Yesterday was a flagship day in corporate media. It was the day they were forced to explicitly state what has long been clear: they not only favor censorship but desperately crave and depend on it.
Even if Musk doesn't buy Twitter, never forget what yesterday revealed.
In US culture, we're inculcated from childhood that censorship is bad. So of course nobody -- especially journalists -- wants to say: "I favor censorship."
That's why they need euphemisms like "content moderation": to pretend it's about bots, abuse, etc. rather than ideology.
Everyone knows they are lying. Nobody cares about Twitter censoring bots or spam. That's not what this is about.
The social media censorship people care about is 100% ideological: banning dissent on COVID, the Biden emails, culture war debates, etc. That's what's at stake.
Let's put it this way:
On Google/YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, you are free to say the 2000 and 2016 elections were stolen and fraudulent. You can't say that about 2020.
Before the 2020 election, you weren't allowed to post reporting on the Biden emails.
It's all ideological.
Throughout the COVID pandemic, you weren't allowed to question the efficacy of cloth masks. You weren't allowed to interrogate the origins of the virus. You weren't allowed to debate vaccines or lockdowns. No dissent from Fauci/WHO was allowed.
The censorship is 100% political.
You're allowed to spread any lies, propaganda and disinformation you want if it advances the Ukrainian cause (i.e., the US/NATO cause), but will be instantly banned if you say anything that challenges that on the ground of "Russia disinformation." This is all explicit.
Censorship of conservatives gets most attention because it's so common, but censorship of anti-establishment leftists is also frequent: any dissident can be banned.
Pretending this is about bots or spam is fraudulent. This censorship is about control of political information.
Social media was heralded as an innovation that would liberate individuals from centralized control by the state and oligarchical power over their speech.
It has become the exact opposite: the most powerful tool of information control and speech constraints ever devised.
How dumb do you have to be to believe that journalists - who work at Bloomberg and the Bezos-owned WPost or Comcast or CNN - are worried about billionaires controlling media (🤣).
They're only petrified that the *wrong* billionaire, one who may not censor for them, might reign.
There are many reasons to be skeptical of Musk's motives and, even if pure, his ability to restore free speech to Twitter. Way too many powerful interests need this censorship. But the panic reveals so much. My @getcallin show yesterday covered all this:
Left-liberal Twitch streamers and YouTube shows knew that to attract a pre-election audience (money), they had to tell their viewers Kamala was *clearly* winning.
So they randomly anointed a random Twitter user, @Ettingermentumv, into a data guru, who assured them all of it.
For months -- including just a couple weeks before the election -- this fraudulent partisan data guru kept saying the polls were wrong, the polling experts were wrong, the secret numbers he saw made clear that Kamala wasn't just ahead but ahead by a good distance.
This is as much a problem with partisan independent media as partisan corporate shows: they have to validate their viewers' desire to believe things even if untrue.
So after all the profit and Substack subscriptions were sold by this fraud, he wrote his "I-was-wrong" confession:
The belief that Joe Rogan and those like him are just an updated Fox News -- a non-stop messaging of right-wing ideology -- is beyond stupid.
Those podcasts grew organically: in part because they're not ideological or partisan. They're normal conversations: how humans speak.
Depicting Rogan as a far-right ideologue is something only those who never heard his show would say. AOC separated from Bernie's campaign after Bernie touted Rogan's endorsement.
He is a vehement defender of same-sex marriage. He believes in full freedom for adults' personal lives. He frequently argues that corporate power is suffocating the lives of ordinary people, etc. etc.
The most consequential - yet overlooked - Trump era change is many debates are no longer shaped by old left/right divisions, but instead by who loves, respects, and is loyal to institutions of authority (Dems) and who believes they're fundamentally corrupted (Trump supporters).
Today's NYT column by @ezraklein notes obvious exceptions (abortion, gun control), yet argues the key difference between Kamala and Trump voters is how much one likes US ruling institutions.
Hence, Dems love CIA, FBI, DHS, corporate media. Even views of corporate power changed.
@ezraklein Think about key debates. Which is right or left?
- Trust in large media corporations.
- Opposition to BigTech/state internet censorship.
- Opposition to funding endless wars (Ukraine).
- Eagerness to remain tied to NATO and EU-based institutions.
While many people in the West believe that Russia/Putin are "isolated" - because their media tells them that -- 2 dozen world leaders are in Russia now for a 3-day BRICS conference.
BRICS itself includes the 2 most-populous countries and 4 of the top 10 most populous.
Beyond the founding 5 (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa), it expanded to 5 more (including key US "partners" Egypt, UAE and maybe Saudi).
They "account for 45% of the global population" and 28% of global economy.
Key goal: a financial system independent of US dollar.
There's Western skepticism and even mockery that this huge confederation of countries -- united over perceived abuses of US/EU sanctions -- could create a non-dollar system. @TheEconomist takes it seriously.
Inacreditável que Alexandre de Moraes esteja constantemente concentrando em si próprio a figura de suposta vítima, investigador policial, promotor e o juiz - em seus próprios interesses.
Não há democracia onde uma pessoa pode investigar criminalmente o jornalismo que a reporta.
@lf_ponde @folha Aqui também: um ótimo artigo de @lygia_maria sobre a visão perturbada e perigosa de Moraes, a marca registrada de uma mentalidade tirana:
Que qualquer crítica ou questionamento feita ele é em si "um ataque à democracia" e, portanto, um crime.