Good copy, Sir.
Posted on 08/09/2018 10:14:52 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
This is a dangerous precedent that can be used against any ideology, left or right
Across the board in what appears to be a highly-coordinated effort to silence the message behind Infowars and Alex Jones, most major social media, backbone utilities associated with our web site and video platforms have launched unprecedented account bans and suspensions on virtually all of our channels.
Regardless of what you think of me, and what you have heard indirectly through third-party sources, you are clearly witnessing a 21st century purge of an ideology.
And even if you don’t agree with our message that everyone should exercise their right to question the status quo, you should be very concerned about what’s happening.
Because this ideology that is now under attack is the same ideology that played a pivotal role in founding this great nation: challenging the establishment systems with independent ideas that encourage new debates and discussions.
For more than a year, we have witnessed the mainstream news media and Democratic groups tell us that the manipulation of social media could turn an election.
By their own admission, social media would be the most viable option to alter the course of the nation, influence millions of people, and shut down free speech and personal expression that questions the status quo.
We have been told that one of the greatest threats to our democracy is the manipulation of the information that we receive on social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter.
Now, these same groups that have been telling us that free speech must be defended against those who seek to control it on our news feeds, have launched a full-scale war on the free speech and information that they disagree with.
There is no question that large social media companies have become the nation’s premiere source of information, referring hundreds of millions to news and information.
Although these groups are private entities, their scale has achieved them a monopoly on the free flow of information.
Much like the FCC rules that the airwaves and cable should be equally accessible to all in the public trust, these modes of communication should be equally open to the same access, and not subject to control by those who may choose to disagree with the information itself. Is a different opinion enough to silence an entire ideology?
I do not claim to always be right. But the accusations leveled at me are distortions of the truth and have been used systematically to impeach my character.
But this coordinated action by the establishment to silence me has only awakened a new resolve in those who now see more clearly than ever how the establishment systems will go to any length to shut down free speech and information that questions the status quo.
This is a turning point for our nation. Will you rally behind the principles of free speech, or will you concede to having your ability to access new ideas and information restricted and controlled by those who believe you cannot think for yourself?
If we allow this level of censorship to continue, how long before it becomes normalized?
How long before it’s not Alex Jones and Infowars being shut down on major platforms, but any ideology that disagrees with the establishment status quo? We must rally behind the principles that founded this great nation, and not allow deep censorship to become normalized and accepted.
bookmark
Amen!
See my post #2 above.
antitrust laws. Wow I see Info Wars law suite against multiply social media sites...
Frankenstein monster institutions that are part private and part government are the very definition of fascism.
https://www.scribd.com/document/383918384/The-Censorship-Master-Plan-Decoded
First they came for Alex Jones.
Bravo, Jim.
I think the next shoe to drop will that ICANN or the IANA will come up with a way to deny a domain/IP to folks they deem a threat.
Right now infowars . com is a registered domain.
A big reason why big bro wants control of the internet. It would be kinda like the way China does it.
Good copy, Sir.
It goes to the nature of the site. Are they a neutral forum, or a for-profit publisher? One is subject to libel laws, the other is not.
Smart, effective leaders change their position when it's moral and logical. Trump is a great example of that.
“I am therefore lifting the general restrictions we have on posting from infowars.com with the exception that we still do not want 9/11 type conspiracy nonsense posted to FR.”
Smart move.
Many thanks Mr. Robinson!!!
and BUMP !!
Didn’t some judge rule recently that Trump wasn’t even allowed to block someone on Twitter???
But — this is the private sector, so we need to expand “substitutes” for these leftist internet firms.
It is perhaps is more reminiscent of when we only had 3 major television broadcasters - a lot of bias and censorship of news went on there, for decades.
Thanks, Jim.
Money quote.
Mark Warner is behind this. Not sure if it's been posted here on FR.
Mandatory location verification. The paper suggests forcing social media platforms to authenticate and disclose the geographic origin of all user accounts or posts.Mandatory identity verification: The paper suggests forcing social media and tech platforms to authenticate user identities and only allow "authentic" accounts ("inauthentic accounts not only pose threats to our democratic process...but undermine the integrity of digital markets"), with "failure to appropriately address inauthentic account activity" punishable as "a violation of both SEC disclosure rules and/or Section 5 of the [Federal Trade Commission] Act."
Bot labeling: Warner's paper suggests forcing companies to somehow label bots or be penalized (no word from Warner on how this is remotely feasible)
Define popular tech as "essential facilities." These would be subject to all sorts of heightened rules and controls, says the paper, offering Google Maps as an example of the kinds of apps or platforms that might count. "The law would not mandate that a dominant provider offer the serve for free," writes Warner. "Rather, it would be required to offer it on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" provided by the government.
They won.
His greatest point here is that THEIR OWN SQUAWKING about how Hillary lost due to Russian bots influencing social media proves them utter hypocrites. This is a crucial argument. The leftists say that social media determines who is elected to control our government, and then they start banning opposing viewpoints.
Not a fan or listener of Alex Jones but his accuracy is not the issue right now. IF SOCIAL MEDIA IS DEEMED THIS IMPORTANT TO OUR NATION — again, BY THE LEFTISTS who’ve been screaming it for 2 years — then social media, including platforms not yet developed, MUST BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Period. This info dissemination is no different from the pamphlets published in revolutionary days.
Either they drop all investigations against Trump because the internet must not be censored by government, and Russian bots can be out there, and Alex Jones can have conspiracies out there, caveat emptor, or theleftists need to admit they are fighting not just the second but the first amendment, thereby sealing proof that leftists are 100% anti the US of A.
Bravo to Mr. Jones for this essay. It’s very important.
I thought of that wonderful quote as well. We need to stand up for Mr. Jones. And Bernie Sanders, for that matter. We are nothing if we aren’t fair. Our first amendment actually means something.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.