Just as the current epidemic of online censorship began with the age-old tactic of targeting someone widely disliked (Milo, then Alex Jones), these censors are trying to create a censorship precedent for Substack by forcing them to boot one bad writer, then expand from there:
That's the tactic of state and non-state censors always:
Let's find the first target that everyone hates so nobody cares when they're silenced. Then we'll have instituted this power and then we can use it far more widely.
You have to fight it in all instances, from the start.
These people are so fucking broken. It's not enough for them to refuse to read a site or refuse to write there, which is totally within their rights.
They can't stand that there's any venue they can't control, where people are free to speak. They're little petty wannabe despots.
You can watch them formulate their tyrannical little plot in real-time: to contaminate Substack with their censorship pathology by pretending it's just about one writer. That's how they seize control: after that, every writer will be subject to their repressive campaigns:
When Silicon Valley united to de-person Milo and then Alex Jones, some objected -- obviously not on the ground that they like those people, but on the ground that it will rapidly expand inward.
Just 3 years later, left-wing and right-wing voices and sites are banned *daily.*
Just curious: Why did @ParkerMolloy accuse @annehelen of supporting a "bigotry factory" and demand she boycott it, but not direct those same accusations/demands to @rgay, who has a hugely successful Substack page? This censorship campaign seems, as usual, oddly selective.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The repressive objective of Congress is to transfer the power to police political discourse from these tech giants to themselves.
The hearing yesterday was a stunning display of authoritarianism: one member after the next issuing threats if their censorship demands are not met.
Having endured all five hours of it, I could not help but take a brief detour to express how bizarre it is to watch the way Mark Zuckerberg "communicates." There's nothing like it, and he united all members across the political spectrum in visceral contempt.
How can a media outlet credibly claim to denounce abuse of power by political officials when they defend and glorify their own anchor's participation in it?
CNN's attempt to glorify the participation of their news host in family corruption is insultingly deceitful.
What's most amazing is Chris Cuomo "interviewed" his brother on CNN just *weeks after* their abuse of state resources to obtain testing. The interview began with them both acknowledging that the state had serious resources constraints to provide testing.
For the third time in six months, Congress is summoning tech CEOs to testify in order to badger and coerce them to censor the internet more. Google's Pichai, Facebook's Zuckerberg & Twitter's Dorsey will all testify. I wrote about it here last month:
Congress has a legitimate role to play in overseeing tech giants, especially given its (valid) assessment that they wield classic monopoly power.
But they're not doing anything about that: they're instead trying to co-opt that power to censor the internet for their own interests
It's extra creepy somehow watching members of Congress sitting in their homes as they warn tech CEOs that they need to stop censoring the internet more or else they will enact laws to regulate and force them to do it:
1/ Estou vendo muita confusão sobre o que significa "ser judeu". Sem comentar sobre nenhum indivíduo (cuja história eu não conheço), é importante entender que - ao contrário da cristianismo - "judeu" tem um significado racial / étnico e também religioso. Estes são separados.
2/ Segundo a lei judaica, qualquer pessoa nascida de mãe judia é judia - não importa o que acredite sobre Deus. É por isso que pode ter um ateu judeu, ou um judeu budista, ou mesmo um judeu que orar pro Jesus. Este é o sentido em que "judeu" significa uma identidade étnica/racial
3/ Mas tb tem um componente religioso: qualquer ser humano, de qualquer pais, pode se tornar judeu se passar pelo processo de conversão (o que é bem difícil). Essa é a definição religiosa de judeu: alguém que acredita nos princípios do Talmud e que observa o judaísmo religioso.
I don't know the specifics of this new Yale case, but Alan Dershowitz spearheaded one of the worst censorious campaigns in recent times when he worked for years to destroy the academic career of Norman Finkelstein for the crime of criticizing Israel:
In 2014, Univ. of Illinois rescinded a faculty offer to Steven Salaita, a Palestinian-American professor, after his tweets criticizing Israel on Gaza caused some Jewish students to claim they felt "unsafe" (the school eventually paid him $900k to settle).
A newly obtained letter from House Intelligence Committee members demands answers from the DNI about illegal breaches of the wall guarding against CIA and NSA domestic activity.
The U.S. security state apparatus regards the agenda of “domestic violent extremists” as “derived from anti-government or anti-authority sentiment." In sum, to DHS, an “extremist” is anyone on left or right who opposes the prevailing ruling class & system for distributing power.