We Are All James Woods

James Woods is well known for his accomplishments in the entertainment arts.

Consummate actor of stage and screen, he gained a considerable degree of fame for his role in the film adaptation of Joseph Wambaugh’s 1973 non-fiction book “The Onion Field,” a crime thriller extraordinaire.

Over the years James has had the opportunity to work with many a legendary Hollywood director, a distinguished roster that includes the names of David Cronenberg (“Videodrome”), Oliver Stone (“Salvador” and “Nixon”), Richard Attenborough (“Chaplin”), and Martin Scorsese (“Casino”).

In addition to the big-screen circuit, he has taken strolls down the TV road, playing characters the likes of America’s Mayor in the film “Rudy: The Rudy Giuliani Story.”

Industry trophies stand as a testament to his achievements. Among other accolades, he has two Oscar nominations and two Emmy wins to his credit.

Most recently, James has become a focal point of the so-called Twitter Files, the first in a series of documents released to journalist Matt Taibbi by Twitter CEO Elon Musk.

The files detail the behind-the-scenes communications surrounding Twitter’s content moderation decision making (under previous ownership), which involved, among other things, the suppression of a 2020 New York Post story about President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and Hunter’s notorious laptop.

During a recent two-hour long Twitter Spaces session, new Twitter owner Elon indicated that a second drop of Twitter Files will take place at an undisclosed future date, files that will go to Taibbi and Bari Weiss, an additional journalist.

The documents highlight how, just prior to the 2020 presidential election, Twitter executives worked closely with Democrats to eliminate content that was highly inconvenient for them.

The company’s rationale at the time for the extraordinary censorship imposed was that the story constituted “hacked materials,” a determination questioned by many insiders.

The New York Post had made it clear that a computer repairman had the laptop in his possession because Hunter himself had dropped it off.

There was never any hacking.

In simple terms, then-Twitter executives characterized a story that did not emanate from hacked material, as exactly the opposite – hacked material. This was likely done to explicitly hide the facts from an unknowing public.

Files also reveal that Twitter seemingly complied with the Democratic Party’s directives in suppressing the accounts of select celebrities, quite strikingly the account of James Woods.

In the words of Taibbi, “Celebrities and unknowns alike could be removed or reviewed at the behest of a political party.”

James has stepped forward to lead a class action lawsuit against the social media platform as well as the DNC over damage done to his personal civil rights, reputation and career.

“How would you like to fund a class action suit for those who were suppressed?” James asked Elon in a tweet. “I’ll be happy to be lead plaintiff.”

In a recent interview, James emphasized his intent to file a lawsuit over the Twitter matter.

“I can guarantee you one thing more than anything else you’ll ever hear in your life: I will be getting a lawyer. I will be suing the Democratic National Committee no matter what,” he stated.

“Whether I win or lose, I am going to stand up for the rights that every American [is entitled to]…,” James said.

James knows what informed individuals know; that the rights of each and every American are now on the line.

The Taibbi posts also confirmed that former Twitter executive Vijaya Gadde was central to the New York Post‘s suppression of the Hunter laptop story.

Gadde, the social media platform’s former head of something called “legal, policy, and trust,” was later appointed by the Biden administration as an advisor to the Department of Homeland Security in its supposed effort to counter “disinformation.”

Gadde is sure to be brought before the House Judiciary Committee when Republicans take control in January 2023.

“We’re tracking Vijaya Gadde’s role in the suppression of the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop. We absolutely plan to investigate this more. Stay tuned,” a committee spokesperson told the New York Post.

For his part, Rep. James Comer (R-KY) has said that anyone at Twitter who was involved in censoring The Post’s story will be testifying to the House Oversight Committee.

In response to the report, Rep. Comer said that he wants to bring in “every employee at Twitter who was involved in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story” to “explain their actions to the American people.”

He also referred to the Twitter ban as “election suppression.”

Polls have indicated that if voters had known about the Hunter story prior to the 2020 election, the information would have had a determinative impact on the outcome.

According to Taibbi, the only Democrat in Congress who seemed to react to the suppression was Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), who deserves credit for reminding his colleagues that the nation must be guided by First Amendment principles.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) gave a brief summation on what has been revealed to the world by Elon.

