patrick.net

AmericanKulak says

I thought that way. Then I thought, it's free, and why cede the field and let them dominate by default?

Because it's a propaganda site.

If you keep posting what they don't like, they just shadowban you.

What you are reading is what is acceptable. There's literally no reason to be on it. If you want to know what is going on in the world, you can't do it by using Facebook, Youtube, or Twitter. There's a reason this very site exists.

Please believe me Google, Twitter, and Facebook basically ARE the government. Posting there is like writing letters to the editor to Pravda in 1985 trying to explain to them the usefulness of voluntary markets of exchange. People need to stop wasting their time on these sites or begging them to PLEASE allow free speech, it's never going to happen.

In 1995, sites that pulled this shit went tits up in a matter of months, but this is because the people on the Internet back then wouldn't put up with ANY censorship. Google, Facebook, and Twitter ARE the "mainstream media" now. They're dead. They are centrally controlled, and they exist to give a FALSE appearance of what the public thinks and wants.

richwicks says

AmericanKulak says

I thought that way. Then I thought, it's free, and why cede the field and let them dominate by default?

Because it's a propaganda site.

If you keep posting what they don't like, they just shadowban you.

What you are reading is what is acceptable. There's literally no reason to be on it. If you want to know what is going on in the world, you can't do it by using Facebook, Youtube, or Twitter. There's a reason this very site exists.

Please believe me Google, Twitter, and Facebook basically ARE the government. Posting there is like writing letters to the editor to Pravda in 1985 trying to explain to them the usefulness of voluntary markets of exchange. People need to stop wasting their time on these sites or begging them to PLEASE allow free speech, it's never going to happen.

In 1995, sites that pulled this shit went ...

It's not like it's "Holy shit guys, I went on Twitter on the CDC / WHO / WEF / ABC / BBC said XYZ so I'm changing my mind."

It's FULL of bots, but it's fun to snark at Dems and then mute them, which costs them money since they pay for the bots/boiler room people.

And, Elon will eventually take it over. It's gonna be hilarious because I have lists of obvious bots/boiler roomers (less than 300 followers, claims to be account dating to 2009) and I bet most of them will disappear shortly after Elon.

We'll see.

Don't cede the field, if it's fun to drop a few banana peels, do it. If you don't want to bother, that's cool. Whatever tactics are fun for the participants - that's straight up Rules for Radicals, nothing wrong with learning effective tactics from the enemy.

The issue isn't it's full of propaganda and it might be read, the issue is that it's full of propaganda so fuck with them a bit.

AmericanKulak says

And, Elon will eventually take it over. It's gonna be hilarious because I have lists of obvious bots/boiler roomers (less than 300 followers, claims to be account dating to 2009) and I bet most of them will disappear shortly after Elon.

Elon is no savior. He was born from money, he's a grifter, and he promotes every globalist policy. He's a government welfare whore.

AmericanKulak says

Don't cede the field, if it's fun to drop a few banana peels, do it.

You're fighting on land that isn't worth keeping.

When youtube was still a useful place to discuss things, I would use it to discuss things, and even after censorship was activated, I continued, for a bit, but after a point, all that's left are the dregs of society. Morons, bots, idiots, twats. Nobody worth engaging with.

AmericanKulak says

The issue isn't it's full of propaganda and it might be read, the issue is that it's full of propaganda so fuck with them a bit.

The issue is you're writing on the CNN feedback page, and anything you say that is useful information is simply deleted, but you gave them "engagement". That's how a site is measured, is how much time you spend on it. That's directly proportional to their revenue.

https://reclaimthenet.org/fauci-to-be-deposed-as-part-of-censorship-collusion-lawsuit/

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the president’s chief medical advisor, and nine other top White House officials will be deposed as part of an ongoing lawsuit that was filed by Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general Jeff Landry and Eric Schmitt, alleging collusion between the federal government and social media companies to censor certain viewpoints.

Of course they colluded, and this is a violation of the First Amendment.

richwicks says

You're fighting on land that isn't worth keeping.

When youtube was still a useful place to discuss things, I would use it to discuss things, and even after censorship was activated, I continued, for a bit, but after a point, all that's left are the dregs of society. Morons, bots, idiots, twats. Nobody worth engaging with.

It's worth keeping. Prior to around 2015, you could comment on Yahoo!, Guardian, etc. and the general consensus was generally that whatever foolishness and Wokeness was being pushed was wrong, listing 'errors' (lies) of ommission, etc.

