I have heard my whole life: those with money control the world, have special privileges, are first in line, etc., but the power has shifted in recent years. Money is no longer the nexus it was. Those who control information now shape the narrative and manipulate an increasingly uniformed and emotionally driven people.
Ironically, access to information and the ability for virtually everyone to disseminate information is greater than it as have ever been. Dozens of ordinary folks filmed events in Butler, Pa. when Donald Trump was almost assassinated; dozens more filmed events in Minneapolis when George Floyd died. Anyone can go viral for newsworthy events. We might never know the full truth if not for citizen journalists. Traditional media, however, is threatened by such random journalism, journalism that is often more genuine than what they cook up. The liberalization of this market distorts their carefully crafted narrative. It is not good for business.
The media has always been tilted to the Left. Years ago, there were only three TV news networks, a handful of influential news periodicals, no internet, and no such thing as talk radio. In the 1980’s, Rush Limbaugh broke through that monopoly reaching millions via talk radio. He inspired many other conservative talk shows. Liberals called foul because there was no popular liberal counter to Limbaugh. Limbaugh’s influence was deemed unfair. They attempted to revive the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, a law Limbaugh called the the “Hush Rush” law.
“Rush Limbaugh has every right to be (on the air) but that radio station has to give equal time to another point of view,” NY Rep Louise Slaughter to Bill Moyers on his PBS program, “Now,” in December 2004.
What if I don’t want my favorite station providing alternative views? I prefer one that promotes my views. Let some other station provide a competitive viewpoint–if they can.
Today’s potential army of citizen journalists armed with cell phones is even more frightening to one-channel media. In response, they claim limitations are necessary to stop dangerous hate speech and misinformation. They even call unedited, unscripted videos depicting their own words as misrepresentations.
Government has even attempted to establish boards to police speech https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/politics/dhs-disinformation-board/index.html, Who is to police an out-of-control disinformation board? Who fact checks these fact checkers? How long will it be before your speech is targeted? It will happen eventually.
Can We Determine the Truth Tellers?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57870778
US President Joe Biden has warned that the spread of Covid-19 misinformation on social media is “killing people”. He was responding to a question from a reporter about the alleged role of “platforms like Facebook” in spreading falsehoods about vaccines and the pandemic.
Biden was, of course, supported by a sycophantic one-channel media.
I thought the lies regarding COVID vaccines were the actual problem. I do not blame Facebook for killing people simply by allowing dissenting opinions. Millions of discerning folks agree with me. What if these dissenting opinions are indeed the truth? We can find many such examples throughout history. Just allow both views to be heard. That’s easy.
We might all agree there are countless lies being spread today, but differ regarding who are the truth tellers. Biden says Facebook, a powerful force in itself, must conform to his version of the truth. Let Biden convince folks the old fashioned way: work for it. Why should Biden’s version trump anyone else’s? Why weaken First Amendment protections because of COVID-19 (or any other so-called crisis)?
“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” First Amendment to the US Constitution
The First Amendment is absolute. There are no exceptions for crises, nor should there be. When speech is limited, for whatever seemingly noble reason, be afraid. The First Amendment protects the less powerful, yet today we hear calls to stifle dissenting voices like yours and mine by the one in control of the powerful government gun. Government officials pretend they protect us from misinformation, but they are just as likely to be the ones spreading it. Is it really too dangerous for any of us to hear misinformation in any case? We can think for ourselves.
It all becomes worse when the free press doesn’t do its job. We all should be able to express our preferences, but media abuses its constitutional privilege by supporting dishonest policies and calling to censor those they disagree with. They are often the most vocal advocates for censorship, giving cover to political leaders. Give anyone (one-channel media, Fox News, Joe Biden, Donald Trump, etc.) the power to police speech and truth loses all meaning. Liars need competitors, but the liars fear the exposure that comes from competition.
What is Hate Speech?
“Eliminating hate speech” is a dangerous siren call directed towards an emotionally driven public. The pitch is appealing because speech you do not like is targeted. When we tell our children hard truths they don’t want to hear, they basically consider it hate speech. Calling uncomfortable truths “hate speech” limits our pain and protects our ego, but labels doesn’t negate its veracity. . The problem is that it is child’s play to label anything hate speech. For instance, requiring an ID to vote is hate speech per some:
This is simply a redux of a failed system that is designed to both scare people out of voting and make it harder for those who are willing to push through, make it harder for them to vote. — Stacy Abrams on CNN
Abrams’ claim is also echoed repeatedly by one-channel media, but it is not true. ID requirements are not hate speech because they are required for countless other endeavors–like attending the Democrat National Convention. https://loudobbs.com/news/watch-steve-cortez-tries-to-get-illegal-alien-into-dnc-convention-democrat-officials-demand-id-and-credentials-to-enter-dnc-is-more-secure-than-our-border-video/ . Furthermore, ID requirements, per the narrative, are only hateful in one instance. What silliness.
