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":
Please read this smart @michaelbd article on vaccine skeptics. If you show people you think they're primitive imbeciles, then demand they obey your dictates, it's natural they will resist, not comply. Liberals always think their adversaries are stupid:
Every time I was on Fox to talk about COVID, I always said I would get the vaccine. Then when I got it, I said that, too. But I'm glad it was my choice, that I was able to inform myself and weigh risks and benefits by reading different sources. Demanding obedience backfires.
There's good reason people distrust government (which lies constantly) and health experts (who also lied constantly along with getting much wrong and, worse, politicizing COVID advice: stay home! go to BLM protests!).
People lost faith in institutions of authority. Ask why.
But whatever else is true, having Jen Psaki boast about how the WH is dictating to social media companies who they should ban and what content they should remove -- as they exercise vast power over them and call them murderers -- should deeply disturb any rational person.
Welcome to day 3 of the @ACLU's utter silence about the fact that the White House is openly boasting about their attempts to coerce social media companies -- which they can destroy through regulatory enforcement -- to ban people and content the WH unilaterally deems dangerous.
Every censor throughout history, in every culture, has justified their censorship by claiming the suppressed information is dangerous and the censorship is for the public good.
Liberals defending the Biden WH on this ground think they invented some novel, benevolent rationale.
Here, by the way, is the portion of my discussion with Tucker last night about Cuba: where he lambasts the GOP in Congress for fixating on Cuba and trying to dictate its internal affairs instead of focusing on the US. What other outlet would allow this?
As @mtracey documents, the notion that the US should be intervening in and "fixing" Cuba -- even as it supports and props up countless tyrannies that are far worse -- is not confined to the GOP but is fully bipartisan. How is this the role of the US Govt?
This is one of the key Supreme Court cases that held that when the government pressures private actors to censor, that is a violation of the First Amendment free speech guarantee because the state is doing indirectly what it can't do itself:
I wrote about that Supreme Court case when I reported on how Dems in Congress were explicitly threatening tech CEOs with regulatory action if they didn't censor more. This is what ACLU's Ben Wizner told me about why that coercion can be unconstitutional:
CNN: "Senior Biden officials finding that Covid lab leak theory" -- which social media companies spent 2020 banning anyone who mentioned it -- is now "as credible as natural origins explanation"
How come people don't trust the media? Why is it insane to trust authorities to censor?
People were vilified by the corporate press as deranged conspiracy theorists -- and banned from social media -- for raising a theory the Biden Admin itself now says is highly plausible:
Given human fallibility, seems like the best thing to do is allow people to debate, question and dissent from official pronouncements rather than empowering those authorities to decree what is True and False and forcibly silence anyone who doesn't agree?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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