Eliminating the false consensus is important..

TIKTOK is fantastic! The level of Transcrazy, Feminist Foolishness, and general misanthropy on display is illuminating! I don't have it installed, I just watch "Best of" compilations on Rumble, from LibsOfTikTok, etc.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/fauci-et-al-fraud-finale

and here is where the gig may be up for fauci and a great many others.

the lawsuit missouri et al vs about the whole of US public health is progressing in its exploration of the explicit and deliberate role of the US government and many of its agents including fauci, murthy, biden, and jankowicz (amidst a cast of dozens and several agencies) in the systematic shaping, suppression, and censorship of information regarding covid. as those quaint few who still believe in things like “the 1st amendment” may recall, this is a bit of a constitutional no no.

the government is not allowed to dominate the press.

this is a matter of sound and settled law.

2. A private entity violates the First Amendment “if the government coerces or induces it to take action the government itself would not be permitted to do, such as censor expression of a lawful viewpoint.” Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia Univ., 141 S. Ct. 1220, 1226 (2021) (Thomas, J., concurring). “The government cannot accomplish through threats of adverse government action what the Constitution prohibits it from doing directly.” Id.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-biden-administration-demanding-amazon-censor-books-disagree-with

Tucker Carlson slammed Amazon for banning the sale of books by Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin and signed a light on the government's key role in this censorship on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

TUCKER CARLSON: So you go on Amazon.com and you remember this started as a bookstore and online bookstore. It's the biggest bookstore in the world. They have everything. There's nothing you can't find an Amazon, including used books. So if you were to go into Amazon to read books by a man who is in the news and whose ideas are directly bearing on world events, you look for a guy called Aleksandr Dugin.

Dugin is one of Russia's most famous authors and political philosophers. He doesn't work for the government; he doesn't work for Vladimir Putin. He's just a philosopher. So if you're interested in like, "What are they thinking over there?'" you would search Dugin's author page on Amazon, but you would not find any results. Really? Kind of a big author to be left off Amazon. ...

Then we learned that Amazon and the Justice Department were ignoring our Bill of Rights. Amazon apparently based its decision on a Treasury Department designation concerning "disinformation." And that designation applies not only to Dugin, but also to his family, though not to his daughter, who was murdered recently by the Ukrainian government. But we're not allowed to say that. What did she do wrong?

https://westcoastjohn1978.substack.com/p/good-housekeeping

https://www.libsoftiktok.com/p/i-tried-the-lefts-new-social-media

I tried the Left’s new social media platform and was banned in 20 minutes ...

I came across a tweet from October 17th claiming the platform doesn't “...censor any posts. [The] algorithms simply filter out fake news, bigotry, and hostility” and I thought this was a great opportunity to put their claim to the test.

I opened an account and posted a few messages, the first reading “Men cannot get pregnant.” Others included “men cannot become women and women cannot become men,” and “Joe Biden sniffs little girls.” ...

In less than 20 minutes, my account was suspended and I was banned from the platform. Tribel posted statements categorizing me as “racist,” “transphobic” and bigoted. So much for Tribel Social combating “fake news!” Apparently stating “men cannot get pregnant” is transphobic— Biology is bigoted and racist!

https://slaynews.com/news/wef-calls-interventions-free-speech-improve-safety/

The World Economic Forum (WEF) is calling for increased censorship and “interventions” in free speech rights to “improve safety” online.

In a new twist, German economist Klaus Schwab’s organization claims it is “thinking of the children” with its new push for online content moderation.

Right, "safety".

https://hotair.com/david-strom/2022/10/26/at-stanford-a-conference-to-spread-the-free-speech-gospel-n506010

In a bit over a week Stanford University–or more properly the Stanford University School of Business in conjunction with the Hoover Institution–will hold a conference on promoting free speech in academia.

Predictably a bunch of Stanford professors are trying to cancel it, either literally or metaphorically, complaining that their voices will not be heard. Not that they weren’t invited to attend, of course, but rather that, having declined, they will not be just let in, presumably to protest and disrupt the conference. If they attended as invited guests they would be implicitly acknowledging that the ideas about which the conference is based upon are legitimate, and nothing Leftist dislike can be legitimized in any way.

