s investigative journalist James O’Keefe’s request (more at the Gateway Pundit):

He and his Project Veritas team want to know more about things like this:

Also, other platforms are making it clear they will continue to broadcast Infowars. Here’s one of them:

This situation is a slippery slope and extends beyond banning an independent media outlet. Lying is now considered ‘protected speech’. You could not make this up:

Good heavens! Whatever next?

Stay strong and frosty in the search for the truth.

Udo Ulfkotte was a German journalist who died of a heart attack in 2017 at the age of 56.

Strangely enough, he never studied journalism, but rather jurisprudence and politics.

He had a distinguished career, which included being assistant editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung for several years; he left the paper in 2003. Between 1986 and 1998, he lived in several Middle Eastern countries. He also wrote several investigative books during his lifetime.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51gdGRKeFjL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpgOne of his books that is nearly impossible to buy is Gekaufte Journalisten (‘Bought Journalists’), which appeared in English as Journalists for Hire: How the CIA Buys the News. It sells for a whopping $900 on Amazon.com.

Image credit: Amazon.com

It’s worth reading the comments on the aforementioned English language Amazon page for the various comments. In effect, the book is being censored. Here is a good representative comment, where the reviewer gave the book five stars (emphases mine below):

No, I haven’t read the book, because it is priced completely out of my reach. I am giving it five stars anyway because of what I’ve read *about* it, as I’ve followed its author’s sagathe blackout by German media of the original German edition Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought Journalists) for a couple of years now, raids by German police on the author’s house, his noting how he feared for his life, and his finally being found dead on January 13 of this year “from a heart attack” (he was only 56, and because it is possible to kill someone in ways that look like a heart attack, some people believe he was murdered).

The fate of a whistleblower against one of the world’s most powerful organizations in a controlled society being passed off as a democracy?

Two things are abundantly clear: (1) The English translation of this book has been “privished.” There are a couple of good recent discussions of what it means to “privish” a book, but Amazon will not allow me to link to them. So let’s just say: the purpose of “privishing” is make a book with an unwanted message disappear without a trace by limiting information about it, destroying its marketability by printing too few copies, and refusing reprint rights, so that the copies available are too expensive for readers of ordinary means (which is nearly all of us). (2) Anyone who claims there are no conspiracies, that there are no behind-the-scenes efforts by powerful people to suppress information that would expose their efforts at global domination, is full of crap.

Privishing = private + publishing.

Until I read that review, I thought the word had positive connotations, as in a publishing house saving a title and making it more affordable and better-known.

I could not have been more mistaken.

Privishing is meant to kill off a title.

On January 8, 2018, Off Guardian published a good post on the book and the implications of privishing; James Tracy’s ‘English Translation of Udo Ulfkotte’s “Bought Journalists” Suppressed?’ is a must read. A summary with excerpts follows.

A US-Canadian publishing house, Tayen Lane, released the title through their imprint Next Revelation Press in May 2017. Ulfkotte had died earlier, in January. However, in 2015, when James Tracy enquired as to whether there would be an English release, Ulfkotte responded:

Please find the link to the English edition here http://www.tayenlane.com/bought-journalists

The page, at that time, gave an expected publication date.

Today, the page no longer exists.

Tracy explains:

When a book publisher determines that it has acquired a politically volatile or otherwise “troublesome” title it may embark on a process recognized in the industry as “privishing.” “Privishing is a portmanteau meaning to privately publish, as opposed to true publishing that is open to the public,” writes investigative journalist Gerald Colby.

Also:

Privishing often takes place without the author knowing, simply because it involves breach of contract and potential liability.

Tayen Lane will likely not face any legal challenge in this instance, however. Ulfkotte died of a heart attack on January 13, 2017, at age 56.[4]

Tracy provided an update to his article to say — see the tweet below — that someone had ordered a copy of the book, only to receive a cancellation:

Tracy included a 2014 video of Ultkotte saying that he had to work with intelligence agencies at the risk of losing his job. Ultimately, intelligence agencies gave him articles to publish under his own name:

Tracy gives us more about the content of the video:

The German journalist explains how he was recruited during the 1980s to work in espionage. This began through an invitation proffered by his graduate school advisor for an all-expense-paid trip to attend a two-week seminar on the Cold War conflict in Bonn.

