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
Reuters scrubs false claim linking shooter to "far right."
Despite anti-fascist slogans on the assassin's shell casings, Reuters attempted to link the shooter to the far-right, quoting a Carnegie Endowment "Democracy Expert" to make the point.
And then, the coverup...
On September 13, three days after the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Reuters published a story (archived here: archive.ph/6YkVH) containing the following passage:
"Rachel Kleinfeld, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the symbology found on the bullet casings suggests the shooter had affiliation with the so-called Groyper movement, associated with far-right activist and commentator Nick Fuentes.
"It's an eclectic ideological movement marked by video game memes, anti-gay, Nick Fuentes white supremacy, irony," she said. "It certainly leans right, but it is quite eclectic."
This narrative - that the shooter was "far right" or a "groyper" - spread like wildfire in left-leaning circles.
The theory made its way to the pages of Salon, The New Republic and Newsweek.
Reuters too. And it's interesting that they quoted a Carnegie researcher on it.
The Online Safety Act: Britain's Censorship Superweapon
How bad is the Online Safety Act?
✅10% revenue fines for not banning hate speech & disinformation
✅Americans in the UK face criminal charges and 2 years in jail for non-compliance
✅Mandatory ad boycotts
It's bad..🧵
The Act was introduced by the UK's previous Conservative government, and implemented by the current Labour one.
Ministers have spun it as purely a child safety measure. Keep kids safe online!
They don't want the public to notice the other stuff...
For example, the fact that when government ministers discuss the bill in Parliament and not on primetime news shows, they insist the bill covers misinformation and disinformation as "illegal harms."
For nearly a decade, online advertisers were the shock troops of censorship.
News outlets feared a boycott for publishing the wrong viewpoint.
Social media companies feared a boycott for platforming the wrong person.
The FTC just called time on this censorship tactic 🧵
In December, two of the world's largest ad agencies, IPG and Omnicom, announced plans to merge.
Mergers of this size can't take place without the approval of competition regulators like the FTC.
Both firms are knee deep in censorship.
They were members of the Global Alliance for Responsible Media, which combined 97% of global ad spend to force uniform censorship policies on tech platforms.
It shut down after House GOP investigations and an @elonmusk lawsuit.
Its Digital Services Act imposes crippling fines on platforms over disfavored speech - a tariff in all but name.
We found a trail of soft-power money that leads back to the State Department
Recent news from the EU sounds like it came from the Soviet Union.
- Political leaders arrested for liking tweets.
- Cancelling elections in Romania because they didn't like the result.
- Threatening the same in Germany
The kicker? Up till now, EU tyranny had U.S support.
The EU's Digital Services Act is the global death star of online censorship.
It can fine tech companies 6 percent of their global annual turnover for failure to comply with demands to censor "hate speech" and "disinformation."