The premise of the conference is laid out on the front page of their website:

Academic freedom, open inquiry, and freedom of speech are under threat as they have not been for decades. Visibly, academics are “canceled,” fired, or subject to lengthy disciplinary proceedings in response to academic writing or public engagement. Less visibly, funding agencies, university bureaucracies, hiring procedures, promotion committees, professional organizations, and journals censor some kinds of research or demand adherence to political causes. Many parts of universities have become politicized or have turned into ideological monocultures, excluding people, ideas, or kinds of work that challenge their orthodoxy. Younger researchers are afraid to speak and write and don’t investigate promising ideas that they fear will endanger their careers.

The two-day Academic Freedom Conference, arranged by the organizing committee, aims to identify ways to restore academic freedom, open inquiry, and freedom of speech and expression on campus and in the larger culture and restore the open debate required for new knowledge to flourish. The conference will focus on the organizational structures leading to censorship and stifling debate and how to repair them.

It is indeed true that the conference attendance has been limited to invited guests, but the reason for that is obvious: dissenters from the prevailing Narrative™ are unwelcome on college campuses. They are harassed, yelled at, shouted down, and occasionally worse. Comedians rarely visit campuses any more because they are dominated by a political monoculture where any deviation from accepted speech is unacceptable–which of course precludes comedy.

Visiting a college campus today reminds one more of China during the Cultural Revolution than anything recognizable to those of us who attended college or graduate school decades ago. The signs of the impending rot were there, but there was still room for dissent. One of the reasons I abandoned my PhD and left academia was a sense that there was no room for me any more on the modern campus. I believe I was right about that.

No longer does intellectual freedom exist on our campuses..

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/

TRUTH COPS
Leaked Documents Outline DHS’s Plans to Police Disinformation

Where "disinformation" is anything that tells the truth about the oligarchy.

https://twitter.com/lhfang/status/1587114424925442049

Lee Fang
@lhfang
The emails and documents show close collaboration b/w DHS & private sector. Twitter's Vijaya Gadde (fired by @elonmusk last week) met monthly with DHS to discuss censorship plans. Microsoft exec texted DHS: "Platforms have got to get comfortable with gov't"

https://johnwaters.substack.com/p/hate-speech-laws-welcome-to-stasi

‘Hate speech’ laws are not simply censorship. Their deeper purpose is to terminate equality under the law, so the normative indigenous members of a nation are made to feel like an alien underclass. ...

Thus, the ‘emergency’ is signalled as over and the Era of Permanent Despotism begins. Now we move into the world predicted two years ago by one Larry Fink, the CEO of the world’s leading assets management behemoth, BlackRock: ‘Markets don’t like uncertainty. Markets like, actually . . . totalitarian governments, where you have an understanding of what’s out there, and obviously the whole dimension is changing now with a democratisation of countries. And democracies are very messy.’

Since those fateful days in the Spring of 2020, this was always going to happen, being baked into the lockdown cake. This is because, if an ‘authority’ suspends supposedly inalienable rights and freedoms, and then, after a long period of withholding them without objectively discernible justification, trickles their simulacrum back out under the rubric of concession, it soon becomes clear that these rights and freedoms have ceased to exist. After that, it is only a matter of carting the husks away.

Great post :

Marcusian-Foucault Power Relationships, tyranny of the Minorities...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11024-022-09479-4

https://jackanapes.substack.com/p/hot-off-the-presses-censorship-and

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2022/11/01/destroying-western-values-to-defend-western-values/

This is absolutely wild. The government is secretly transforming "national security" agencies into a new Narrative Police.

“If a foreign government sent these messages,” said the former ACLU president, “there is no doubt we would call it censorship.”

Read the story: https://t.co/9bMjDKSmcd

— Edward Snowden (@Snowden) October 31, 2022

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/censor-information-facebook/2022/11/01/id/1094446/

Facebook, Twitter Created Special Portals for Biden Admin Officials to Flag 'Misinformation'

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/china-covid-lockdown-propaganda

China’s Global Lockdown Propaganda Campaign
Inside the CCP’s use of social media bots and other disinformation tactics to promote its own response to the coronavirus pandemic and attack its critics

Most Russians use a service called Viber. Viber and What's App are similar. Viber is more user friendly, and overall better than What's App IMHO.

Banning What's App pushes those users to Viber. If Putin banned Viber, he would have a much bigger problem because most Russians use Viber to talk to each other for free. Even professionals use Viber. I don't think it's a good idea to use either. There is no such a thing as Free.

Putin banning What's App leads me to believe all the "conspiracy theorists" are correct about What's App. Otherwise why would Putin ban it? It will not help his approval ratings. So if he banned it there is a good reason.