“Twitter helped the Biden campaign & Democratic lawmakers to conceal information days before a presidential election. This type of suppression of free speech and information sharing is indefensible,” Rep. Malliotakis said, adding, “House Republicans must thoroughly investigate this matter to ensure big tech is reined in.”

James is hoping that others are going to join him in his fight within the court system.

He has let it be known that he is not one to shy away from legal battles.

“I’ve been a target of these people for six years. They have destroyed my career. They have destroyed my livelihood. They’ve destroyed my faith in a country that my family has defended in the military since the Revolutionary War,” he said.

Spoken like someone with the heart of a patriot.

Here’s hoping that more join James Woods in heart and deed.

Making Twitter Great Again, Elon Musk-style

Elon Musk just welcomed back to the Twitter-verse former President Donald J. Trump.

In the process, the social media site owner and self-described “Chief Twit” showed exactly what he’s made of, principles-wise.

The official reversal of Trump’s lifetime Twitter ban, along with the restoration of his more than 80 million followers, was implemented over the past weekend. The handle @realDonaldTrump was reactivated, and users on Twitter are once again able to tag the former president in posts.

Elon formally brought 45’s account back to life after conducting a poll on the platform that received more than 15 million votes.

“Reinstate former President Trump: Yes or No?” the poll asked.

Fifty-two percent of Twitter users voted to return him to the platform.

“The people have spoken. Trump will be reinstated,” Elon tweeted, adding, “Vox Populi, Vox Dei,” a Latin phrase that means “the voice of the people is the voice of God.”

As the present world’s most successful entrepreneur, Elon understands that business accomplishments are the fruits of a free-flow exchange of ideas.

When free expression is stifled, weeds of stagnation are able to take root. They have the capacity to choke off discussion, interaction, creativity and ultimately personal as well as collective achievement.

In addition to Trump, Elon has reanimated the Twitter accounts of others who had previously been evicted, including psychologist, media analyst and author Jordan Peterson, cultural commentators and political lampooners The Babylon Bee and comic-turned-leftist activist Kathy Griffin.

In response to his efforts to make Twitter free again, Elon has been derided in the press, berated on social media and pummeled on his very own site.

But what really threw leftists and their compliant media buddies into a full-blown tizzy was the reinstatement of the former president’s account.

For his part, Trump used his own social media platform (Truth Social) along with a recent video address to express some uncertainty about actually engaging in tweeting on Twitter.

“I hear we’re getting a big vote to also go back on Twitter. I don’t see it because I don’t see any reason for it,” the former president (via video) told the Republican Jewish Coalition meeting in Las Vegas.

Trump had been banished from Twitter in January of 2021, ostensibly in response to post-election events that occurred at the U.S. Capitol building.

His tweet history stands as a testament to his social media mastery. The brevity and wit are unmatched by anyone, except perhaps the Chief Twit himself.

Two posts that Trump made just before he was banned illustrate the point.

At his January 6 rally, after he called on people to act “peacefully and patriotically,” he followed up with a plea for peace via his Twitter account.

“Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!” he posted.

This admonition was buttressed with another tweet.

“I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”

Given the wide reach and influence of Twitter, and considering that the 45th president recently launched his campaign to become the nation’s 47th president, fans and even some foes of the former president have a genuine desire to see Trump tweet again.

It took a lot of courage to do what Elon did in returning Trump to the Twitter platform.

It also took a whole lot of integrity, something society desperately needs yet too frequently gets in its civic and corporate leaders.

The man is a genuine free speech devotee who is determined to rebuild the digital town square.

For the sake of our country, pray that he succeeds.

Elon Musk’s Plan to Set the Bird Free

Tesla founder Elon Musk currently owns the singular status of being the wealthiest person in world.

Back in April of 2022, amid a modest amount of fanfare, he purchased a 9.2 percent stake in Twitter. This caused the keepers of the predominant media narrative to come unglued.

Amusingly, he was able to explain his motives on the very platform that he was in the early stages of acquiring.

