Tech Oligarchs Censor the Right

rtx5gc6c_wide-5a1301163e38ee381c8d446c8fc3f81e71ecf663-s1100-c15

The technology companies that provide social media platforms have grown to gargantuan size and now possess an ominous power over the ability of citizens to express and communicate ideas.

This control over free expression, which is held by a few tech oligarchs, is unprecedented at any time in human history.

The most widely used social media platform, Facebook, claims 2 billion users globally and is the preferred source for news for 45 percent of American adults. Three hundred hours of video are uploaded to Google-owned YouTube every minute of the day. And Twitter indicates that it has 330 million monthly active users. It was inevitable that these three monolithic social media platforms would be replete with users who seek to influence public opinion.

At one time all three seemed to reflect the notion that the general Internet should be treated as a free and open forum for any and all points of view.

The three have now shown themselves to be untrustworthy with data. They have proven to be biased, and of late have made it clear that they are willing to utilize the same kind of censorship that authoritarian regimes impose.

The ability of conservatives to reach people through the use of social media is being slowly and steadily diminished by the implemented policies of Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. This is occurring under the guise of eliminating false information.

Videos, posts, and other expressions are routinely being taken down, accounts are surreptitiously being limited in scope, and in some cases users are even being exiled from the Internet.

Tech giants have consistently demonstrated hostility toward the convictions of Americans who dare to hold contrary views to the pre-ordained liberal script. This all seemed to have begun with the revelation in the spring of 2016 that news curators at Facebook were suppressing news stories from right-of-center outlets. The resultant negative publicity caused Facebook to actually remove its human editors.

Last summer Twitter blocked pro-life advertisements, labeling them “sensitive content.” Early this year Twitter claimed that it was purging the platform of suspected Russian bot accounts, but it ended up causing conservative Twitter users, including podcaster Dan Bongino, to suffer a loss of followers.

In what it claimed to be a hunt for “fake news,” YouTube shut down highly viewed non-liberal channels on its platform. It ultimately had to apologize for what it called “mistaken removals,” just one more admission that a video platform had engaged in ideological censorship. The organization’s use of an extreme left-wing group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, to determine what is “offensive” speech is a major tell of YouTube’s true intentions.

Oddly, the highly entrepreneurial Silicon Valley community has allowed itself to become a slavish patron of anti-business liberalism. As is typical of much of Wall Street and many major corporations, the tech world is devoted to leftist immigration policies that allow tech companies to access inexpensive labor.

Perhaps because the technology world considers itself to be scientifically minded, a huge portion of the tech community has become enamored with faux scientists such as Al Gore and have simply bought the notions of radical environmentalists hook, line, and sinker.

Those outside of the liberal circle, who happen to constitute a sizable segment of society, have made great strides in the past using digital technology to persuade the public. Presently, though, they are justifiably concerned about losing access to social media platforms at such a critical juncture in U.S. politics.

Where do divergent thinkers go to find a way to fight back against the free expression redactors? Here are some options for consideration:

–Litigation.

Lawsuits launched by those who feel as if they have experienced interference with their free expression on social media may find themselves in an uphill battle. However, it may be worth the struggle.

At the trial level, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh recently indicated that Prager University, a non-profit project by author, educator, and national radio talk show host Dennis Prager, failed to show in a lawsuit that YouTube infringed upon its free speech rights by placing age restrictions on its content.

The suit was filed over YouTube’s “Restricted Mode” setting on such topics it deemed offensive. The judge held that YouTube was not a “state actor,” but rather a “private entity” and as such was not subject to First Amendment protections.

The judge also dismissed a claim on another legal theory that YouTube engaged in false advertising by implying that Prager University’s videos were “inappropriate.”

The judge did encourage Prager University to amend its lawsuit to explore whether California’s state constitution would provide protection “in the age of social media and the Internet.” The decision can, of course, be appealed.

–Regulation.