After Ulfkotte obtained his doctorate he was given a job as a reporter at “the leading conservative German newspaper, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, oddly appointed despite no journalistic training and hundreds of other applicants.

Serving as a correspondent throughout the Middle East, Ulfkotte eventually became acquainted with agents from the CIA, German intelligence agency Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Britain’s MI6, and Israel’s Mossad, all of whom valued his ability to travel freely in countries largely closed to the West.

His editors readily collaborated in such intelligence gathering operations,”[5] for which journalist possess “non-official cover” by virtue of their profession.

“Non-official cover” occurs when a journalist is essentially working for the CIA, but it’s not in an official capacity,” Ulfkotte explains.

Tracy includes one of Ulfkotte’s last tweets prior to his death:

Tracy says that intelligence agencies’ ties to media outlets accounts for a) the CIA’s antipathy towards WikiLeaks (which could no doubt make all this public) and b) the media’s insistence on pushing the Trump-Russian collusion narrative.

An American Free Press article from October 2014 — the same year the RT video above was made — has more on Ulfkotte’s book and how he came to be part of the intelligence agency network. Ronald L Ray’s ‘Reporter Admits Most Media Work for CIA, MI6, Mossad‘ is also a must read.

While most of us would say ‘no’ to becoming part of an intelligence network, this is how Ulfkotte described his recruitment:

Prior to a particular semester break, when he hoped to visit Italy and meet young women, a professor asked if he would like to attend a two-week seminar in Bonn on the East-West conflict. This was during the Cold War in a divided Germany. Ulfkotte was not at all interested, but university professors in Germany were (and are) highly respected. It was difficult to refuse.

He was promised that his travel would be paid for, as well as lodging and meals, and he would receive spending money into the bargain. For a young man from poor economic circumstances, this was too much. Relates Ulfkotte, “I suddenly felt this deep feeling inside me that I had ‘always’ wanted to go” to such a seminar. Such “innocent” beginnings were the first bribes, which would draw him ever deeper into a widespread network of corruption and spying, where no one considered such behavior immoral, but rather “accepted practice.”

No one said, “I’m from the CIA,” or from the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND)—the German intelligence service. But the seminar leaders sorted out “who was communist and who was pro-Western” among the young attendees. After further similar events, someone asked Ulfkotte if he would work for the BND—the last thing on his mind. But again, a professor—his doctoral advisor—pressured him to “think about it.” And once more, a poor boy found a free automobile and a good salary very attractive.

Ronald L Ray relates that Ulfkotte’s journalistic career as a war correspondent was a good one in these terms:

Eventually, he did indeed meet agents of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), BND, Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6 (Military Intelligence, Section 6), and Israel’s Mossad, who valued his ability to travel freely in countries largely closed to the West. His editors were knowing accomplices.

What follows is how Ray, using Ulfkotte’s experiences, describes the system working.

This is far worse than I had imagined.

There are the ‘unofficial covers’ — people who work with an intelligence agency but are not on their payroll as actual agents:

It is a broad, loose network of “friends,” doing one another favors. Many are lead journalists from numerous countries. This informality provides plausible deniability for both sides, but it means an “unofficial cover,” as Ulfkotte became, is on his own if captured.

Those involved leave their various connections and affiliations unknown. Ray says that Ulfkotte once accompanied then Chancellor Helmut Kohl to Jordan. There, he attended a function at which the president of Israel was also present. Ulfkotte began shaking the hands of journalists and officials he knew. All of them had intelligence agency ties:

He was ordered sharply back to his place. Otherwise, “everyone would know” who the other intelligence assets were. It must have been an appreciable percentage, because Ulfkotte then realized they were “all in the same boat.”

Ulfkotte’s ‘friends’ often asked for special favours, e.g. soil samples from various trips or a description of political opinions of leaders in certain countries.

But there was more — an ongoing bribery system of lavish favours — which he received when an intelligence agency or powerful institution approached him with an article to put under his own byline:

Large sums of money, gifts, public recognition and significant career advancement go to those journalists who provide useful information on people they meet or know, or on places to which they travel. Many times, the reporter, like Ulfkotte, need only put his name on an article written for him by some spy agency or financial institution. Money and gifts change hands; doors open to elitist groups, like the Trilateral Commission, Atlantik-Brücke, the Aspen Institute and the German Marshall Fund of the United States. Those who do not cooperate are fired.