“Free speech is essential to a functioning democracy,” Elon tweeted, and then asked his followers, “Do you believe Twitter rigorously adheres to this principle?”

Over 70 percent of the 2 million participants in his poll responded “No.”

He had already secured a significant degree of celebrity status, having previously grabbed headlines numerous times over and had even taken to the iconic “Saturday Night Live” stage to perform host duties.

Now it looks as though he has become a historical figure of sorts, due in large part to his $44 billion purchase of the company he has characterized as “the de facto public town square.”

Along with the entire world he had watched as a small group of corporations worked hand in hand with the government, under the guise of eliminating “misinformation.”

It was a warped process at a minimum, one in which people were stripped of the ability to engage in the free exchange of ideas, something that Americans had previously enjoyed and had even taken for granted.

The stifling of speech in this manner had an additional treacherous impact; that being, the authentic pursuit of truth became a virtual impossibility.

Ironically, many of those who considered themselves to be champions of free speech seemed to have suffered a degeneration in their ability to reason.

CNN ran a piece that carried the headline “Analysis: Elon Musk owning Twitter should give everyone pause.”

“The Guardian” did a one-up op-ed with the title “Elon Musk’s Twitter Is Going To Be a Disaster.”

And a “Wired” piece offered the prediction “Elon Musk’s Twitter Will Be Chaos.”

For his part, Elon shared a series of text images explaining why he had acquired Twitter.

“There has been much speculation about why I bought Twitter and what I think about advertising,” he posted. “Most of it has been wrong.”

The tech mogul apparently perceived the societal risk that was inherent in the direction social media had been trending.

“There is currently great danger that social media will splinter into far right-wing and far left-wing echo chambers that generate more hate and divide our society,” Elon wrote. “In the relentless pursuit of clicks, much of traditional media has fueled and catered to those polarized extremes, as they believe that is what brings in the money, but, in doing so, the opportunity for dialogue is lost.”

“It is important to the future of civilization to have a common digital town square, where a wide range of beliefs can be debated in a healthy manner without resorting to violence,” he added. “…that is why I bought Twitter. I didn’t do it because it would be easy. I didn’t do it to make more money. I did it to try to help humanity, whom I love.”

Leftists on Twitter reacted to Elon’s sentiments in a spiteful adolescent manner.

Writer for “The Intercept” Jon Schwarz stated, “This would be the traditional kind of town square that’s owned by one guy and funded by huge corporate advertisers.”

Deadline Hollywood associate editor Valerie Complex tweeted, “Im glad I already started distancing myself from Twitter so when this is finalized I can be at peace being on here even less.”

Condé-Nast legal affairs editor Luke Zaleski posted, “What’s the point of being the richest man in the world if you can’t own free speech?”

The Prospect managing editor Ryan Cooper tweeted, “Sounds like curtains for this place.”

Entertainment outlets and Hollywood figures also displayed their collective displeasure.

In its opening, “Saturday Night Live” telegraphed the producers’ loyalties to the Democratic Party via an attack on three mid-term election GOP candidates: Dr. Oz, Herschel Walker, and Kari Lake. It then took aim at its former host through its “Weekend Update” segment, targeting Elon’s purchase.

Writer-producer Shonda Rhimes tendered her judgmental farewell, tweeting, “Not hanging around for whatever Elon has planned. Bye.”

Marina Sirtis, the actress who plays Deanna Troi on “Star Trek: The Next Generation,” announced the following: “I’m sorry but I cannot be a part of anything owned by #ELONMUSK and his cabal of deplorable‘s. I’ll stay on for a couple of days so that we can say goodbye but after that I’m gone.”

“I’m out of here,” Ken Olin, executive producer of “This Is Us,” tweeted.

Elon, who has comically dubbed himself “Chief Twit,” indicated that no decisions on content or reinstating of accounts will be made until a “content moderation council” is put in place.

Still, one potential reinstatement has leftists in an absolute frenzy; that would be the reinstatement of the man of their nightmares and the years-long target of their obsession, former President Donald J. Trump.

Anxieties were heightened when reports came out in May of 2022 that Elon had stated the following: “I do think it was not correct to ban Donald Trump; I think that was a mistake.”

