As the lying mainstream media continues to spread fear and misinformation, social media giants may be exercising even more power over freedom of thought and speech. Over the past few months, Facebook and Twitter have been especially aggressive in their efforts to silence the truth.
Users who post about alternative COVID-19 treatments or speak out about the long-term damage of lockdowns are either censored or kicked from the platform completely. Slander articles and posts promoting violence against President Trump have been permitted while major stories about Democratic candidates have been virtually erased from the platforms.
A few weeks before the election, The New York Post published an article exposing how the Bidens had used the former Vice President’s clout to silence Ukranian officials looking into a company with which Hunter Biden was involved.
For those of you who don’t know…
Joe Biden’s son, Hunter – a drug addict with little to no actual work experience – found himself heavily involved with private foreign corporations. He then used his father’s influence to protect those foreign financial interests – and got rich doing it. These foreign entities now have a vested interest in seeing the Bidens in the White House… AGAIN.
The liberal fake news complex is warning you, without evidence, that if you don’t close your eyes to the explosive revelations from Hunter Biden’s computers, that you will be abetting a Russian intelligence operation. Yet it has become increasingly obvious that this is because, if you open your eyes, you may find out that the Bidens were selling themselves to an actual Chinese intelligence operation.
But that’s an article for another time…
The story today is that both Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter’s Jack Dorsey were subpoenaed to appear before the US Senate to answer for their aggressive, one-sided censorship. And conservative lawmakers didn’t pull any punches.
Senators hammered Dorsey over his decision to add labels to ‘false and misleading election-related tweets’ which Republicans said displayed bias against conservatives and Democrats said had not gone far enough to check misinformation. Dorsey, who attended the hearing virtually from what appeared to be a kitchen, avoided answering most of the Senators’ questions directly.
“We made a quick interpretation, using no other evidence, that the materials in the article were obtained through hacking and, according to our policy, we blocked them from being spread,” said Dorsey, explaining the initial decision to tamp down the stories.
Twitter used its hacked materials policy to justify the move, even though The Post’s reporting clearly spelled out that the material was sourced from an abandoned laptop that formerly belonged to Hunter Biden.
There is also some evidence that Facebook and Twitter have been coordinating their censorship efforts to ban or suppress specific people, websites, and hashtags across multiple platforms.
One member of the committee, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), tweeted ahead of the meeting,
“I’ve heard from @Facebook whistleblower who revealed @Facebook and @Google and @Twitter coordinate to censor. Facebook has an internal platform to manage it. I’ll be asking Mark Zuckerberg and @jack about this at tomorrow’s hearing.”
True to his word, Senator Hawley went in for the kill, asking direct questions about Facebook’s content moderation platform and their coordination with Twitter and Google. Human cyborg Mark Zuckerberg repeatedly avoided answering the question directly, although he did acknowledge that the moderation task platform is documented and searchable.
When asked if he would commit (under oath) to providing any references to coordination with Twitter and Google, Zuckerberg declined. When asked if he would commit to providing a list of the people and websites that had been banned or suppressed, Zuckerberg again refused.
Check out this video below to see Senator Hawley’s line of questioning and the stuttering response from Facebook’s chief executive officer.
But if this hearing was a feast of justified outrage, Section 230 was the main course.
Section 230 says that “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” (47 U.S.C. § 230). In other words, online intermediaries that host or republish speech are protected against a range of laws that might otherwise be used to hold them legally responsible for what others say and do. The protected intermediaries include not only regular Internet Service Providers (ISPs), but also a range of “interactive computer service providers,” including basically any online service that publishes third-party content.
Of course, this protection should serve to encourage free speech. If platforms like Facebook and Twitter can’t be held liable for content posted on their sites, then why the drastic measures to censor us? Could it be that they have an agenda?
Upset over the companies’ decision on what to leave on the platform and what to take down, many Republican lawmakers, along with President Trump, have threatened to take away protections for internet companies under Section 230. After all, why protect companies from the consequences of free speech when they’re working so hard to control the narrative?
Republican Senator Ted Cruz asked Dorsey why Twitter was “putting purported warnings on virtually any statement about voter fraud”. Mr. Dorsey referenced his earlier concession that Twitter’s decision to block links to the New York Post article about Hunter Biden had been “wrong”, and that its failure to subsequently restore the newspaper’s own tweets about the story had required a further policy change. He said that Twitter uses “linked conversations” – grouping specific content to a broader conversation – to weed out misinformation.
Senator Cruz fired back: “No you’re not. You’re putting up a page that says ‘voter fraud of any kind is exceedingly rare in the United States’. That’s not linking to a broader conversation. That’s taking a disputed policy position.”
The Senator added that Twitter had the right to take such a position, but only if it accepted it was a publisher and gave up Section 230’s protections.
Because social media platforms are not news outlets!
Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham asked: “What I want to try to find out is, if you’re not a newspaper at Twitter or Facebook, then why do you have editorial control over the New York Post?”
The answer is: THEY DON’T!
These social media outlets are not news agencies. They are not accredited reporting agencies. And they have no right to censor the right of Americans to free speech.
And here’s the kicker: Allowing these companies to censor information can cause irreparable damage to our nation.
Have you been told that masks work and are necessary to prevent COVID-19? Have you heard that voter fraud is a myth and that Joe Biden is the President-Elect? Have you seen warnings on videos and posts about hydroxychloroquine saying that the drug is ineffective?
Of course you have. Because the corrupt Big Media is in bed with Big Tech. They’ve closed churches. They’ve banned gatherings. They own the LAMEstream media. And now, they control what you see and don’t see online.
I’m not willing to let the Jack Dorseys of the world control the freedom of speech and the right to information in this country. Are you?
WAKE UP, AMERICA!