When the “hate speech” narrative is repeated continually, many accept it, but buyer beware. It is a 50-50 gamble: either truth is being suppressed or a lie is put to rest. I don’t like those odds.
the people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death light has arisen. Matthew 4:16
Instead, hateful speech dies a shameful death by exposing it to broad daylight, not by burying it. A lie is best exposed when forced to stand side by side with the true and the good. Thankfully, a large majority of Americans still support voter ID laws, so this phony hate speech has not been banned everywhere yet. When truth is eventually censored and only the lie allowed to stand, where are we then?
Don’t Worry. Be Happy
Maybe you see this differently than I? Maybe you trust your professional censors? If so, what do you know about them? Can they consistently judge the truth and do you trust their motivations? If you can’t (or would rather not) unravel the lies on your own, why trust the job to media or Homeland Security’s “Disinformation Governance Board” or anybody else? The Disinformation Board was shut down two years ago before it got off the ground, but it will be tried again.
Perhaps, this deal is good for many: enjoy your comfort while someone else determines what is true and what is not. Enjoy Netflix each evening and don’t worry about the difficult political problems. The red pill is far too dangerous for your sensitive emotions!
The blue pill is bliss. Give the trusted folks the power while you remain safely in the Matrix: avoid conflict, pain, messy debate, and difficult decisions. The powers that be will mold your beliefs and then continually confirm them for you. How wonderful to know you are on the right side of all the issues–and without having to lift a finger yourself. After all, when there is only one narrative, what else are you to believe?
Be careful: don’t drift towards God or religion because you will be challenged and forced to accept your own limitations; you might even get your hands messy. Life is totally unfulfilling without God (we need a purpose), but in your blue pill world, difficulties vanish. Happiness and bliss are wonderful drugs.
Authoritarian regimes rely on censorship because it is necessary for them to retain power. Aldous Huxley predicted they would buy cooperation with a carrot (with the perfect drug in Brave New World: Soma) while George Orwell predicted (in 1984) it would be the stick (Big Brother is watching). We have a mix of both today.
“‘We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us. . . . We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him.’” George Orwell, 1984
How is the Game Played Today?
Most folks know little about VP Kamala Harris. She does as few interviews as possible. The one interview she actually conducted recently was by friendly media, taped, alongside her VP choice, and edited to 26 minutes. It was still unflattering. She also avoids questions from journalists who seek an ad-hoc comment. She does no town halls with voters. Her campaign rallies are carefully scripted to avoid revealing too much. Candidness is not her most appealing quality.
The contrast between her and President Trump in this regard is startling. Her supporters are happy she can, unlike the last nominee, string together sentences, but if they only knew more, they wouldn’t be so sanguine. The less discerning and less interested public is kept in the dark by one-channel media which unashamedly supports her campaign by suppressing all negative stories. Her avoidance strategy is a non-story for them. Anything Harris does is deemed good by one-channel media because victory is the only thing that matters to them. They did the same with President Biden. They said he was vital and the best he had ever been until that lie could no longer be supported. This is the how the information game is played by a dishonest and corrupt media.
Still, the risk to one-channel media’s tightly controlled narrative is real. There are numerous conservative media outlets who tell the rest of the story (although their overall reach is less than one-channel media’s). There are also those aforementioned citizen journalists who can emerge from the milieu and unexpectedly go viral with a counter to the media’s lies; how can the narrative be effectively controlled with a risk that can emerge virtually anywhere at anytime? The media itself is legally protected from censorship, but one-channel media does not want protections extended beyond themselves; they especially do not want unprofessional folks, the unwashed masses of ordinary citizens, participating in journalism.
Wait! The Problem is Actually Elon Musk
One-channel media and friends to not want a rouge billionaire entrepreneur to influence the conversation– not unless he believes as they do. Jack Dorsey, the prior owner of Twitter/X, censored the right speech (e.g. the politically charged Hunter Biden laptop story in October 2020: 50-intelligence-officials-say-so), but this new owner allows too much speech.
“The truth is that [Musk’s] been casting around for a reason to blame us for his own failings as a CEO, because we all know that when he took over, he put up the bat signal to racists, to misogynists, to homophobes, to anti-Semites, saying Twitter is now a free speech platform. He welcomed them back on,” [Hate Speech Watchdog] Ahmed said.
