In the past few years, the media has deployed its resources against:
- anonymous Redditors
- meme makers
- a forklift driver
- conservatives in tech
- high school kids wearing MAGA hats
The same journalists who were OK with that are now mad because "it's only OK when we do it."
The NYT complains that investigating its journalists doesn't count as "scrutinizing people in positions of power."
"People in positions of power" like high school kids, forklift drivers, and random Reddit users?
The NYT uses a strawman, saying reporters are being investigated because of "coverage critical of the president."
No. It's because the media is happy to use its power against ordinary, private citizens who oppose its agenda. They aren't journalists anymore - they're inquisitors.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
“Pro-censorship voices have the management’s ear. The anti-censorship people are afraid of retaliation.”
“Our leadership (Sundar in particular) is weak, so he capitulates to the meanest bullies on the block.”
“Several have been have been driven out of the company or fired outright for sharing a dissenting view. Others have had their promotions denied or suffered other forms of deniable retaliation.”
A head of 2024, the censorship industry is adopting a more targeted approach, focused on key demographics.
Central to their plans is the cultivation of "trusted messengers" who can overcome so-called disinformation spreading in particular communities. foundationforfreedomonline.com/grassroots-cen…
"Trusted Messenger" is a marketing term, describing a person or institution with public trust. It's popular among NGOs and government agencies trying to win people over to their agenda.
During COVID, the government sought out "trusted messengers" to overcome vaccine skepticism.
Going into 2024, the censorship industry sees a new role for "trusted messengers."
Not just spreading narratives, but countering "disinformation," including reporting it to online censors.
Every modern regime that has tried to police the opinions of its citizens has ended up fostering networks of informants, aka snitches.
At its height, the GDR's Stasi had 1 informer for every 50 citizens.
But that's just a German thing, right? It couldn't happen here...
The problem is, even if you have officials dedicated to censorship (Euro countries still do), they can't monitor everyone's conversations. You need people to voluntarily snitch on each other.
Western censors want to solve the same problem faced by the Stasi, Gestapo, and KGB.
Britain’s education Deep State was actually quite opposed to the spread of American-style wokeness at one prestigious school: amp.theguardian.com/education/2022…
The best explanation is that the British establishment has an allergic reaction to what it perceives as extremism from any quarter. This is why the success of a continental-style right wing populist movement is just as unlikely as American-style wokeness taking off.