THE CENSORSHIP MASTER PLAN DECODED (Report to Trump and Congress that kneecapped Facebook/Twitter)

SCRIBD.com ^ | Jul 16, 2018 | Mike Adams

[E. Pluribus Unum]

THE CENSORSHIP MASTER PLAN DECODED (i.e. “The Adams Report”)

The blueprint for how tech giants covertly silence online speech, and how America can fight back against corporate tech monopolists

Part One: The Societal Cost of Censorship and the Denial of the Right to Exist

Part Two: The Fight for Reality (censorship motivations and justifications)

Part Tree: The Fallacy of “Fake News”

Part Four: Decentralization and the Structure of News Consumption

Part Five: Technological and Psychological Methods of Overt and Covert Censorship

Part Six: Legislative and Regulatory Solutions to Techno-Tyranny

[who_would_fardels_bear]

The attack on Facebook could actually end up making things worse for conservatives.

The last controversial thing that Zuckerberg said was that he would allow Holocaust deniers to continue to post on Facebook as long as they didn't incite violence.

This was the straw that broke the camel's back. NOT anything about hi-tech censorship.

This could be the beginning of a push by the left to get hate speech legislation through Congress.

Even if anyone outside the conservosphere really cares about shadow banning, demonetization, etc. the left and their MSM spokesfags will twist this into a crusade for hate speech legislation.

Then we'll be as bad off as the UK and many on FR will be in danger of suffering the same fate as Tommy Robinson.

[raiderboy]

This must be stopped by a law protecting the civil right of political affiliation and speech from discrimination.

[Zathras]

Those of us in high tech have tried to tell the GOP-e it has been going on for 20 years.
They are just slightly more open about it now.
People were afraid to let anyone know as the very real possibility it damage their carrier.

[frog in a pot]

The last controversial thing that Zuckerberg said was that he would allow Holocaust deniers to continue to post on Facebook as long as they didn't incite violence.
This was the straw that broke the camel's back. NOT anything about hi-tech censorship.

Would you explain the causal relationship? Thank you.

[Behind the Blue Wall]

I don’t agree. I think there’s a good case for applying by statute if necessary Marsh v. Alabama to all social media platforms. That would reduce their power to censor not increase it.

[Nifster]

So you want even bigger government?

[Albion Wilde]

bump

[Mariner]

Neither Facebook or Twitter have a monopoly on the dissemination of information.

Therefore their censorship is their business, nobody else’s.

If you don’t like what they do, unsubscribe. If you do not, you MUST like what they do. There is no other explanation.

[Mariner]

“This must be stopped by a law protecting the civil right of political affiliation and speech from discrimination.”

Huh?

Think about what you wrote for a minute.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

At what point do they become a “public accommodation?”

Or is “public accommodation” a one-way street?

[Bryanw92]

>>Then we’ll be as bad off as the UK and many on FR will be in danger of suffering the same fate as Tommy Robinson.

Or it will be that spark that sets off the powder keg.

[raiderboy]

absolutely , in fact, we need hate crimes to protect conservatives from assault. This has gotten out of hand and we need Congressional hearing very soon or there is going to be retaliation.

[Mach9]

Because . . . ?

Battery, even mere assault, are already crimes. No need for a hate-additive.

[raiderboy]

We need federal crimes for political motivated assault. There is no doubt it is a hate crime. none.

[libstripper]

Right now Facebook is facing a massive loss of value. Strange how that seems to follow massive disclosures of how it censors its content. The NFL seems to be facing a similar “coincidence” regarding its kneeling anti-American players and massively dropping attendance and viewing. Looks to me like that wonderful thing, the free market, is making its judgments and assessing its penalties.

[Mariner]

Ideological discrimination is legal in public accommodation.

It’s just not very smart.

[YogicCowboy]

Those are the words of what I now call a Cookie-Cutter Conservative: a simplistic rationalization based upon the myth that we - with many thousands of regulations strangling small husinesses, and with many thousands of leftist bureaucrats oppressing the rights of citizens - have a free market.

These two are publicly-traded companies [IPO = Initial PUBLIC Offering: not private!], with an openly-solicited consumer base, from which active users they derive profit, and to whom they post official terms of service.

Selectively and deceitfully enforcing the terms of service is consumer fraud.

Deliberately enacting policies that lower market share value for stockholders is fiscal malfeasance.

Both of those are legally actionable (perhaps not winnable in today’s world of leftist lawfare and activist judges - but that is a separate issue.) If you do not like consumers and stockholders to have any legal recourse in the case of corporate abuse, then lobby for legislation to that effect.

Meanwhile, spare those of us who actually live in the real world from sanctimonious claptrap.

[Mariner]

“sanctimonious claptrap”

It’s apparent to all that’s just what we heard from you.

What you did not address is my contention that Facebook and Twitter are not monopolies.

Do you wish to challenge that legal contention, or just bloviate?