Although what Twitter will ultimately become still remains to be seen, the new chief has been using his account to celebrate the personal ownership of the platform.

A recent message posted by the entrepreneur perhaps best captures feelings on the part of a vast majority of Twitter users.

Elon tweeted the liberating song lyrics of the late great B.B. King, “Let the good times roll.”

May he keep the bird free.

Lessons Learned from the PayPal Debacle

PayPal is currently in an existential crisis.

The company recently issued an updated “Acceptable Use Policy” (AUP), which was set to go into effect on November 3 of this year.

Among other things, the AUP included a $2,500 fine, which was to be imposed on users of PayPal if said users transmitted speech that the digital financial service company deemed unacceptable.

The type of speech that would have triggered the policy included “the sending, posting, or publication of any messages, content, or materials” that “promote misinformation.”

Debits taken directly from users’ PayPal accounts would have been the means used to collect the hefty fines.

Having already suffered the loss of free expression at the hands of the reigning misinformation police currently patrolling our society’s virtual and real worlds, a whole lot of people reacted swiftly and forcefully.

A tsunami-sized backlash against the AUP ensued in the conventional media, social media and elsewhere. This forced PayPal to backtrack big time.

Up until now the multinational technology company had been the world’s preeminent online payment system, ranking 143rd in revenue on the 2022 Fortune 500 list.

Originally founded in 1998 by Max Levchin, Peter Thiel and Luke Nosek as a company called Confinity, it went through a merger in 2000 with X.com, an online financial services company co-founded in 1999 by Elon Musk.

Musk directed X.com to focus its resources on the online payment business. Musk was subsequently replaced by Thiel as CEO of X.com, which was renamed PayPal, and ultimately went public in 2002. The former wholly owned subsidiary of eBay became an independent company again in 2015.

Like way too many other large tech enterprises, PayPal’s management ultimately swerved into speech regulating territory, banning in 2018 radio host Alex Jones, along with Jones’s website.

Three years later PayPal announced a plan to collaborate with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), as well as other nonprofits, to scrutinize users’ transactions for purported investigative purposes relating to extremism groups. The results were intended to be shared with law enforcement and other entities.

ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt indicated that a better understanding of how extremist groups use PayPal could potentially “help disrupt those activities.”

In September of 2022, PayPal closed the accounts of a British social commentator and two related groups, the Free Speech Union and The Daily Sceptic website.

The accounts were apparently terminated because of alleged misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine. A few days later, however, PayPal reversed its decision.

During the same month, the company threatened to withdraw its sponsorship of the Phoenix Suns, if the basketball team’s owner Robert Sarver failed to be removed from the franchise.

Sarver is presently under a one-year suspension from the Suns, following an internal investigation that found he allegedly used “hostile” words and slurs against women and minorities.

The company also recently banned Gays Against Groomers, a group composed of LGBT-identifying individuals. Simultaneously, PayPal’s subsidiary Venmo also blocked the organization.

Ian Miles Cheong, an independent journalist who reports on the promotion of transgenderism to minors, has also been banned.

After facing media scrutiny and a viral wave of criticism, including some chiding from its former president David Marcus and one of the company’s founders Musk, lo and behold, the company stretched credibility by claiming the change in policy had gone out to the public by mistake.

A PayPal spokesperson reportedly told the following to National Review:

“An AUP notice recently went out in error that included incorrect information. PayPal is not fining people for misinformation and this language was never intended to be inserted in our policy. Our teams are working to correct our policy pages. We’re sorry for the confusion this has caused.”

— Marcus had used his Twitter account to slam the original AUP policy change.

“It’s hard for me to openly criticize a company I used to love and gave so much to. But PayPal’s new AUP goes against everything I believe in,” PayPal’s former CEO tweeted. “A private company now gets to decide to take your money if you say something they disagree with. Insanity.”

— Musk tweeted a single word reply, “Agreed.”

— Another Twitter user, Andrea Stroppa, had shared an article on the policy change and added, “Worrying. That’s why we need the X platform more than ever.”

