Big Tech Censorship & Election Meddling Threaten Republic

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” – Lord Acton

On July 29, 2020, the CEOs Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, Apple’s Tim Cook, and Google’s Sundar Pichai were called to testify before the House of Representatives Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee regarding their excessive power and censorship. Representative Matt Gaetz from Florida accused Google CEO Sundar Pichai about his multinational company’s relations with the Chinese military, universities, and other companies and whether it steals ideas from other businesses. Google has committed treason and was denounced by the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff for helping China. Google deletes conservative sites and wants to control the news to control society. Pichai has stated that Google will not allow the re-election of President Trump.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg was denounced disinformation and censorship of conservatives. Apple CEO Tim Cook was questioned on whether his iPhone-maker strong-arms developers on its App Store. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos — the world’s richest man — was asked whether Amazon misled Congress about a strategy of undercutting its own third-party merchants.

The hearing of the House Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee came at a time of when the subject of antitrust and consumer-protection investigations by America and Europe are denouncing their monopolistic practices. Subcommittee Chairman David Cicilline (D-R.I.) opened the hearing vowing to check the power of the “emperors of the online economy.” Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, denounced the bias against conservatives by top social media companies. Tech Multinationals must lose their liability protection. President Trump said if Congress does not act against Tech multinationals, he will by executive order. Tech multinationals are all globalists of the New World Order and want to elect the socialist demented Joe Biden.

On July 28, 2020, Donald Trump Jr. was temporarily suspended from Twitter. Andrew Surabian, Trump Jr.’s spokesperson tweeted the following: “@Twitter & @jack have suspended @DonaldJTrumpJr for posting a viral video of medical doctors talking about Hydroxychloroquine. Big Tech is the biggest threat to free expression in America today & they’re continuing to engage in open election interference — full stop.”

The radical anti-Trump leftist Yoel Roth is one of Twitter fact checkers. He has called President Trump a Nazi and a racist tangerine. Roth has a long history of bashing President Trump and other conservatives.

On May 28, 2020, Natalie Musumeci wrote an article titled “Trump calls Twitter ‘ridiculous’ for fact-checking his tweets about voting” that was published in the New York Post. Musumeci explained that on May 28, 2020 President Trump called it “ridiculous of Twitter to add fact-check labels to his tweets claiming that mail-in ballots would lead to voter fraud — and specifically singled out one of the members of the social media giant’s policing team who once called the president a racist tangerine.”

“So ridiculous to see Twitter trying to make the case that Mail-In Ballots are not subject to FRAUD, Trump tweeted. How stupid, there are examples, & cases, all over the place. Our election process will become badly tainted & a laughingstock all over the world. Tell that to your hater, Trump continued and tagged Twitter’s head of site integrity Yoel Roth by his handle @yoyoel,” Musumeci said.

Yoel Roth was born in 1987 and is married to a man. He is the head of the Site Integrity in Twitter and directs teams responsible for developing and enforcing Twitter’s censorship rules.

Yoel Roth, who is a fact-checker for the corrupt anti-Trump and anti-conservative radical leftist Twitter, is being denounced by President Trump after his tweets resurfaced, including ones that called Trump “a racist tangerine” and a “Nazi.” In a January 2017 tweet, Yoel Roth wrote: “Yes, that person in the pink hat is clearly a bigger threat to your brand of feminism than ACTUAL NAZIS IN THE WHITE HOUSE.” It is shameful and unacceptable that this person censors the President and conservatives.

Natalie Musumeci wrote the following:On May 26, 2020, Twitter slapped the warning links on two of Trump’s tweets in which the president claimed that allowing large-scale mail-in voting would result in a rigged election. Get the facts about mail-in ballots, the label on the tweets states, and redirects users to news articles disputing that voting by mail would allow for rampant fraud.”

President Donald J. Trump showed the New York Post newspaper featuring one of the members of Twitter’s policing team who once called him a “racist tangerine” and a “Nazi.”

On May 28, 2020, Ebony Bowden and Natalie Musumeci wrote an article titled “Trump signs executive order against social media companies” that was published in the New York Post. Bowden and Musumeci explained that on May 28, 2020 President Trump signed an executive order to curtail their legal liability protections – two days after Twitter fact checked two of his tweets about fraud in mail-in voting for the first time.

