(VIDEO) Tucker: Big Tech Smothering Hunter’s Email Story Is Censorship on a Scale We Never Imagined

MenRec ^ | 10/15/20 | Staff

[rustyweiss74]

Tucker Carlson slams Twitter and Facebook for censoring the Hunter Biden story:

"This was mass censorship on a scale that America has never experienced in 245 years. It’s a threat to all of us."

[rustyweiss74]

Thank God for forums such as this one.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

If Biden wins, you can count on the Dems finding a way to strangle all the conservative forums. They are hell-bent on one-party communist rule and will brook no opposition.

[Brilliant]

If there is a conspiracy between them I would use the antitrust laws.

[wiseprince]

Plenty of us imagined it. When they came after Alex Jones that was a HUGE red herring. People hated Alex so much that they didn’t care and didn’t want to stand up for him. This was entirely predictable

[z3n]

Why is information so dangerous to these people.

If these were real falsehoods, you would debunk them and move on.

Censorship is not about debunking lies because it’s innane when it does that. It’s about silencing damaging truths.

[MAGAthon]

expect more of the China model if Joe wins (which he won’t):

20 Jul: Real Clear Energy: Joe Biden’s Climate and Energy Plan Is a Gift for China
By Daniel Turner
If there were any doubt before the coronavirus pandemic, there’s little now: China is not America’s ally; it’s not a “strategic competitor;” and it’s not an adversary. Simply put, China is an enemy...

Unfortunately, China’s materials dominance extends beyond the coronavirus. In a new study my group Power The Future documents (LINK) China’s virtual monopoly of rare earth elements (REEs) – integral components of more than 200 products across a wide range of industries especially “green energy” technology like wind turbines and solar panels. The communist nation control 95% of these elements, so let’s connect the dots: American leadership pushes a “green” agenda and American power transitions from domestic fossils to Chinese technology. Just as they did during the Covid crisis, China will gladly, aggressively exploit this position...

Last year, the Trump Administration released a strategy to promote critical minerals development in the U.S. The plan is sensible and intended to break America’s dependence on China for REEs. Yet, sadly, the eco-left would rather allow America’s current vulnerability to China than support President Trump. The radical Sierra Club attacked the strategy as “dangerous” because, they claim, it comes “at the cost of some of our most important landscapes.”...

In the past few years America has liberated our energy out from under OPEC, the Saudis, and the Russians. As the world’s number one producer of oil and gas, we are not threatened by Iranian actions in the Straits of Hormuz or Islamic terrorism in the Gulf Region. This is what “energy independence” means. I call it “energy dominance”. The left used to call it “no blood for oil”...

Are we going to, in the name of “climate change” or “saving the planet” put energy, the very lifeblood of our economy and existence, into the hands of communists?

Biden claims we have nine years to fix climate change and promises a green future to save us. In reality green energy markets are owned and dominated by China, and if we “go green” we will go red. With our electric grid, our cars, our very power controlled by Xi Jinping it will be impossible for America to be energy independent again.
https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2020/07/20/joe_bidens_climate_and_energy_plan_is_a_gift_for_china_499500.html

[Wally_Kalbacken]

The only solution is federal ownership of the physical infrastructure of the internet in the US - then the first amendment would apply without question. Due to the ineptitude of the Federal government and its own corruption, I doubt anyone wants to go down this path. But it is the simple fix.

[allendale]

Twitter and Facebook don’t pretend to be journalists. They are biased forums that unfortunately have huge usage, viewership and influence. However it is now clearly crunch time for the New York Times. The Times has access to the same hard drive that is the source of the NY Post stories. Will the Times exercise what is left of their claim to being journalists, duly study the harddrive, investigate and publish a story? Or will having so much vested in the Leftist narrative ignore it and openly collude with the Biden campaign. Clearly if the Times writes a story the wall of resistance in the rest of the MSM will collapse and the Biden candidacy will be ruined. However the leftist owners, editors and hard core staff of the Times will probably easily resist the urge to print the news and the last vestiges of intergity will be gone at the once notable New York Times.

[Bratch]

Bookmark Today’s Date – Big Tech Has Crossed The Event Horizon to Protect Joe Biden…

Posted on October 14, 2020 by sundance

---

Everyone knew it would eventually happen and today is the day.  In an effort to influence the 2020 U.S. election, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter and the social media technocrats have crossed the Rubicon today and banned all sharing of the explosive information about Hunter and Joe Biden’s self-serving deals with Ukraine.

In an effort to stop evidence from surfacing showing candidate Joe Biden lied about his involvement with corrupt Ukraine business deals, Facebook and Twitter have openly deployed their activist technicians to generate algorithms blocking content sharing of The New York Post article(s).  Additionally all users, including White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany are being removed from all platforms for sharing the story.

The New York Post responds:

So much for Facebook’s claims to be a neutral platform: One of its top execs just put the social media giant firmly in the pro-Biden camp. And Twitter soon followed suit.

Andy Stone, Facebook’s policy communications manager, boasted about burying The Post’s story on proof that Hunter Biden merchandized access to his dad.

Stone’s tweet Wednesday morning: “While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want be clear that this story is eligible to be fact-checked by Facebook’s third-party fact-checking partners. In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.”

