Seriously, who the fuck is the White House to be dictating who should and should not be banned from social media platforms, to keep lists of who they think are the spreaders of "misinformation," and then pressure companies they regulate to obey? This is pernicious shit:
Here's more of Jen Psaki issuing decrees on who should and shouldn't be allowed to use social media, then smugly scoffing at the notion that this should concern anyone on the ground that we're going to die if we don't submit to the White House's orders:

Day 2 of @ACLU silence as the White House expands its boasting of the pressure it's placing on the tech companies it regulates to censor content it designates as misleading and to ban the people on its lists, now insisting they be banned on all platforms.

With the US Govt and Silicon Valley monopolies merging their power to control political speech, platforms devoted to resisting this authoritarianism and protecting free discourse become increasingly important. Substack is one. So is @rumblevideo. Read:

Another crucial point: you don't have imagine or speculate that maybe the WH will start abusing this "misinformation" claim to censor content politically damaging to them.

They already did it: when Dems, media & tech monopolies censored the Biden archive based on this CIA lie:
When, right before the 2020 election, Twitter banned all links to the NY Post reporting on the Biden archive, and FB announced through its life-long Dem operative that it would block the reporting -- all based on a CIA lie -- and journalists cheered, the dangers were obvious.
That so many liberals are content with this state/corporate censorship is why I have to laugh when I get the "what happened to you?" question.

Nothing happened to me. You become complete authoritarians and allies of the security state and neocons in the name of stopping Trump.
I'll be on Fox in a bit -- 8pm ET, top of the show -- to discuss the two-day boasting of the Biden White House and Jen Psaki of their instructions to Facebook and other tech monopolies to remove content which the White House deems to be "misinformation."

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ggreenwald

17 Jul
If you trust the Biden WH to decree what is "misinformation," these claims have been deemed as such:

* COVID is transmitted human-to-human (Jan 2020)

* You should wear masks to protect against COVID (March 2020)

* It's possible COVID leaked from the Wuhan lab (all of 2020).
If, last March, you encouraged people to wear masks against COVID, the WHO/CDC/Fauci cabal said that was "disinformation."

If, throughout 2020, you said it seems possible COVID came from a lab leak, you were banned from social media.

Who trusts them to be the Ministry of Truth?
The people who lied repeatedly before the election, saying the authentic Biden documents were "Russian disinformation" - and censored reporting based on that lie - now want to anoint themselves the Ministry of Truth, empowered to censor "disinformation":

Read 16 tweets
15 Jul
The Biden administration is telling Facebook which posts it regards as "problematic" so that Facebook can remove them.

This is the union of corporate and state power -- one of the classic hallmarks of fascism -- that the people who spent 5 years babbling about fascism support.
If you don't find it deeply disturbing that the White House is "flagging" internet content that they deem "problematic" to their Facebook allies for removal, then you are definitionally an authoritarian. No other information is needed about you to know that.
There is no circumstance -- none -- in which it's acceptable for the White House or any other agency of the government to be providing lists to Facebook of "problematic" content it wants removed, yet's that exactly what Psaki says they're doing:

Read 9 tweets
15 Jul
Nancy and Paul Pelosi Making Millions in Stock Trades in Companies She Actively Regulates

greenwald.substack.com/p/nancy-and-pa…
The Speaker, already one of the richest members in Congress, has become far richer through investment maneuvers in Big Tech. In July, she had a private conversation with Apple CEO Tim Cook -- the company in which the couple has traded more frequently and profitably.
As the California Democrat has risen to obtain greater political power, her personal wealth has risen along with it. Pelosi “has seen her wealth increase to nearly $115 million from $41 million in 2004,” reports @OpenSecretsDC.

Much is from trades in industries she oversees.
Read 6 tweets
15 Jul
The part of the media that feigns anger at misinformation is uncritically promoting a story today by Luke Harding that Russia was blackmailing Trump -- the same Harding who has published many false stories, championed the Steele Dossier and claimed Trump was long a Russian agent.
It was Harding who published was one of the most sensationalized stories of the Trump era: that Manafort repeatedly met Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy. It was utterly fabricated. Everyone knows it's bullshit, never happened. Yet the Guardian has never corrected or retracted it
Now suddenly, Harding claims he obtained leaked, highly sensitive Kremlin documents that just so happen to prove all the lies he's been peddling for years, that not even Mueller's huge team found. Because it advances liberals' interests, journalists are uncritically spreading it.
Read 8 tweets
14 Jul
Many on the right spent the last five years arguing -- correctly -- that the CIA and the rest of the intelligence community are pernicious liars, authoritarians and tyrants, but now -- what? -- should be unleashed to bring benevolent freedom and democracy to the Cuban people?
What's the difference between Hillary Clinton wanting to use the US military to bring regime change to Iraq, Syria and Libya -- claiming she just wants to help the people there -- and those now urging the US Govt intervene to change the regime in Cuba?

At least Marco Rubio never pretended to be anything other than a war-mongering neoconservative and interventionist, wanting to overthrow governments he doesn't like & use regime-change operations to "help." But many on the right purport to oppose that:

Read 7 tweets
13 Jul
It's stunning how the networks who put Michael Avenatti on over and over and over and over and depicted him as the Nation's Conscience and even hyped him as a serious presidential contender have all but ignored his prison sentence and multiple other pending felony trials.
And as usual, the standard elite self-exoneration of "we-couldn't-have-known" is utter bullshit. Aside from the fact that the stench of Avenatti's sleazy fraud suffocated anyone within a mile radius, countless people pointed out at the time how exploitative and dishonest he was.
This passage on the role corporate journalists have played in shaping the animating worldview of MAGA supporters -- the intense, often-justified seething contempt they harbor for journalists -- was one of the most important passages of @martyrmade's essay

outsidevoices.substack.com/p/author-of-th…
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(