President Trump, with Attorney General Bill Barr present in the Oval Office, stated the following before signing the executive order: “We’re here today to defend free speech from one of the greatest dangers. This censorship and bias is a threat to freedom itself. Imagine if your phone company silenced or edited your conversation. Social media companies have vastly more power in the United States than newspapers; they’re by far richer than any other traditional forms of communication. Social media companies that engage in censoring or any political company will not be able to keep their liability shield. My executive order further instructed the Federal Trade Commission to prohibit social media companies from engaging in any deceptive acts or practices.”

Bowden and Musumeci said that President Trump’s executive order “directs federal agencies to look at whether they can place new regulations on the tech companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google, which owns YouTube.” The President’s executive order also wants to clarify regulations under the 1996 Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. This federal law exempts online social platforms from legal liability for material posted by their users, allowing them to be treated more like publishers. If this federal law can be change, the tech companies would be exposed to more lawsuits.

Bowden and Musumeci wrote that the executive order calls for a review of “unfair or deceptive practices” by the social media companies and for the Federal Communications Commission to determine whether actions like the editing of content by the tech companies should lead to forfeiting the protections of the firms under Section 230. President Trump’s executive order also calls on the government to reassess whether federal online advertising dollars should be held back from the social media giants if they “violate free speech principles.” The president repeated his claims to his more than 80 million Twitter followers that social media outlets are censoring conservatives and threatened to shut them down.

Kayleigh McEnany was appointed White House press secretary on April 7, 2020.

When many hostile mainstream media anti-Trump reporters criticized the President regarding his proposed executive order, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany told reporters during a press briefing before Trump signed the executive order the following: “No one believes in the First Amendment more than the President. The President will take action to ensure that big tech does not stifle free speech and that the rights of all Americans to speak, tweet and post are protected. The fact check label that Twitter put on the Trump tweets was both false and inaccurate. This is bias in action.” On May 28, 2020, FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr, a Republican, said in an interview with Yahoo Finance that President Trump’s proposal “makes sense.”

Twitter continuous to censor President Trump and accused him of inciting violence

On May 30, 2020 Newley Purnell and Andrew Restuccia wrote an article titled “Twitter Shields Trump Posts on Protest” that was published by the Wall Street Journal. The reporters explained that on May 29, 2020 President Trump did the following tweet:

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Replying to @realDonaldTrump

….These THUGS are dishonoring the memory of George Floyd, and I won’t let that happen. Just spoke to Governor Tim Walz and told him that the Military is with him all the way. Any difficulty and we will assume control but, when the looting starts, the shooting starts. Thank you!

Purnell and Restuccia explained the following: “Twitter fact-checker appended to the President tweet: “Mr. Trump’s post can now only be seen after users click a box with a notice saying it violated Twitter’s rules against encouraging violence, but it otherwise remains visible. The official White House Twitter account repeated Mr. Trump’s comments in a Friday tweet, and Twitter appended the same notice to that tweet. We’ve taken action in the interest of preventing others from being inspired to commit violent acts, but have kept the Tweet on Twitter because it is important that the public still be able to see the Tweet given its relevance to ongoing matters of public importance,” Twitter said on its official communications account.We have placed a public interest notice on this Tweet from @realdonaldtrump. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266231100780744704 Twitter said users’ ability to interact with the tweet will be limited, and that users can retweet it with comment, but not like, reply to, or retweet it.”

Purnell and Restuccia said that President Trump stated on May 29, 2020 he wasn’t encouraging police to shoot protesters. Referring to his looting and shooting comments, the president wrote on Twitter: “I don’t want this to happen, and that’s what the expression put out last night means.” He added in a second tweet, “It was spoken as a fact, not as a statement. It’s very simple, nobody should have any problem with this other than the haters, and those looking to cause trouble on social media.”

Purnell and Restuccia wrote the following: “In the earlier tweets, which were posted to his account at 12:53 a.m., Mr. Trump criticized Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, a Democrat, alleging a total lack of leadership in response to the protests. Mr. Trump also suggested that the federal government could take a more central role in responding to the protests, warning of the potential for intensifying violence.”

President Trump said he would send the National Guard to Minnesota. After an unnecessary delay of three days while Minnesota was looted and hundreds of businesses, a police station, a post office, many police vehicles were torched by the terrorists of Antifa and Black Lives Matter, and other criminals Democratic Governor Walz activated the National Guard.

President Trump uses heavily on Twitter to bring his message directly to his 80 million followers on the site. Twitter’s decision to attach a warning to Trump’s tweet escalates the feud between the President and tech companies. Twitter behavior is unacceptable and clearly is censorship!