The cumulative actions of social media giants have resulted in otherwise free market thinking individuals to begin eyeing the prospects of some kind of limited government regulation of the social media space.

One approach would be to classify social media platforms as “common carriers” and require that all users be treated equally. This is a variant of the much touted “net neutrality” about which tech blogs often rant.

A specific proposal that seems to have some merit involves mandating that users who are dissatisfied with either Facebook, YouTube, or Twitter be allowed to freely transfer their data to another platform, much in the same way consumers transfer their cell phone numbers from one carrier to another.

–Competition.

It is long overdue that a freedom loving social media provider appear on the scene.

Similar to the way in which the bias of the mainstream media gave birth to the alternative media, i.e., Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and the like, those who hold non-liberal beliefs must create an alternative social media and do so before its too late.

Trump’s Twitter Account Is Keeping Us Safe

271367a1836502b483d9378415e1d2868feeea2482fc8e657137db2de10ddef6_4091255

President Donald Trump’s tweet, which was in response to Kim Jong Un’s posturing, has put CNN media reporter Brian Stelter into an even greater degree of hysteria than usual.

Stelter was in an agitated state when he disclosed to CNN host Anderson Cooper that he had contacted the authorities at Twitter to prompt the social media giant take action against the president.

The exchange between the North Korean dictator and the democratically elected leader of the free world dealt with the subject of the “nuclear button” of each country. Stelter apparently saw an opening in the digital realm to put a stop to President Trump’s tweets, something that those who are opposed to the Trump administration’s agenda have been trying to do since day one.

Stelter evidently wanted the Twitter censors to act in some policing type way against the Trump Twitter account phenomenon, @realDonaldTrump. The CNN propagandist cited the social media platform’s terms of service and claimed that the president’s tweet had somehow violated the Twitter-verse rules.

In a New Year’s Day address, North Korea’s leader, now branded as “Rocket Boy,” declared that the rogue nation’s nuclear capabilities are “reality,” not mere threats, and boasted of having a nuclear button on his desk.

“The U.S. should know that the button for nuclear weapons is on my table,” Kim said, adding that “the entire area of the U.S. mainland is within our nuclear strike range.”

In the reply tweet, President Trump posted that he also has a nuclear button, and made it clear that “it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his [Kim], and my Button works!”

Stelter also claimed, as many of his fellow fake news purveyors have of late, that President Trump’s tweet raises questions about his cognitive abilities, another transparent effort by the liberal media to distract, since their Russia-collusion allegations have fallen flat.

The CNN fiction reporter said that social media should be used by politicians to “persuade the public to come to their side.” However, Stelter is asserting that President Trump is doing something other than trying to persuade via his Twitter account.

Stelter essentially tried to play the role of snitch by reporting the president’s tweet to a Twitter spokesperson. Although there have been repeated demands from adversaries of President Trump to have Twitter shut down the now famous account and remove it from service, Twitter has unequivocally refused to do so.

In a recent blog post, Twitter indicated that tweets posted by world leaders ought to be discussed, and additionally noted that removing such statements from the Twitter platform would not be effective.

“Blocking a world leader from Twitter or removing their controversial Tweets, would hide important information people should be able to see and debate,” the Twitter post read. “It would also not silence that leader, but it would certainly hamper necessary discussion around their words and actions.”

Nikki Haley, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, concisely highlighted the usefulness of the president’s Twitter account by explaining the diplomatic value of the “nuclear button” tweet.

During an appearance on ABC’s “This Week,” when asked whether the president’s tweet was a good idea, Haley responded, “I think that [Trump] always has to keep Kim on his toes. It’s very important that we don’t ever let him get so arrogant that he doesn’t realize the reality of what would happen if he started a nuclear war.”

Haley said North Korea should clearly understand that the United States means business when it comes to Kim.

“We’re not going to let them go and dramatize the fact that they have a button right on their desk and they can destroy America,” Haley said. “We want to always remind them we can destroy you too, so be very cautious and careful with your words and what you do.”