The same could be said regarding phone companies. Any technology can be used for good or for bad; people will say it all no matter what Elon Musk or anyone else does. Why is Musk alone responsible for what billions on X say? Why judge him by some impossible standard? Is it even hate speech to begin with? Without censorship, all speech, including negative speech, is necessarily increased. Again, hateful speech dies a shameful death when exposed to broad daylight.
“‘Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.’” George Orwell, 1984
Various governments are now targeting Musk as well, and for what? For simply allowing folks to speak their minds? For not censoring speech which self-appointed information brokers do not like?
Early 2024, Musk became enmeshed in a controversy in Australia during which a Christian bishop was stabbed during a church service. The bishop was explaining why a certain “religion of peace” is not so peaceful immediately before the attack.
https://www.christianpost.com/news/bishop-loses-sight-in-eye-after-being-stabbed-during-sermon.html
Police arrested at least five people for their alleged involvement in the protest violence.
The 16-year-old boy accused of stabbing the bishop has been charged with a terrorism offense. The teen’s identity has not been released. Last week, law enforcement in Australia arrested seven teenagers accused of being part of an extremist network that the 16-year-old suspect is allegedly a part of.
It seems reasonable to want more of this story. Musk, along with church leaders, believe it is acceptable to show the video of the attack, one which was clearly religious motivated. The Australian government objected to this exercise of free speech.
Australian authorities say the clips threw fuel on a riot that erupted outside the church after the attack and shouldn’t be available for general viewing on a global platform, where it could be used to radicalize potential offenders.
The country’s eSafety commissioner ordered social media giants to take it down.
The video could radicalize potential offenders? Is there not a radicalization problem already? An attacker of a different religion maims a clergyman during a church service, and the story must be suppressed to avoid stirring up more trouble? I would like to know more, not because I want to retaliate against anyone personally, but because I want the whole story: the good, the bad, and the ugly. I want to think for myself and not parrot others’ opinions. Apparently, government officials much smarter than me have determined folks like me cannot be be trusted; we must defer to them. One-channel media echoes the government’s cries for censorship.
Australian authorities say the clips threw fuel on a riot that erupted outside the church after the attack and shouldn’t be available for general viewing on a global platform, where it could be used to radicalize potential offenders.
Increasingly extreme measures are necessary to retain control of the information. The story can no longer be suppressed by appealing to Jack Dorsey (an effective strategy four years ago). Elon Musk appears to be wearing a different jersey than Dorsey–and that’s the whole problem for one-channel media.
The country’s eSafety commissioner ordered social media giants to take it down.
Most complied, but X didn’t go far enough, according to the commissioner.
Australia wants X to remove the video completely, not just hide it from Australian users who could circumvent a local ban by using virtual private networks.
There is no cogent reason why only this particular act of violence should be suppressed. George Floyd’s death was demagogued and a false narrative created regarding his cause. The US had riots for months afterwards, but nobody argued videos depicting his demise should be suppressed. Calls for censorship in that instance would not have been well received.
X says that’s an assault on free speech.
“Our concern is that if ANY country is allowed to censor content for ALL countries, which is what the Australian ‘eSafety Commissar’ is demanding, then what is to stop any country from controlling the entire Internet? Musk posted on X
This is a dramatic deviation from the long-held Western principle of free speech, but there is apparently a brand-new (yet also long held per these liars), principle of content moderation.
Joanne Gray, a lecturer in digital cultures at the University of Sydney, said the eSafety commissioner’s attempt to extend the takedown orders beyond Australia’s borders was not an overreach.
“There’s a long history of platforms working with policymakers and civil society and different groups to moderate content, and Musk’s position is a deviation from that,” she told CNN.
This incident in Australia was only a preview. Months later, a Brazilian judge actually banned X entirely because Musk would not cooperate with the judge’s view of content moderation (i.e. censorship).
https://time.com/7016537/brazil-blocks-elon-musk-x-twitter-company-refuses-comply-judge/
Accounts that the platform previously has shut down on Brazilian orders include lawmakers affiliated with former President Jair Bolsonaro’s right-wing party and activists accused of undermining Brazilian democracy.
Shutting down accounts of political opponents is a tactic used in US before. Did right-wingers actually undermine Democracy or has this accusation just become standard fare for anyone disliked?
Zuckerburg’s Conscience
Two months ago, I said this: can-our-first-amendment-rights-hold
We should be concerned with government and social media collaborating again in 2024–and after this ruling there is nothing to stop nefarious actors from censoring more speech. Even when the biased hidden agenda is exposed, the risk is clearly worth the reward to the bad actors. There are enough voters who will be fooled: deny there is a hidden agenda and then when the hidden agenda is finally exposed, say it was for the public good, in any case.