President Trump was justified in signing the executive order to take away the legal liability protections from Big Tech social media

Jim Hanson wrote an opinion article in Fox News on May 29, 2020. Hanson stated the following:

“President Trump was right and justified Thursday to sign an executive order calling for new regulations to strip legal liability protections from social media companies that censor posts and engage in political conduct on their sites… President Trump and many conservatives have identified a serious problem. Twitter and some other social media companies want to be two things at the same time: common carriers where anyone can post comments and news organizations that selectively fact-check some posts and determine which ones are accurate and which ones are not. Making such determinations is an editorial decision that is often very subjective.”

“Right now social media companies enjoy protection from liability under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act for what is posted on their sites, because in most cases they allow people to post whatever they wish – as if they were posting on a giant virtual bulletin board. In contrast, news organizations can be sued for libel if they publish false information with ’actual malice’ – that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, according to a 1964 Supreme Court decision in the case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.”

“On average more than 500 million tweets are posted each day. It would be impossible for Twitter to review each of these tweets and fact-check them all before posting. Other social media companies face a similar impossible task. However, Twitter has selectively targeted conservatives – most recently President Trump this week – and has either taken down their tweets or labeled them as misleading and added a fact check, as was the case with two of the president’s tweets dealing with problems with mail-in voting.”

“Ironically, the president’s tweets saying voter fraud can take place with mail-in voting were accurate. Twitter’s fact check claiming that the president’s tweets were factually inaccurate was itself inaccurate. What is crucial here is that by deciding to selectively review a tiny number of tweets on its site and running supposed fact checks on them, Twitter are exercising editorial judgment and deciding what people are told is true.”

“President Trump’s executive order states that social media companies that remove or restrict content should be exposed to liability like any traditional editor and publisher that is not an online provider. Will Twitter now fact-check every tweet by Joe Biden and every Democratic elect official in the nation? Will it fact check every tweet critical of President Trump? Obviously not. But by selectively running a fact check (which was actually inaccurate) on Trump’s tweets, Twitter abandoned all pretense of being an unbiased common carrier.” 

“Social media companies should be like trains that allow anyone to board. As common carriers they should allow any ideas to be transported on their platforms without selecting which ones are permitted. Once the companies start picking and choosing among the ideas, they should lose their status and liability protection as common carriers.”

“President Trump’s executive order doesn’t restrict speech or require Twitter, Facebook or other social media companies to publish any particular speech. It focuses on whether the companies act as publishers exercising editorial control or simply as unbiased platforms for content created by users. The order also asks federal agencies to evaluate whether the companies are applying their terms of service in ways that do not match the published terms of service.”

“There is plenty of evidence showing that social media companies treat ideas and accounts differently based on political and ideological affiliation. The executive order calls for the Federal Trade Commission and a consortium of state attorneys general led by the U.S. attorney general to examine whether the actual practices of the social media companies are deceptive.”

“The president’s executive order is a shot across the bow of the major social media firms. The order is an attempt to address the longstanding concern of many on the political right that the liberal activist nature of most social media company employees and the companies themselves has unfairly damaged conservative ideas and accounts. The companies deny they act in a biased manner, but they have been caught doing so in the past.”

“During the 2018 midterm elections Twitter was exposed for shadow-banning conservative accounts, thereby limiting their reach to a much smaller audience. This affected Republican officeholders and candidates, but was not applied to their Democratic opponents. Twitter initially denied this, but was eventually confronted with enough evidence that it had to remove the quality filter it had imposed that was causing this problem…”

“There are several other aspects of social media company operations not called for in the executive order that could come under scrutiny in the future. One is an investigation by the Federal Election Commission into whether unfair treatment of Republican accounts compared to Democratic accounts amounts to an in-kind contribution by the social media companies to the advantaged campaign. The Federal Trade Commission could also look at the potential monopoly of the public information space by a handful of social media companies.”

“President Trump has been clear that he does not want to trade the control now exercised by the tech firms for the unsubtle hand of a government overseer. But the social media censorship of our shared public information space in a way that discriminates against some ideas is an intolerable situation. Let’s hope the social media companies take the hint and change their ways.”

Mark Elliot Zuckerberg was born on May 14, 1984. He co-founded Facebook, Inc. and serves as its chairman, chief executive officer, and controlling shareholder. Zuckerberg’s net worth is $76.4 billion.