Musk responded with an emoji, “💯,” meaning total agreement. Stroppa appeared to be referring to a new platform that Musk recently said he wanted to create.

Professionals in tech and media know quite well, when dealing with Terms of Service, these kinds of changes are reviewed and signed off on by skilled executives and attorneys before they are implemented.

— Intrepid reporter and social media influencer Jack Posobiec didn’t mince words when he posted, “#BankruptPaypal no one is buying their walkback. We know what their plan is. They’re just mad they got caught.”

— “Well, well… looks like PayPal spread misinformation about itself,” Christina Pushaw, campaign spokeswoman for Gov. Ron DeSantis, tweeted. “Maybe they should pay a $2,500 fine to all of us?”

Other furious users had simply closed their accounts and taken to Twitter to share their thoughts.

— Commentator and impactful influencer Candace Owens had tweeted, “Just moved all money I had in my PayPal account out of it. And I very must suggest you do the same. This is serious… #PayPal is dead.”

— Sen. Tim Scott, R – S.C., had posted his desire to investigate the matter.

“Allowing private companies to become thought police would be egregious and illegal overreach,” Sen. Scott tweeted. “My office will be looking into the validity of PayPal’s new policy and taking any necessary action to stop this type of corporate activism.”

It remains to be seen the extent to which PayPal has damaged itself with the attempted curb on freedom of expression and the unconvincing withdrawal.

In any event, the PayPal saga serves as an object lesson for corporations still wishing to dabble in viewpoint discrimination.

A big warning sign now hangs at the entrance to the internet, which reads,

CAUTION: Censor at your own risk.

The Church of Woke

skiy9lstr8g83rx5qdlxazqldkahaaf0pdv4htoc_cw

All of us need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are uniquely made, that we are here on this earth for a purpose, and that our lives have transcendent meaning.

If these innate characteristics go unfulfilled, or if life’s trials simply wear us down, our hearts become hardened and our spirits flaccid.

Wittingly or unwittingly, we find ourselves on a quest for the seemingly elusive someone or something that has placed these components deep within us.

We instinctively know that whoever or whatever is the originator of these inner sensibilities is greater than ourselves.

What we are not always cognizant of, though, is the fact that also built into us is the need to bow down to a power that is greater than ourselves.

And bow down we all do.

Like it or not, we all serve somebody. So who do you serve?

Some of us have the peace of always having had the answer to that question. Others have drifted in and out of certainty. And then there are those who don’t think that any of the things described above pertain to them.

But of course they do, as hopefully they will someday be able to recognize in themselves.

At the present time, a newfound spiritual group has assembled together. Members of the group have populated the social media with a creed of sorts, establishing a religion that could aptly be called “The Church of Woke.”

The fledgling church exhibits attributes of religious institutions that have come before it. However, its belief system is antithetical to the time-honored faiths of our country and of the world.

Members of The Church of Woke claim to seek a world in which no inequality exists and everything is paid for without anyone ever having to work. Rather than comparing our nation to other countries, they compare it to the utopia that their religion claims to offer.

The Church of Woke is dead set on disparaging, demeaning, and destroying all things related to traditional religious institutions. It adamantly rejects what it views as archaic absolute standards. Above all else it embraces moral relativism, which has no philosophical leg to stand on. No reasoning allowed, just sheer emotion. According to The Church of Woke, the only way forward is to tear down everything.

Adherents harbor a fierce hatred for America. This is because the notion that our country is the repository of evil has been drilled into their heads. The whole Western World is viewed as having a sinister history, ideology, and political bent. Wrongs are categorized as “systemic” and are therefore incapable of ever being corrected.

The Church of Woke is enlisting new members every day and converting them to the “correct” way of thinking. Services have taken the form of street protests, and prayers, the endlessly repeated worn-out chants of radicals past.

Followers of The Church of Woke consider themselves to be today’s chosen people. No way do they have to follow traditional rules of law. They are completely free to express any degree of hostility toward anyone they wish. They are also allowed to punish anyone who fails to bow to them.

Yes, we all serve somebody. And the reality is, the choice of whom we serve has clearly become a binary one.

