Tag: big tech

Silicon Valley Should Not Restrict Public Discourse About Covid Measures Which Affect Everyone

Twitter has banned the account of controversial virologist Dr Robert Malone, who reportedly had half a million followers at the time of his removal. Malone is credited even by mainstream critics as having played a significant role in the development of the mRNA technology being used for Covid-19 vaccines today, but has recently come under fire for comments about the safety of those vaccines’ use on children which the Authorized Fact Checkers have labeled “dangerously and flagrantly incorrect.”

Everyone should oppose the removal of Malone and commentators who share his views, regardless of whether they agree with them or vehemently despise them. The reason for this is very simple: only a fool would support government-tied monopolistic billionaire corporations regulating public discourse about Covid responses which affect us all. This is true regardless of what you personally happen to believe about mRNA vaccines.

Arguments that Malone and his ilk are peddling “misinformation” have no bearing on the question of whether they should be removed from the platforms everyone uses to debate ideas and discuss information. It is entirely legitimate to make arguments that their claims are inaccurate, but it is not at all legitimate to claim that platforms which large sectors of humanity have come to rely on for public discourse should interfere with or obstruct those conversations.

Keep reading

12 worst cases of Big Tech censorship in 2021

Silicon Valley Big Tech giants like Twitter and Facebook appear to have adopted an explicit policy to suppress conservative views and encourage the spread of leftist dogma, as several media reports have revealed.

In the early part of the year, anything related to the election was a major target for Big Tech censorship. Views that strayed from the accepted COVID-19 narrative fell squarely in Big Tech’s bullseye the whole year, as alternative treatments for the virus and questioning of mask mandates incurred a great deal of scrutiny from the heads of Silicon Valley. And the tech overlords did all they could to promote social wokeness, furiously attacking critiques of transgenderism as well as pro-life content.

Facebook bowed to its insufferably woke employees and decided to develop algorithms that allowed hatred for whites and conservatives while protecting favored left-wing groups from ridicule on the platform.

Former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey resigned in November, clearing the way for anti-conservative radical Parag Agrawal to take the helm, a move that conservatives immediately criticized. Before banning former President Donald Trump following the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, Twitter had censored Trump and his campaign 625 times, without censoring Joe Biden at all. Twitter also censored New York Post stories in the lead-up to the 2020 election that focused on the alleged corrupt business dealings of President Joe Biden and his son Hunter in Ukraine.

Keep reading

Google Docs Notifications are Updated to Restrict Docs that Contain “hate speech” and “misleading” Content

Google has announced new notifications in Google Drive that show that the platform has restricted the sharing and access of files that violate its policies. In a blog post, the tech giant said that it will restrict the sharing of files that violate its Terms of Service and abuse program policies.

If a file is flagged for violating policies, the owner will still have full access but sharing will not be possible and those who already had a link will no longer have access.

The owner of the file will receive an email informing them their files have been restricted. They will be able to appeal the decision by requesting a review of their own document.

“When a Google Drive file is identified as violating Google’s Terms of Service or program policies, it may be restricted. When it’s restricted, you may see a flag next to the filename, you won’t be able to share it, and your file will no longer be publicly accessible, even to people who have the link,” the post states.

Keep reading

Mainstream media moves against “misinformation” in email

The boundary corporate media want to establish for what they think should be policed and censored as political “misinformation” keeps expanding.

The new “frontier” that seems to be shaping up, if narratives pushed by the likes of the New York Times are to be taken into account, are people’s email communications.

Unlike the politicians’ speech on public platforms like social media and TV broadcasters, that is tightly controlled and often censored by various fact-checkers hired by Big Tech, the medium of email remains elusive, the newspaper laments, even though it is a powerful way to reach constituents.

Mentioning several examples of fund-raising emails that the NYT said contained false information regarding benefits enjoyed by illegal migrants, and Medicare, abortion, etc., the article’s author goes on to qualify email as a tool “teeming” with misinformation.

Keep reading

New Fauci-Zuckerberg Emails Reveal Offer of ‘Data Reports’ To Aid Lockdown Policies, Vaccine Development.

In private emails between Mark Zuckerberg and Anthony Fauci – obtained exclusively by The National Pulse – the Facebook founder and CEO offered to send “data reports” on users to “facilitate decisions” about COVID-19 lockdowns.

The revelation is a stark example of how Big Tech corporates and government can easily collude using user data to restrict the liberties of the general public.

In the exchange, Zuckerberg insists: “I want to make sure you have all the resources you need to expedite the development of a vaccine.”

Zuckerberg – whose personal foundation referenced in the email plowed hundreds of millions of dollars into securing a victory for then-candidate Joe Biden in 2020 – offered the assistance to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director just one month after the pair had connected over emails that were redacted by the U.S. government.

Keep reading

Facebook, Google, and Snapchat Are Bypassing Apple’s APP Tracking Transparency and Still Collecting Data on Users

Downloading “free” apps onto devices more often than not allows app providers to collect personal data on users.  Of course, companies that manufacture and sell devices tend to collect personal data on users too (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5).  Having access to this data allows companies and providers to analyze users’ habits and preferences so they can market additional products and services to them.  They can also sell users’ data to 3rd parties.  This practice is sometimes referred to as “Surveillance Capitalism.”  As more customers are becoming aware of this, more want to be able to “opt out” of privacy invasive data collection.  Companies aren’t necessarily making this easy though.  Recently Verizon was exposed for automatically enrolling its customers into a new program that scans users’ browser histories.  Facebook, Google, and Snapchat are now also being exposed for continuing to collect data on without users’ knowledge or consent.

Keep reading

Secret Twitter program fast-tracks elite users’ takedown demands

Facebook was recently raked over the coals by a former employee for having policies that give preferential treatment and protect high profile users only, but now it seems this is not such a rare occurrence among social media giants.

Take Twitter, for example, which just got exposed for running a secret program designed to give priority to its most prominent users, and protect them from what is perceived as attacks by “trolls and bullies.”

Twitter is carrying out its decision, Bloomberg reported, to protect the political elites and celebrities via a program called Project Guardian, that pushes reports about abusive content posted against these users to the front of the moderation queue.

Apart from shielding who Twitter picks as the most important people on the platform (reports about the secretive program say that many who are protected by it are unaware of this), the company is also able to control what content gets viral and has wide reach, and quickly stem the spread of tweets it disapproves of.

Keep reading

Facebook Court Filing Admits ‘Fact Checks’ Are Just A Matter Of ‘Protected’ Opinion

Surprisingly little attention is being paid to a bombshell admission made by the attorneys representing the corporation formerly known as Facebook, Inc., which has now transitioned into Meta Platforms, Inc.

In a court filing responding to a lawsuit filed by John Stossel claiming that he was defamed by a “fact check” Facebook used to label a video by him as “misleading,” Meta’s attorneys assert that the “fact check” was an “opinion,” not an actual check of facts and declaration of facts. Under libel law, opinions are protected from liability for libel.

Keep reading