Zuckerberg is also a co-founder of the solar sail spacecraft development project Breakthrough Starshot and serves in its Board of Directors.  Zuckerberg attended Harvard University, where he launched the Facebook social networking service from his dormitory room on February 4, 2004, with college roommates Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, and Chris Hughes.

Zuckerberg and his friends started Facebook involving select college campuses and the social media outlet expanded rapidly and eventually beyond colleges, reaching one billion users by 2012. Zuckerberg took the company public in May 2012 with majority shares. In 2007, at age 23, Zuckerberg became the world’s youngest self-made billionaire. As of 2019, he is the only person under 50 in the Forbes ten richest people list.

Facebook and the 2018 mid-term elections in the United States

On March 29, 2018, Jason Schwartz wrote an article titled “Conservative outlets take on Facebook” that was published by Politico. The reporter said that conservative publishers continue to complain that social media network have unfairly targeted their traffic. Schwartz pointed out that Ben Shapiro, the Editor-in-Chief of the conservative Daily Wire, said the impact of Facebook’s algorithm change on his site has been substantial. Shapiro stated the following: “It’s clearly made an impact on us; it’s clearly made an impact on every conservative site. I think that Facebook needs to be held to public account for its constant manipulation of what its users are seeing.”

In March 2018 Fox News Tucker Carlson said “Facebook is not a neutral host, it has a political agenda.”

Schwartz explained that conservative sites such as National Review, Breitbart, The Blaze, The Gateway Pundit, The Western Journal, The Conservative Tribune, The Independent Journal Review, and The Outline have complained that they are being targeted by Facebook (The John Birch Society has also denounced that its site has been targeted). Other conservative sites have not been impacted such as Fox News. Facebook does not reveal the formula behind its algorithms, so it is hard to know what the company is doing. Facebook said that is not doing anything wrong.

Facebook and the European elections

On April 18, 2019 Mark Scott, Laura Kayali, and Maia De La Baume wrote an article titled “Facebook to cave to EU pressure after row over political ad rules” which was published in Politico. The reporters explained the following: “European institutions and parties had complained that social media giant’s political advertising rules would hamper election campaigning. After vocal complaints from the EU’s three main institutions that the company’s new political advertising rules will hamper region-wide campaigning, Facebook is expected to allow the European Parliament and EU political groups to buy social media ads across the 28-country bloc. All the major European political parties doubled down on their criticism of Facebook’s initial restrictions with an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, obtained by Politico.

Stephen Weatherill, a professor of European law at the University of Oxford, complained about the rules of Facebook being implemented in Europe. Weatherill stated the following: “Facebook is treating the European single market as divisible international components. That goes against European law. We expect Facebook to change its rules within a matter of days to be in compliance with EU rules. We will not accept being limited to national public spheres in a common Europe.”

On May 28, 2020, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg criticized in an MSNBC interview saying he did not think social media networks should be fact-checking political speech and adding he would not be enacting similar measures on his platform. “Political speech is one of the most sensitive parts in a democracy, and people should be able to see what politicians say,” said Zuckerberg. He made similar remarks on May 28, 2020 during an interview with Fox News. This was fascinating to me as pure hypocrisy since Facebook, like the rest of the social media platforms, also censors conservatives as I will later explained.

Twitter boss Jack Dorsey with his friend President Obama in the White House

On May 28, 2020, Twitter boss Jack Dorsey said in a tweet that his social media site will “continue to point out incorrect or disputed information about elections globally. And we will admit to and own any mistakes we make. ”This does not make us an ‘arbiter of truth.’ Our intention is to connect the dots of conflicting statements and show the information in dispute so people can judge for themselves,” Dorsey said. “More transparency from us is critical so folks can clearly see the why behind our actions.” Dorsey took sole responsibility for the fact checking labels. “Fact check: there is someone ultimately accountable for our actions as a company, and that’s me. Please leave our employees out of this,” the CEO said. Thus, Dorsey was unrepented for the shameful censoring of the President!

On May 28, 2020, Cathy Burke wrote an article titled “Tech Billionaires Planning Boost to Biden’s Digital Campaigning” that was published by Newsmax. She explained that four Silicon Valley billionaires are working to help Joe Biden by funding his digital campaigning efforts. Burke said that “according to Vox’s Recode LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz, philanthropist Laurene Powell Jobs, and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt have ambitious plans to overtake President Donald Trump’s lead on digital campaigning.”