Ulfkotte also believed that the CIA created Germany’s BND:

Because Iran has no U.S. embassy, he would enter the Turkish embassy and follow a then-secret, underground escape tunnel into the German embassy, where he would turn over his reports for the CIA or BND. In a recent RT interview, Ulfkotte noted that the BND was created by the CIA. To him, it is a symbol of Germany’s status as a “banana republic,” a “colony of the U.S.”

In closing, here is a direct quote from Ulfkotte that Ray included in his article (emphasis in the original):

“I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I’ve been educated to lie, to betray—and not to tell the truth to the public. . . . The German and American media [is trying] to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. This is a point of no return, and I am going to stand up and say it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the people not only in Germany, but all over Europe. . . . I am very fearful of a new war in Europe, and I don’t [want to see] this situation again. There are always people who push for war, and this is not only politicians, it is journalists too. We have betrayed our readers. . . . I’m fed up with this propaganda. We live in a banana republic [Germany], and not in a democratic country where we have press freedom.”  — Udo Ulfkotte

Reading that quote from 2014 and thinking about President Trump’s attempts at negotiating world peace, one can better understand exactly why the media — not to mention the Left and their paymasters — want Trump de-legitimised and, ultimately, suppressed.

May the Hand of God continue to protect the American president, his staff and his family.

Further reading:

‘THE WORLD – upside down’ – Udo Ulfkotte article about his experience in the Middle East (2006)

‘Leading German Journalist: CIA Media Pushing for World War’ – Infowars (2014)

Recently, the following graphic has been trending about how the American media empire fits underneath powerful global socio-political organisations:

Click on the Swiss Propaganda Research link included in Assange’s tweet to see the full image.

Highlights

We think that Big Media are trustworthy. Big Media get told what narratives to push. Anything that goes against the grain of globalism — e.g. anti-globalist President Donald Trump — must be hammered.

Look at the fifth column from the right. For those who think that Disney has our interests at heart, think again. Marvel, a subsidiary, is in that column. Notice how the characters and narratives in comic books have changed over the past few years? That’s why.

Eric Schmidt

Equally important is the social media column on the far right.

Eric Schmidt, although recently resigned from Google’s parent company, Alphabet …

… hit a trifecta by participating in Bilderberg, the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

Schmidt’s announcement makes it look as if he is going to pretty much leave the organisation, however, ZeroHedge tells us more (emphases in the original):

He will become a technical adviser to Google parent Alphabet, while continuing to serve on the board …

The question is – is Schmidt getting ready for 2020?

The rest of the article is damning. Please read it.

Two more excerpts follow.

The first tells us more about Schmidt:

On the Wikipedia link you can read more about Mr. Schmidt, one of the richest person on earth, an advocate of net neutrality, a corporate manager and owner of a lot, a collector of modern art, etc. And you can read about his heavy involvement with Hillary Clinton’s recent campaign and the Obama administration and about Schmidt’s involvement with Pentagon, too.

Eric Emerson Schmidt’s name is associated with the world’s largest and most systematic data collecting search engine, Google, that millions upon millions use. School children, teachers, parents, media people, politicians and you and I all daily “google” what we need to know.

While we do that, Google tracks everything about us and if you are searching for a thing to buy, say a camera, be sure that camera ads will shortly after turn up on your screen. And they know everything we are interested in through our “googling” including political interests and hobbies.

He also travelled to North Korea in 2013, no doubt with the blessing of the United States, to plug their government elite into the Web (photo):

The second discusses the implications of Google’s algorithms to de-rank certain online pages to censor unwanted views. The broader context in the ZeroHedge article is that Schmidt wants to wreck aspects of Russian media as seen in a video:

This very powerful corporate leader with a open political orientation has decided – as will be seen 58 seconds into the video – that the Internet and his hugely dominating search engine a) shall cave in to political pressure, b) de-rank at least these two Russian media organizations because c) he knows they are “propaganda outlets” (it isn’t discussed at all or compared with US or other countries’ media) and d) in the name of political correctness it is OK to limit the freedom of opinion-formation.