What You Need to Know about the Heads of Social Media and Big Tech

untitled-5-6

In an unprecedented move by the head honchos of social media, President Donald Trump had several posts on his Twitter account slapped with “fact check” disclaimer labels.

When internet companies were in their infancy back in the 1990s, Congress, via legislation, provided them with immunity from certain civil lawsuits in order to encourage the development of “platforms,” i.e., digital places for users to share user-created content.

Similar to bookstores that are not in the business of creating, editing, or publishing the material contained on the shelves of their stores, companies such as Twitter were granted special protection from lawsuits so that digital platforms that merely host media content created by third parties (their users) would be able to operate unhindered by the threat of legal action.

Companies with very large social media platforms have been acting as if they merely provide space for third parties to share, when in actuality it is just that, acting. Based on the same premise, they additionally continue to maintain that they should not be held liable for what their users post.

Twitter’s decision to fact check in such a high profile and subjective manner stands as a watershed moment in the relationship between government and social media.

By fact checking the President of the United States on, of all things, an issue related to potential election fraud, Twitter tossed its identity of being a platform out into the ethersphere. But it also let the cat out of the bag as to its real present status, that of full-fledged publisher.

Twitter expressed a political opinion when it engaged in its fact checking. The issue was a mega-politically charged one involving mass mail-in voting and whether such a process is ripe for fraud.

President Trump’s tweet was evaluated by the overseers at Twitter, and users were prompted to “Get the facts about mail-in ballots.” Upon clicking a link, users were subsequently instructed that “experts say mail-in ballots are very rarely linked to voter fraud,” an unmistakable political statement that also happens to be false.

If one is willing to dig a little deeper, what is discovered is that Twitter has implemented a policy that currently seems to apply to a single user—President Trump.

When a social media company engages in the same activities as a publication, it must be treated as if it were one. Newspapers, magazines, etc., fall under the umbrella of conventional publishers that create and edit their own content and are not exempt from liability.

Twitter has not been considered a publisher, despite the fact that it has been acting like one. But to exacerbate the situation, it has increasingly become a publisher of the most highly partisan kind. And it just so happens that, as of this writing, we are less than six months away from a presidential election.

Some big tech companies have also demonstrated a political bias in giving liberals a pass while engaging in an all-out targeting of conservatives.

–PragerU’s Facebook page was marked with a virtual branding iron as containing “false news” and was demonetized as well.

–A study from NYU on the addition of zinc to a hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin treatment was removed by YouTube.

–A hydroxychloroquine video by Sharyl Attkisson was also removed, although it was subsequently reinstated.

–A contrarian Michael Moore-produced documentary, “Planet of the Humans,” was yanked from YouTube.

As reported by Vox, a number of top Silicon Valley figures appear to be working behind the scenes in a concerted effort to get presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden elected. Big tech names include LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, Apple founder Steve Job’s widow Laurene Powell Jobs, and ex-Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

Twitter’s own Yoel Roth, who presently holds the title “Head of Site Integrity,” has referred to President Trump and his team as “actual Nazis.” Roth has additionally mocked Trump supporters, insulted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and provided campaign donations to former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

President Trump recently signed an executive order that sets in motion a potentially costly change for Twitter with respect to the company’s civil liability exposure. The order directs all executive departments and agencies to ensure that their application of Section 230(c), the law that limits liability, falls within “the narrow purpose of the section.”

The executive order cites the legislative purpose of the law to maintain the internet as a “forum for a true diversity of political discourse.” The departments and agencies are instructed to “take all appropriate actions in this regard.”

The heads of departments and agencies must also review advertising and marketing expenses that are paid to Twitter and other online platforms. This includes the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as other parts of the executive branch.

With regard to Twitter, Google, Facebook, YouTube, and others, it is possible that some of the personnel of these departments and agencies will be looking into the practice of the gathering of information about virtually everything users do and then selling the data for billions of dollars.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr has already indicated that the DOJ will begin drafting legislation to regulate social media companies.

President Trump’s executive order may have an immediate limiting effect on social media and big tech’s future editorial actions.

