Facebook engaged in one of the most extraordinary pre-election censorship campaigns seen in modern US history: they sent out a life-long Dem operative, @andymstone, to announce they would algorithmically suppress the NY Post's reporting of authentic docs about the Bidens.
Even with Facebook - through a Democratic Party functionary - censoring a major story just two weeks before the election that raised serious questions about Biden, Dems & the corporate media (same thing) *still* think FB didn't censor enough to help Dems:
The most amazing part is this FB executive, in that tweet announcing the censorship of the Biden docs, said they'd block the story pending a third-party "fact-check."
FB never released that fact-check. Why? Because everything, including a new book, proves the docs were real.
When FB and Twitter announced they were banning discussion of the authentic docs about the Bidens, reported by the NY Post, huge numbers of corporate media employees cheered and virtually none objected.
The leading advocates of censorship in the US are corporate media employees.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The internet is the last remaining instrument for dissent to thrive outside state and oligarchical control. This campaign aims to put an end to that.
The slick and well-financed rollout of this Facebook "whistleblower" star is designed to advance multiple censorship schemes.
One of Omidyar's central goals -- as his own multi-national foundation trumpets -- is to impose *criminal penalties* on platforms that allow disinformation, hate speech or "harmful" content.
This will be defined by the same handful of multi-billionaires funding this campaign.
O principal atributo de quem deseja censurar é a *arrogância*. Toda a história intelectual dos humanos é *erro*: o que uma geração acredita ser uma verdade provada é visto pela próxima geração como um erro grotesco.
Acreditar que tem a verdade absoluta é patológico.
Aqueles que querem censurar - ou, pior, dar às autoridades o poder de censurar - acreditam que estão imunes a este ciclo histórico: que descobriram a verdade tão absoluta que ninguém deveria poder questioná-la, nenhuma dissidência ouvida. Não consigo me imaginar acreditando nisso
Em 2013, no Guardian, escrevi um artigo sobre as 2 características que *todas as pessoas* que desejam censurar têm em comum são: 1) arrogância (acreditar que descobriu a verdade absoluta e 2) sede de poder (proibindo outros de questionar suas crenças).
The other reason it was so irrational to claim the lab leak theory was designed to fuel anti-China animus was because US INVOLVEMENT in that research was always central to that theory: the research came from Fauci's agencies through EcoHealth Alliance. It was US & China together.
In any event, there's no way for the corporate media to ignore this story now. The NIH letter *admitting* EcoHealth's research, funded by Fauci, made bat coronaviruses more contagious *proves* Fauci's statements to Congress were false. Only question is if Fauci knew it was false.
The leaders of the movement in the US to impose more corporate and state censorship on the internet - to make the internet less free and more subject to centralized control - are employees of media corporations who have been given the job title "journalist."
Surreal and twisted.
The subtext and often explicit message of virtually every article in the corporate media about anger over Facebook is that Facebook's principal sin is that they have not censored more political speech, and their salvation lies only in censoring more content that offends liberals.
This viral tweet, promoting an article he wrote for the Intercept, is a lie. The article is a fraud. It claims two student journalists were censored by administrators over a pro-union article, yet Bernard *never even tried to speak with the students*, both of whom say he's lying:
The story itself, like most in the Intercept, is trivial. The key point is this:
These news outlets boast of their editorial and fact-checking rigor but that's only for articles that undercut their ideology. For stories that promote it, *anything* goes:
I watched this over and over not just at TI but most pro-DNC, anti-Trump outlets.
If you wanted to write an article challenging DNC orthodoxy, it's put through the ringer, sandpapered down to nothing or blocked. But for any anti-Trump/GOP article, it's all waved through.
This is trivial theater to stimulate the liberal thirst for vengeance (which is dying after watching Mueller charge *nobody* with criminally conspiring with Russia and Biden DOJ charge *nobody* with insurrection or sedition), and to give CNN & MSNBC something to feed viewers:
FBI is telling news outlets it has searched and searched and found no evidence of centralized planning let alone insurrection on Jan 6. The NYT admitted FBI had informants at the Capitol it was talking to.
This spectacle is just for Adam Schiff & Liz Cheney to emote and distract
The lack of anger at Biden DOJ from those claiming to believe Jan. 6 was an insurrection is bizarre.
The only rational action for those who really believe this is marching outside in anger that nobody is charged with insurrection, sedition, trying to kill Pence, or kidnap AOC.