That said, Schmidt’s strategy applies to everyday users as well (purple highlight mine):

Mr Schmidt, you are blatantly and clearly interfering in the rights of millions, if not billions, to know. To seek information. To shape their opinions.

With your few words you abuse your almost unlimited digital, political, economic and ‘defence’ power – much much worse than if you had sexually abused just one woman for which older men today are fired or choose to resign.

This has to be stated irrespective of whether we like or dislike Russia and its media. That is not the issue here. This has to be fought against because it is slippery slope, Mr Schmidt.

You ought to stand up and use your powers with principles and vision: To protect the Internet against every and each reduction of freedom. Freedom for all, also the fake news-makers however we define them. Yes, there is another solution for that problem and it is not your paternalism.

It just cannot be for you to decide what is good for others and collect data about us all which is only good for you.

How many of us still use Google? Too many. Why not try Duck Duck Go and Start Page first?

Question media’s motives

The media overview and a tranche of it should make us question their motives, via both traditional and online means.

Regular readers know that I have covered several exposés from James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas about the media and Democrat activists.

Their last one was about the Washington Post, in November 2017.

Their new one is all about Twitter.

On January 17, 2018, Twitter was among the big social media companies appearing before the United States Senate:

In practice, ‘extremist propaganda’ often refers to messages and news supporting President Donald Trump.

It also includes the president himself:

More detail follows.

James O’Keefe asks Twitter’s founder Jack Dorsey a question:

Here are a few more teasers about Twitter (language alert), handy to forward to friends and family who don’t have time to watch the longer videos:

Twitter dislikes patriots:

Okay, O’Keefe meant ‘rogue’, but note that Twitter is not questioning the video content:

Twitter users complained. In return, the company manipulated the trending hashtag results:

Twitter cannot look at everything, but, rest assured, they have a few hundred people looking at obscene images. Do they keep those images? Where do the images go next? Hmm. Sounds potentially nefarious, but, then, people should not be sending that type of stuff in the first place.

Without further ado, Project Veritas issued the first video (8:16 minutes) on January 10. It is an interview with Clay Haynes, senior network security engineer, who discusses helping the DOJ with any potential enquiries regarding Trump (written summary):

The second video (15:14 minutes), issued on January 11, features policy manager Olinda Hassan discussing censorship of ‘sh*tty people’. Pranay Singh, direct messaging engineer, explains how they do it. Mihai Florea, a software engineer, admits that half of Twitter employees want to delete Trump’s account for good; the other half want to keep it. Mo Norai, a former content review agent, says that Twitter is between 90% to 99% anti-Trump (written summary):

The third and final video (9:37 minutes) was posted on January 15. It features Pranay Singh, direct messaging engineer, discussing obscene images and messages (written summary):

One thing that has struck viewers of these videos is the number of foreigners in them, pervasive throughout Silicon Valley. They might be easier to work with where matters of censorship are concerned. Still, one cannot help but take exception to someone whose homeland is not the United States referring to Twitter users representing half the American population as ‘sh*tty people’.

By the way, O’Keefe’s new book, American Pravda, discusses the four Project Veritas media exposés. His publisher, Macmillan, has a summary which says, in part:

The book not only contests the false narratives frequently put forth by corporate media, it documents the consequences of telling the truth in a world that does not necessarily want to hear it. O’Keefe’s enemies attack with lawsuits, smear campaigns, political prosecutions, and false charges in an effort to shut down Project Veritas. For O’Keefe, every one of these attacks is a sign of success.

American Pravda puts the myths and misconceptions surrounding O’Keefe’s activities to rest and will make you rethink every word you hear and read in the so-called mainstream press.

O’Keefe recently told Alex Jones that he always needs new undercover journalists but warned that it is hard, potentially dangerous, work that most people would not be able to do:

American Pravda also has examples of social media users buoying support for President Trump during the 2016 election. He devotes a whole chapter to the contributors at The_Donald, known as ‘weaponised autists’ (link from The_Donald has a three-page excerpt). A lot of them came from 4chan, which is where the term originated.

If you haven’t read or heard much about this story, it’s not surprising. Alternatively, perhaps you heard or read something about it that is inaccurate, with omissions.

Twitter’s platform is great. Twitter’s censorship is not.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2020. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,399 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

February 2020
S M T W T F S
« Jan    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,567,073 hits