Apparently, tech CEOs, including Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, have already heard the footsteps of the federal government. Zuckerberg recently distanced himself from Twitter when he told Fox News that the social media platform had, in his opinion, made a mistake, and that no social media platform should be the “arbiter of truth.”

The bottom line is that social media and big tech companies can’t have it both ways. And hopefully, in the very near future, they won’t.

The Separation of Church and Search

shutterstock_245047444

Google has been busy of late laying down a track record of bias against conservative, pro-life, and Christian content.

Credible reports indicate that the tech giant has been manipulating searches on the part of participant users to facilitate end results that favor liberal outcomes and simultaneously suppress conservative content.

Google, via YouTube, has removed videos of Prager U, and Live Action and demonetized YouTuber Steven Crowder’s channel as well as Dr. Michael Brown’s Christian ministry, among others.

Concordia Publishing House, the publishing arm of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, had an ad disallowed due to the fact that items in the promotional materials and website postings refer to “Jesus and/or the Bible.”

In early 2019, a Google software engineer became a whistleblower and agreed to go on record to provide an inside witness in support of the premise that the tech company has a bias against Christians.

Hostility by Google regarding the tenets of Christianity comports with the politics of Silicon Valley and in particular the political ideology endemic within the search giant’s corporate culture.

James Damore, an engineer who was terminated by Google, filed a class action lawsuit last year, alleging that the tech giant harassed him and others over their right-of-center political views. Damore had written a memo that characterized the environment within the company as a “politically correct monoculture.”

This descriptive was recently made manifest when Google-owned YouTube suppressed an advertisement for a charity whose purpose is to provide assistance and support to military veterans. The explanation given for the suppression of marketing expression was that the ad in question contained the keyword “Christian.”

Keywords are routinely utilized in online advertising to allow advertisers to have their ads appear in search results whenever potential customers who are conducting internet searches type in a particular term or phrase.

Chad Robichaux, a Marine veteran and former MMA fighter, started a charitable foundation called the Mighty Oaks Warrior Program in order to serve veterans and their families in their battles to recover from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Robichaux became a Marine at age 17 and served eight tours in Afghanistan, where he was part of the Joint Special Operations Command Task Force and earned a Medal of Valor for his service to the nation.

The marketing team of Robichaux’s charitable organization attempted to publish an ad to promote an episode of the group’s “Mighty Oaks Show” that highlighted ways in which the Christian faith assisted a Korean War veteran in finding healing.

“So one of the keywords to boost the ad was the word ‘Christian,’ which we use regularly,” Robichaux told Faithwire. “The ad was denied specifically because of the use of the word ‘Christian.’”

Robichaux posted a screenshot on Twitter of an email that he received from Google, which indicated that the keyword “Christian” was “unacceptable content” and a “potential policy violation.”

According to Robichaux, the group has run ads with the keyword “Christian” for years. In 2019 alone, the group had 150,000 impressions on this word in its ads. However, because it appeared to be a new restriction, members of the group called the Google helpline. They were told that Google’s new criteria prohibited the use of the word “Christian.”

YouTube responded on Twitter, stating, “We know that religious beliefs are personal, so we don’t allow advertisers to target users on the basis of religion. Beyond that, we don’t have policies against advertising that includes religious terms like ‘Christian.’”

Google’s explanation seemed coherent, possibly even one that had been made in good faith, with a line of reasoning based on an ostensible policy of separation of church and search. However, Robichaux produced evidence that Google’s policy treats some religions as more equal than others.

Mighty Oaks proceeded to run the exact same ad with the keyword “Muslim” in place of “Christian.” Perplexingly, the ad was approved.

The two screenshots Robichaux provided stood in stark contrast to one another. The first showed that the word “Christian” had been flagged, while the second showed that Robichaux’s group had been given the green light to use the keyword “Muslim.”

The above example indicates that Google, the company that holds the key to the information door of the digital world and also owns the number one global video portal, has an animus toward a faith to which a majority of our nation’s residents adhere.

In light of Google’s selective application of its business policies, it is appropriate to examine the legislative privileges bestowed upon the tech giant. It is also fitting to question whether or not anti-trust law should be used to restore competition in the market over which Google currently reigns.