Within hours, Twitter was preventing users from tweeting out the story — with a high-tech trick that let you seem to post it, only to send your tweet into some holding-tank limbo. Its excuse was the supposed “lack of authoritative reporting on the origins of the materials included in the article,” which might — might! — violate its “Hacked Materials Policy.” That The Post made it very clear how the information ended up in the newspaper’s possession didn’t matter. (read more)

This is the moment when the event horizon is crossed.  This is the moment when Big Tech goes all-in to influence the election.  This is the moment of no retreat for those who own and operate the social media platforms.  If they lose the 2020 election, the social media platforms will be regulated and dismantled…. they know it… and they are all-in.

These entities are worth hundreds of billions, and all of those stakeholders are now exposed to the outcome of the 2020 election.  The scale of the financial risk shows how severe this move is… yes, they are all-in.  It should also be remembered that former FBI chief-legal-counsel James Baker is now the lead counsel for Facebook.

Remarkably, and reflecting the strength and accuracy of the documentary evidence, according to Politico the Biden campaign is now making a strategic retreat from their previous denials:

[…]  In a statement, Biden campaign spokesman Andrew Bates said, “we have reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.”

[…] Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule. But they said any encounter would have been cursory. Pozharskyi did not respond to a request for comment. (read more)

Yet, despite the shift in the Biden campaign statement; which now reflects the accuracy of the New York Post reporting; the tech overlords are still trying to protect their candidate.

---

[Several imbedded tweets follow at linked story]

 

[z3n]

The only solution is federal ownership of the physical infrastructure of the internet in the US - then the first amendment would apply without question. Due to the ineptitude of the Federal government and its own corruption, I doubt anyone wants to go down this path. But it is the simple fix.

~~~

Psychical ownership only means the government will have the power to control or suppress speech, rather than just big tech doing it. Technically that should be against the first amendment but we know how the constitution doesn’t matter to the swamp, regardless of party (although one is worse than the other).

What needs to happen is that these companies should not have loop holes that allow them to be protected from the legal scrutiny of their actions by private citizens as if they were mere platforms/service providers/conduits while having the liberty to take editorial actions on what gets through in their service like publishers do.

It’s the perfect storm of Lose/Lose scenario for the people.
Either they should be on the hook for allowing all reasonable content so that they are protected from what gets published on their platforms by their users, or they should be declared publishers themselves and held accountable for their choice of what is published!

[rightwingcrazy]

“This was entirely predictable”

Not only that, it was widely predicted. And companies like Google more or less promised it. Years ago.

[FreeReign]

Either they should be on the hook for allowing all reasonable content so that they are protected from what gets published on their platforms by their users, or they should be declared publishers themselves and held accountable for their choice of what is published!

It's too late now to just allow them to become publishers. They've monopolized their segments.

Anti trust action is needed.

[No_More_Harkin]

Indeed. Because their fact checkers want to protect us from lies, something we can’t do on our own, cuz they’re just better and smarter.
Us hicks and deplorables in the boondocks need the coastal elites to shield us from orange man and bible thumping clingers.

[bitt]

p

[AppyPappy]

It’s not censorship. It is suppression.

[glorgau]

When they came after Alex Jones that was a HUGE red herring.

That was a coordinated test run in preparation for the election.

[GOPJ]

Tucker’s got amazing instincts... he’s right, it’s either censorship... or an ‘in-kind’ contribution to a campaign...

Or maybe both... or more.

Thanks Tucker...

[central_va]

My local radio affiliate is ignoring the story while at the same time Rush is blasting the story on his show. This is surreal.

[slowhandluke]

"The only solution is federal ownership of the physical infrastructure of the internet in the US - then the first amendment would apply without question. Due to the ineptitude of the Federal government and its own corruption, I doubt anyone wants to go down this path. But it is the simple fix."

You mean like the Post Office? Not a great idea.

The physical structure isn't the problem here, anyway. That's already covered the same why phone calls are. at&t, verizon can't block your calls because they don't like you, or the person you called. The internet is what is provided by your ISP and what connects you to Facebook. Facebook is not 'the internet', anymore than your home computer is. Let the USPS decide what is the internet that they should own, and it will (eventually) include your home computer as well as Facebooks computers.

Just remove section 230 protections, and let folks sue Twitter/Facebook for what they publish. Sue again for defamation/libel for calling something fake when they refuse to publish it.

Prosecute Zuck and Jack for lying to Congress. That would help and be better than having to pay them billions for the eminent domain seizure of their companies.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

What it means is that anything the federal government did that affected speech would have to be content neutral. So if the US government owned the physical network that forms the internet, it could impose on Facebook, Google and anyone else that operates on the internet a requirement for neutrality.

Of course the problem is that we can all imagine a sclerotic bureaucracy something like the post office running what needs to be a dynamic and fast moving system.

Facebook at present is simply a private company running a private exchange of messages and advertising and is not subject to the first amendment. They can be as slanted as they want to be.

Google uses proprietary algorithms that influence how visible information is. They can place their thumb on the scales of information flow and it is not at all apparent to users.

If federal ownership is not the solution then regulation via something akin to a public utility model could be done. But I would fear the bureaucracy established to regulate.