Recode is a technology news website that focuses on the businesses of Silicon Valley. Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher founded it in January 2014. It is owned by the anti-Trump Vox Media.

Eric Schmidt was born on April 27, 1955. He was Google CEO from 2001 to 2011. Schmidt left the board of Google parent company Alphabet in June 2019 after serving as a director for 18 years. He remains a technical advisor.

Schmidt serves on the Defense Department’s innovation board and is a visiting innovation fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He co-founded Innovation Endeavors, a venture capital firm that has invested in Uber, SoFi, and Zymergen, among others. Forbes estimates his wealth to be over $15.1 billion.

Reid Hoffman was born on August 5, 1967. Hoffman was the co-founder and executive chairman of LinkedIn a business-oriented social network used mainly for professional networking. He has a net worth of $1.9 billion as 2019.

Cathy Burke wrote about the support these billionaires for Joe Biden, the presumed Democratic Party presidential nominee, as President Trump criticized the social media platforms. President Trump said that Twitter is “stifling free speech, totally silencing conservative voices, and interfering in the 2020 Presidential Election.” Trump signed an executive order that will expose social media sites to government investigations into allegations of bias.

Cathy Burke stated the following: “According to Recode, Hoffman’s top political adviser, Dmitri Mehlhorn, distributed a private 12-page memo late last month describing that he felt the best way to win the election in six months is to best Trump’s brand machine. One way Hoffman is seeking to boost election efforts of Democrats is by backing a startup called Alloy, which is building a warehouse to store data that progressive groups collect on voters, Recode reported. He has invested about $18 million in Alloy, Recode reported.”

“We’re already putting data into the hands of Democrats and progressives on the front lines of this critical election cycle, Alloy spokesperson Luis Miranda told the outlet. We’re proud of our work, and we’re just getting started. Moskovitz and Powell Jobs are also giving millions to some of the country’s most ambitious voter-registration programs, Recode reported.”

Peter Thiel was born on October 11, 1967. He co-founded Pay Pal and is a member of the Republican Party. Thiel has a net worth of $ 2.3 billion.

The Use of Censorship and Interference in Elections by Tech Multinationals are a Threat to our Republic Part 2

Google is working with the Chinese military with Project Dragonfly

William F. Jasper wrote an article titled “Big Tech under Fire” that was published in the August 19, 2019 New American magazine issue. Jasper explained that billionaire Big Tech Peter Thiel called for an investigation by the FBI and CIA of Google for having “engaged in the seemingly treasonous decision to work with the Chinese military and not with the U.S. military.” Jasper wrote that Peter Thiel’s denunciations against Google are the most damaging for these three reasons:

“a) As a fellow Silicon Valley titan, he has conspicuously broken ranks with the brotherhood of left-wing cyber billionaires that is boosting the progressive Democrats’ political machine with funds and technical aid;

b) He is Trump’s most high-profile Big Tech supporter and presumably has close ties to the White House, and;

c) He has dared to use the “T” word — treason — in connection with Google’s business dealings with communist China.”

According to Thiel, Google should be asked:

“Number one, how many foreign intelligence agencies have infiltrated your Manhattan Project for Artificial Intelligence?

 Number two, does Google’s senior management consider itself to have been thoroughly infiltrated by Chinese intelligence?

Number three, is it because they consider themselves to be so thoroughly infiltrated that they have engaged in the seemingly treasonous decision to work with the Chinese military and not with the US military … because they are making the sort of bad, short-term rationalistic [decision] that if the technology doesn’t go out the front door, it gets stolen out the backdoor anyway?”

Jasper explained the following: “Thiel’s remarks provided a strong accent to the many serious accusations about the growing intimacy between Google and Beijing leveled by the experts cited above, particularly as it relates to Project Dragonfly. His weighing in on this issue is particularly curious inasmuch as it runs completely contrary to what is otherwise the virtually unanimous love-struck narrative between Big Tech/Big Money and Beijing, especially as exemplified by Thiel’s fellow Bilderberg attendees. Thiel has become a regular at these annual high-powered, super-secret confabs of the globalist uber-elites, and Bilderbergers such as the late David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and George Soros have been in the forefront of boosting China’s military, economy, and technology for decades.”

Jasper explained that in August of 2018 more than 1,400 Google employees signed an internal petition calling on the Tech multinational to stop work on Dragonfly. When that effort failed, more than 500 employees signed a letter expressing their opposition to continued cooperation in the project.