Six weeks later, Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg confirmed this very thing:
zuckerburg-admits-biden-harris-pressured-facebook
Zuckerberg admitted in a letter to House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan that senior Biden administration officials “repeatedly pressured” Facebook teams to suppress COVID-19 content that the platform otherwise would not have restricted, and expressed frustration when Facebook disagreed. Zuckerberg told Jordan he now feels strongly that the platform should not compromise its standards “due to pressure from any Administration in either direction.”
“I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it,” Zuckerberg wrote. “I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today.”
Mr. Zuckerburg then promised to stay out of politics in 2024. Does he have a guilty conscience? Perhaps he wishes to highlight problems with the last election and avoid a repeat. He poured hundreds of millions into the 2020 election (“Zuckerbucks”) to support Democrats, yet now he is painting his 2020 allies in a bad light.
He too may face pressure for exposing a problem.
For there is nothing hidden that will not become visible, and nothing secret that will not be known and come to light. Luke 8:17
Folks, censorship is real. Limiting the power of the ordinary citizens is a hallmark of authoritarian governments.
Upping the Ante
Now there are calls to boycott Musk’s other business: Space X, Tesla, etc. Allowing free speech is so problematic, he must be punished financially. The powers that be must maintain our control over information.
Musk cannot be intimidated, so a natural progression is played out: bankrupt businesses, pass new laws to target offenders, and even arrest the free speech fiends if you must. What do you think comes next if these measures prove insufficient? They will do whatever necessary to break resistance and claim it is just.
global-struggle-against-authoritarianism
IN THE GLOBAL STRUGGLE AGAINST AUTHORITARIANISM, THE WEST’S REAL ENEMY IS ITSELF American politicians speak constantly about the indispensable role of the United States in leading the free world against authoritarianism. If that is true, why is the White House so silent in the face of new global threats to free speech?
In January, American citizen Gonzalo Lira died in a Ukrainian prison for posting YouTube videos; the State Department didn’t lift a finger to help.
Last week, Telegram founder Pavel Durov was arrested in France for the crime of insufficient content moderation.
Now Brazil has banned X for resisting the diktats of a tyrannical judge, who salivates over the possibility of jailing@elonmusk. The EU is one step behind, with Eurocrat Thierry Breton pursuing a criminal investigation against Elon for “platforming disinformation,” which Breton defines to include a conversation with Donald Trump.
In the UK, the government of Keir Starmer imprisons critics of open borders with more zeal than it prosecutes violent crime. In Canada, Justin Trudeau crushed a trucker protest against vaccine mandates by asserting sweeping new powers to freeze bank accounts.
The threat to all is real and it must be countered. It is not an easy fight.
At no point has the White House expressed concern about this new iron curtain that seems to be descending across the West. Quite the contrary, Mark Zuckerberg confirmed that the Biden-Harris administration repeatedly pressured Meta to censor during Covid. Worse, the FBI primed Facebook to censor true stories about Biden Family corruption by suggesting that Hunter Biden’s laptop was Russian disinformation (even though the FBI knew it was authentic).
Barring court intervention, TikTok will shut down in the U.S. on January 19, 2025 thanks to a new power authorized by Congress to ban websites and applications that the President determines are subject to the influence of a foreign adversary. X may not be far behind if liberal elites and deep state apparatchiks like Robert Reich and Alexander Vindman get their wish. They have called for the U.S. to adopt Brazil’s and the EU’s approach and “rein in” Elon Musk.
Hypocritically, the same voices demanding this crackdown are also the loudest in proclaiming the West to be engaged in a “war on authoritarianism” against countries like Russia and China. But whatever their other sins, Russia and China are in no position to deprive American citizens of their free speech rights; only our own government can do that.
Similarly, if Western leaders truly wanted to prevent authoritarianism, the easiest place to start would be at home, protecting the civil liberties of their own citizens. Instead they seem obsessed with deflecting the public’s attention onto foreign enemies, as Orwell depicted in the Two Minutes Hate in 1984.
As this battle over free speech heats up in an election year, where do the candidates stand? Donald Trump has declared his support for free speech whereas Kamala Harris has said nothing and can be expected to continue her administration’s policy of tacit approval of creeping censorship. In just two months, Americans will decide. Do we actually lead the free world in standing up for free speech, or do we accept the authoritarianism we claim to detest so much?
The media today is the most corrupt and dishonest institution in America. They, not the big corporations, are the power behind the throne, a power stemming from their control of information, a power they guard jealously. They think the rest of us are rubes they can manipulate for their grift. Recognize them for what they are and do not allow yourself to be captured by their lies.
Dave https://seek-the-truth.com/about/
seek-the-truth.com
Seek the Truth 