Very similar to how there is a push for Tik-tok to be banned here in the US.

Definitely a reason.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/vaccines-never-prevented-transmission-covid-alex-gutentag

Should California doctors lose their medical licenses if they favor guidance from Sweden and Denmark over guidance from the CDC?

Censorship of medical dissent is now being expanded in California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed Assembly Bill 2098 into law, officially granting the California Medical Board the authority to penalize and suspend the licenses of doctors who intentionally spread “misinformation or disinformation” about COVID risks and prevention, as well as the safety and efficacy of COVID vaccines. In the U.K. and Sweden, by contrast, COVID vaccines are no longer offered to healthy children under 12, and in Denmark boosters are not available for anyone under 50.

The executive action is unconstitutional, but until someone is willing to arrest the governor for lawbreaking, the doctors will be intimidated into following.

The government making "suggestions" about what to censor, under the implied threat of government action against the company, is not much different that directly violating the First Amendment with unconstitutional laws.

https://www.eugyppius.com/p/musk-twitter-speech?publication_id=268621&post_id=84151809&isFreemail=true

Twitter isn’t just real life, it’s bigger than real life, and I’m far from the only person who’s figured that out. Heavy social media censorship is merely one sign of its overwhelming importance. Liberal democracies like to pledge all kinds of freedoms to their populations, but you’re generally only allowed to exercise these freedoms as long as you don’t pose a serious threat to anyone in power. The minute it starts to matter, speech is inevitably circumscribed. In Europe, where we don’t have anything like a Bill of Rights, this is typically done by laws that directly regulate what you’re allowed to say and prescribe substantial fines or prison sentences for offenders. The US Constitution requires a softer, asymmetrical approach in America. There, government regulators and advertisers pressure social media platforms to censor speech behind the scenes. We don’t understand all the ways this is done, but the results are clear enough. The freewheeling days of the early internet are over. Almost all influential content flows through a handful of tech platforms, and these chokepoints are heavily controlled.

The USG government sets up a program specifically designed to violate citizens' First Amendment Constitutional rights. Un-fucking-believable!

https://abirballan.substack.com/p/think-twice-censorship-campaign



















And many more...

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/keep-on-rocking-in-the-enslaved-world

On August 10, 2021, the Los Angeles Times published a long feature on “the indie-rock singer-songwriter,” Joseph Arthur. The headline—”He was a celebrated singer-songwriter with famous fans. Then he started posting about the vaccine”—instantly reminded me of the New York Times feature on the French medical doctor and microbiologist, Didier Raoult, headlined, “He Was a Science Star. Then He Promoted a Questionable Cure for Covid-19.”

The formula for both stories was identical—namely, recount the exceptional achievements of the subject while marveling that such a brilliant man would embrace such crackpot ideas. Nothing in either feature even allowed for the possibility that the subjects had made valid points. The reporters apparently started with the assumption that the official orthodoxy was entirely correct, while the heterodox views of the great professor and great musician were entirely false.

For Professor Raoult’s advocacy of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19, he was relentlessly criticized and harassed by France’s official medical establishment. Because Joseph Arthur questioned the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and the morality of vaccine mandates, he suffered a similar fate in the music industry.

Glenn Greenwald
@ggreenwald
Nov 26
How can society continue -- how can marginalized people survive -- if there's even one place on the internet that doesn't take censorship orders from Media Matters, AOC, Taylor Lorenz, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the ADL, Harvard's clinical instructors, and Nina Jankowicz?

Patrick says

Glenn Greenwald
ggreenwald
Nov 26
How can society continue -- how can marginalized people survive -- if there's even one place on the internet that doesn't take censorship orders from Media Matters, AOC, Taylor Lorenz, the Dept. of Homeland Security, the ADL, Harvard's clinical instructors, and Nina Jankowicz?

GGreenwald's rumble channel has been silent lately although yesterday a new video came out. Aaaaand he claims they are going to start doing daily's as soon as next week! (Testing out the new format on OnlyFans, er, I mean Locals first)

https://theintercept.com/2022/10/31/social-media-disinformation-dhs/

HE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY is quietly broadening its efforts to curb speech it considers dangerous, an investigation by The Intercept has found. Years of internal DHS memos, emails, and documents — obtained via leaks and an ongoing lawsuit, as well as public documents — illustrate an expansive effort by the agency to influence tech platforms.