“Our opposition to Dragonfly is not about China: we object to technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable, wherever they may be,” the employees wrote. Dragonfly, the employees charged, “would establish a dangerous precedent at a volatile political moment, one that would make it harder for Google to deny other countries similar concessions.”

Jasper pointed out the following: “The employees noted that Google’s decision to proceed with Dragonfly comes as the Chinese government is openly expanding its surveillance powers and tools of population control. They further maintained, providing the Chinese government with ready access to user data, as required by Chinese law, would make Google complicit in oppression and human rights abuses. Dragonfly would also enable censorship and government-directed disinformation and destabilize the ground truth on which popular deliberation and dissent rely.”  

Jasper wrote that “calls have been growing on both sides of the political aisle for the federal government to regulate, or even take over, the social media and search engine operations of Google and other Big Tech firms.” Jasper wrote the following about Google:

“• Senior Google engineer Dr. Greg Coppola, in a video interview, has accused Google and other Big Tech companies of “taking sides in a political contest,” which he characterized as “dangerous.”  “Are we going to just let the biggest tech companies decide who wins every election from now on?” he asked.

• Dr. Robert Epstein, a leading technology-psychology scientist (and a Hillary Clinton supporter), testified to Congress that Google presents a serious threat to democracy and human autonomy, and presented extensive research to back his charges concerning Google’s politically biased search results, massive surveillance, censorship, and voter manipulation.

• Google research scientist Jack Poulson quit the company in protest over its plans to go ahead with its secret Project Dragonfly, a search engine for Communist China that enables the regime to better censor, monitor, and surveilled its citizens.

• More than 1,400 Google employees signed an internal petition calling on the company to end Dragonfly because the “Chinese government is one of the worst human-rights abusers in the world today,” and objecting to the transference of “technologies that aid the powerful in oppressing the vulnerable.”

• An alliance of more than a dozen human rights organizations, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Reporters Without Borders, called on Google to end Dragonfly.

• U.S. Vice President Mike Pence blasted Google and called on it to immediately end development of the ‘Dragonfly’ app that will strengthen Communist Party censorship and compromise the privacy of Chinese customers.

• Google recently lost its effort to dismiss the wrongful termination lawsuit of ex-Google engineer James Damore, who was fired in 2017, he says, because he was illegally discriminated against for being conservative, male, and Caucasian.

• A leaked 85-page Google briefing, entitled The Good Censor, admits that Google, Facebook, and Twitter now control the majority of online conversations and have adopted a shift towards censorship.

• In March of this year, Google was fined €1.52 billion ($1.69 billion U.S.) by the European Union, bringing the total fines against the company in three separate cases to €8.2 billion ($9.1 billion U.S.) for alleged illegal business practices. France also fined it €50 million ($55.6 million U.S.) for data privacy violations.”


Jasper stated the following: “As the planet’s overwhelmingly dominant search engine, Google wields unparalleled power over everyone’s access to information, from the trivial to the essential. However, even though it is best known for its search engine, Google (and its newer parent company, Alphabet) have expanded into entirely new fields: cloud computing (Google Drive), artificial intelligence (Deep Mind), browser (Google Chrome), smartphone (Google Pixel), Internet carrier (Google Fiber), mapping (Google Earth, Google Maps), language translation (Google Translate), and much more. Google-owned video giant YouTube is the second-largest search engine, right after Google.”

Susan Wojcicki was born on July 5, 1968. She was one of the founders of Google and became marketing manager in 1999. Wojcicki has an estimated net worth of nearly $500 million.

Wojcicki later served as Google’s online advertising business and was in charge of company original video service. After observing the success of YouTube, Wojcicki proposed the acquisition of YouTube by Google in 2006.

YouTube is also deleting videos that go against its radical agenda. During the Wuhan pandemic YouTube has erased many videos that contradict what the communist pro-China World Health Organization says. The head of YouTube Susan Wojcicki recently told CNN that anything against the World Health Organization guidelines would be removed.

“As we have reported in The New American previously, various studies have exposed Google’s blatant political bias in the 2012 and 2016 U.S. presidential elections, where the search giant boosted Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, respectively, over Mitt Romney and Donald Trump, by giving tens of millions more links to the Democrat candidates,” added Jasper

Jasper pointed out the following: “Since Donald Trump’s election in 2016, Big Tech globalists have been increasing their attacks on conservative news sites, websites, bloggers, and commentators. The weapons they are using are demonetizing, censoring, shadow banning, temporary suspension, and — when those measures fail to achieve the desired suppression of alternate viewpoints — outright banning, also known as deplatforming. Deplatforming is the preferred Big Tech weapon of the day, banishing troublesome thought-crime practitioners to the cyber netherworld. It was used against Alex Jones and his very popular Infowars. In an instant, thousands of Infowars’ videos, podcasts, and articles disappeared. The tech giants offered no proof of actual hate crimes to justify deplatforming Alex Jones — along with his 2.5 million subscribers.” 

Jasper explained the following: “As The New American warned at the time, Big Tech’s purge of Jones/Infowars was bound to be only the opening salvo in its Stalinist cyber jihad against all who refused to kowtow to political correctness. That has proven to be true, as a host of right-leaning victims has been slammed by Google, Twitter, and Facebook App with demonetizing, censoring, and/or deplatforming: Paul Joseph Watson, Mike Adams and Natural News, Dennis Prager and Prager University, Candace Owens, Michelle Malkin, Steven Crowder, James Woods, Peter Van Buren, Tommy Robinson, Milo Yiannopoulos, Robert Spencer, Laura Loomer, Project Veritas, Gavin McInnes, The New American, and many more.”

Facebook Censorship and Hypocrisy

On August 19, 2019, C. Mitchell Shaw wrote an article titled “Facebook Censorship & Hypocrisy” that was published in the New American magazine. Shaw explained the following: “It is a nearly universally accepted fact that Big Tech has a far-left bias. From censorship of conservatives and Christians, to promotion of every liberal cause that comes down the pike, companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google routinely abuse the platforms they claim are conduits for the people. Any person or organization that makes any real progress promoting conservative, Christian, traditional values against the lies of liberalism will eventually find themselves in the cross hairs of the liberal social-media elite. Facebook claims to be a free-speech platform that only bans content that violates its Community Standards — including hate speech. But since Facebook gets to define hate speech in keeping with its own political agenda, one would expect too much for that definition to be consistent.”

Shaw said that Facebook’s Community Standards explains the social network bans “hate speech” because “it creates an environment of intimidation and exclusion and in some cases may promote real-world violence.” However, Shaw pointed out that referring to the president as Hitler and calling for the violent overthrow of ICE detention centers and CEOs across the country do not qualify as hate speech.

Shaw gave many examples of the double standard of Facebook by punishing the New American magazine unfairly and censoring conservatives. Yet, other Facebook posts inciting violence are not censored. Shaw gave as an example a Black Lives Matter (BLM) post showing a black man firing a pistol point-blank into the driver’s window of a police cruiser and carrying the caption, “When this starts to happen you’ll know why….” and this terrible post was not censored.

Two other examples cited by Shaw were a BLM-affiliated Facebook page showing police officers in riot gear engulfed in flames. And the other “a cartoon that showcases a fat, white, police officer — with the facial features of a pig — can be seen eating a doughnut and failing to notice an Arab boarding an American flag-themed train while carrying a nuclear bomb. The caption reads, Fascist Pig. In America, our cops eat donuts this is a Fascist pig.”

On June 11, 2020 Facebook has refused to remove a page celebrating “dead cops,” saying that it does not violate their community standards. The page is titled The Only Good Cops Are Dead Cops and openly incites violence against police officers. However, when it was reported to Facebook moderators, they reviewed the page and said that although it may be “offensive,” it does not violate any specific community standards. How horrible!

George Soros and Bill Gates Funding Facebook’s Fact Checkers

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is funding the Fact Checkers of Facebook.

On December 27, 2016, Baxter Dmitry wrote an article titled “George Soros and Bill Gates Funding Facebook’s Fact Checkers” that was published in the website News Punch. The reporter explained that “Facebook released a statement on December 15, 2016 advising users that they were starting a program to work with third-party fact checking organizations that are signatories of Poynter’s International Fact Checking Code of Principles (IFCN).

The website of the IFCN states the following:

“The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) is a forum for fact-checkers worldwide hosted by the Poynter Institute for Media Studies. These organizations fact-check statements by public figures, major institutions and other widely circulated claims of interest to society.

It launched in September 2015, in recognition of the fact that a booming crop of fact-checking initiatives could benefit from an organization that promotes best practices and exchanges in this field.

Among other things, the IFCN:

  • Monitors trends and formats in fact-checking worldwide, publishing regular articles on the dedicated Poynter.org channel.
  • Provides training resources for fact-checkers.
  • Supports collaborative efforts in international fact-checking, including fellowships.
  • Convenes a yearly conference (Global Fact).
  • Is the home of the fact-checkers’ code of principles.

The IFCN is led by Alexios Mantzarlis, who joined Poynter after co-founding and editing Pagella Politica, an Italian political fact-checking website.

Poynter’s IFCN has received funding from the Arthur M. Blank Family Foundation, the Duke Reporters’ Lab, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Google, the National Endowment for Democracy, the Omidyar Network, the Open Society Foundations and the Park Foundation.”

Baxter Dmitry said that Facebook has announced that “Its fight against fake news will involve third-party fact checking organizations, however there are grave concerns about the legitimacy of those groups after it was revealed George Soros and Bill Gates, as well as other Clinton donors are funding the fact checking drive. Welcome to 1984’s Ministry of Truth, where only selected facts are allowed to exist while other facts that don’t fit Washington’s neoliberal narrative will be labeled “fake news” and suppressed.”

Conservatives do not trust Facebook

On August 20, 2019, Lauren Feiner wrote an article titled “Republican-led report finds Facebook has significant work to earn conservative trust” that was published by the website CNBC. The reporter explained that Senator Jon Kyl, Republican from Arizona, and a team at law firm Covington & Burling investigated complaints about bias, including Facebook’s advertising policies and enforcement and its content distribution and algorithms. Kyl and the team interviewed more than 130 conservative groups, individuals, and lawmakers who “use, study, or have the potential to regulate Facebook.” The review revealed several categories in which conservatives have expressed concerns about bias.

Feiner stated the following: “Conservatives interviewed told the team they feared algorithms that prioritize user content do so in ways that suppress their viewpoints. Several pointed to Facebook’s algorithm change in 2018 that favored content from users’ friends and families, arguing it also disproportionately limited the reach of conservative news content. Interviewees from mid-size grassroots organizations told the team that Facebook’s appeals process for content moderation decisions were too opaque. Interviewees also raised concerns about Facebook having a hate speech policy, saying the notion is highly subjective. Many also said Facebook relies too heavily on left-leaning organizations to identify hate groups. Many conservatives interviewed ultimately said the problems they see on Facebook likely stem from employees biased against their viewpoints.”

Facebook said it would commit to taking steps to be more transparent about how it ranks News Feed content and enforces community standards. My friends and I had several posts erased saying they violated community standards. So Facebook has not taken the steps to monitor its employees who continue to censor conservatives.

Conclusion

President Trump’s executive order curtailing the legal liability protections of social media companies like Twitter, Facebook, Google, YouTube, and LinkedIn is a step in the right direction. As the President said, social media companies have vastly more power in the United States than newspapers. These companies are by far richer than any other traditional forms of communication. Social media companies or any political company that engage in censoring will not be able to keep their liability shield. But much more needs to be done or we will lose our Republic!

Since Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential elections, Big Tech globalists have been increasing their attacks on conservative news sites, websites, bloggers, and commentators. As William Jasper has explained, the weapons they are using are demonetizing, censoring, shadow banning, temporary suspension, and — when those measures fail to achieve the desired suppression of alternate viewpoints — outright banning, also known as “deplatforming.”

As Dr. Epstein has said, Google presents a serious threat to democracy and human autonomy. Google’s politically biased search results, massive surveillance, censorship, and voter manipulation. Big Tech multinational Google is engaged in treason by helping the Chinese military.

As Jim Hanson pointed out during the 2018 midterm elections Twitter was exposed for shadow-banning conservative accounts, thereby limiting their reach to a much smaller audience. This affected Republican officeholders and candidates, but was not applied to their Democratic opponents. Many conservative sites, including the John Birch Society, complained that the traffic was substantially reduced in the weeks before the mid-term elections by Facebook. After the elections, the traffic in their sites went back to normal for many of them, but not all.

As we approach the presidential election in November 2020, America cannot allow these immensely powerful and rich Big Tech multinational to silence conservatives and interfere in the elections. This election will determine whether we will have socialism or freedom in America. Sadly, Big Tech social media owners are globalists of the New World Order and want Joe Biden to win in order to enslave Americans under a planetary government under the corrupt United Nations but controlled by them and their very powerful organizations such as the Council of Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Skull and Bones, and Bohemian Grove.

1 thought on “Big Tech Censorship & Election Meddling Threaten Republic

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *