Exactly. No doubt there's a stipulation excluding anyone who they think deserves it.
Big Tech Continued Censorship
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
Exactly. No doubt there's a stipulation excluding anyone who they think deserves it.
Twitter will do what they always do .... IGNORE Authoritarians
Twitter Implements New Rule So It Can Selectively Ban Memes, Mockery Of Democrats
As some Twitter users pointed out, with this new policy, the Big Tech company has carved out a way to justify removing or banning any content it deems “irrelevant” and effectively solidifies Twitter’s role as a gatekeeper of information instead of the free-speech platform it once claimed to be.
As some Twitter users pointed out, with this new policy, the Big Tech company has carved out a way to justify removing or banning any content it deems “irrelevant” and effectively solidifies Twitter’s role as a gatekeeper of information instead of the free-speech platform it once claimed to be.
Google-Owned YouTube Threatens To Ban Users Who Question Mask Effectiveness
Buried in the Big Tech platform’s “COVID-19 medical misinformation policy” are clauses that allow YouTube to deplatform anyone who dares contest information about masks or “contradict local health authorities or WHO.”
“Claims that wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects” and “Claims that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19” both violate the Big Tech company’s “misinformation” terms and conditions. Later in the policy, YouTube clarifies that “Claims that wearing a mask causes oxygen levels to drop to dangerous levels,” “Claims that masks cause lung cancer or brain damage,” and “Claims that wearing a mask gives you COVID-19” will also be punished.
Other censored terminology and phrases include “Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19” and “Claims that an approved COVID-19 vaccine will cause death, infertility, miscarriage, autism, or contraction of other infectious diseases.”
Buried in the Big Tech platform’s “COVID-19 medical misinformation policy” are clauses that allow YouTube to deplatform anyone who dares contest information about masks or “contradict local health authorities or WHO.”
“Claims that wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects” and “Claims that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19” both violate the Big Tech company’s “misinformation” terms and conditions. Later in the policy, YouTube clarifies that “Claims that wearing a mask causes oxygen levels to drop to dangerous levels,” “Claims that masks cause lung cancer or brain damage,” and “Claims that wearing a mask gives you COVID-19” will also be punished.
Other censored terminology and phrases include “Content that recommends use of Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19” and “Claims that an approved COVID-19 vaccine will cause death, infertility, miscarriage, autism, or contraction of other infectious diseases.”
Twitter Censors American Heart Association Article on mRNA Vaccines and Cardiac Health
On Nov. 8, 2021, the American Heart Association (AHA) journals published the abstracts that researchers and clinicians would present during online scientific sessions beginning on Nov.13. The scientific sessions are rigorous events, and content must be submitted and selected. One of the abstracts published in the journal Circulation dealt with mRNA vaccines and cardiac health. When Twitter users tried to share the information in the abstract, people interested in reading it encountered a warning that it could be an unsafe link.
Astonishingly, Twitter content moderators feel emboldened to censor information published in a journal maintained by a well-respected, mainstream professional association. Further, the data appeared in a rigorous online conference for medical professionals. It also seems to provide a signal for potential vaccine side effects that are not terribly surprising and reasonably strong.
Dr. Steven R. Gundry of the International Heart and Lung Institute wrote an abstract that raised a concern about mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 potentially raising the inflammatory markers in the blood. Gundry’s group has been conducting a long-term study of the risk for a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). Patients in the clinic have received a clinically validated measurement of multiple blood protein biomarkers called the PULS score every 3-6 months for eight years. The study began before the pandemic and has accumulated a significant history for participants. But Twitter decided the information that the group found is dangerous.
On Nov. 8, 2021, the American Heart Association (AHA) journals published the abstracts that researchers and clinicians would present during online scientific sessions beginning on Nov.13. The scientific sessions are rigorous events, and content must be submitted and selected. One of the abstracts published in the journal Circulation dealt with mRNA vaccines and cardiac health. When Twitter users tried to share the information in the abstract, people interested in reading it encountered a warning that it could be an unsafe link.
Astonishingly, Twitter content moderators feel emboldened to censor information published in a journal maintained by a well-respected, mainstream professional association. Further, the data appeared in a rigorous online conference for medical professionals. It also seems to provide a signal for potential vaccine side effects that are not terribly surprising and reasonably strong.
Dr. Steven R. Gundry of the International Heart and Lung Institute wrote an abstract that raised a concern about mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 potentially raising the inflammatory markers in the blood. Gundry’s group has been conducting a long-term study of the risk for a new Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). Patients in the clinic have received a clinically validated measurement of multiple blood protein biomarkers called the PULS score every 3-6 months for eight years. The study began before the pandemic and has accumulated a significant history for participants. But Twitter decided the information that the group found is dangerous.
Facebook Makes a Shocking Admission About Its Fact Check Labels in Court Filing
Now, Facebook is admitting what many of us have known to be true for some time: Its fact-check labels are opinions rather than definitive renderings of the facts. In court filings (embedded below) related to a defamation lawsuit by John Stossel, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, claimed that the platform did not defame the veteran journalist because they were merely offering an opinion when labeling his videos about climate change as “partly false.”
Meta insists that Stossel was not defamed because the fact-checks were written by a third-party organization. All Facebook did was affix labels to the videos based on… the articles written by the fact-checkers and the conclusions they reached. As such, the labels themselves merely “constitute protected opinion,” said Meta’s lawyers. [Emphasis added]
Essentially, Facebook is trying to divorce itself from the claims being made by the fact-checkers it relies on, in this, a French climate-alarmism operation called Climate Feedback (operating under the umbrella of Science Feedback), which Stossel said defamed him by attaching disparaging labels to his videos related to the climate change debate.
But according to Meta, “even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are neither false nor defamatory.”
Now, Facebook is admitting what many of us have known to be true for some time: Its fact-check labels are opinions rather than definitive renderings of the facts. In court filings (embedded below) related to a defamation lawsuit by John Stossel, Meta, the parent company of Facebook, claimed that the platform did not defame the veteran journalist because they were merely offering an opinion when labeling his videos about climate change as “partly false.”
Meta insists that Stossel was not defamed because the fact-checks were written by a third-party organization. All Facebook did was affix labels to the videos based on… the articles written by the fact-checkers and the conclusions they reached. As such, the labels themselves merely “constitute protected opinion,” said Meta’s lawyers. [Emphasis added]
Essentially, Facebook is trying to divorce itself from the claims being made by the fact-checkers it relies on, in this, a French climate-alarmism operation called Climate Feedback (operating under the umbrella of Science Feedback), which Stossel said defamed him by attaching disparaging labels to his videos related to the climate change debate.
But according to Meta, “even if Stossel could attribute Climate Feedback’s separate webpages to Meta, the challenged statements on those pages are neither false nor defamatory.”
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
"Because of this strategy virtually everything we hear and see in the mainstream media is a lie."
"They lie about God, sexuality, biology, freedom, ethics, health, energy, culture, history, astronomy, everything... It is utterly impossible to get an accurate view of reality through the news, major magazines or well-known websites."
www.stopworldcontrol.com
"Because of this strategy virtually everything we hear and see in the mainstream media is a lie."
"They lie about God, sexuality, biology, freedom, ethics, health, energy, culture, history, astronomy, everything... It is utterly impossible to get an accurate view of reality through the news, major magazines or well-known websites."
Here’s to a Future of Hope and Freedom!
The wicked have worked to manipulate humanity through mind control, but God is causing a great awakening of truth and freedom.
www.stopworldcontrol.com
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Continued in the vein above, and posted in another post.
THE EMASCULATION OF WHITE MALE IDENTITY
Continued in the vein above, and posted in another post.
THE EMASCULATION OF WHITE MALE IDENTITY
Right, but you can look around you and observe the people who live and work in your city. THAT is reality.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
All those TV people live in NYC and LA and Chicago, so the rampant crime and draconian covid measures are their reality and that's what they focus on. But most people in America aren't having that experience. Sure, we have crime but not mobs of ghetto thugs ransacking stores and chronic violence - that's for the big Democrat-run cities.
I sort of have sympathy for those people, but mostly I think they get what they vote for and ha ha. And I hope those voters don't mass migrate to my city.
Now, Big Tech is doubling down on it all by embedding its like-minded children in local papers to do to journalism what Big Tech is doing to free speech and what Zuckerberg did to elections.
Since 2018, Big Tech, specifically the Facebook founder and others he’s brought along with him, has been paying for newsrooms to hire green reporters in a plan to seed America’s small-town papers with “volunteer” “corps members” doing “service” work to write “underreported” stories. You know, like the “volunteers” in Bill Clinton’s national service program, and Teach for America, and the food corps food police program in Portland, Ore. schools.
The McClatchy chain of newspapers, for example, had on its roster 31 RFA “corps members” at 21 publications, who were working beats that read like a Leftist activist’s dream portfolio, including, “housing, local government, climate change, COVID-19, gun violence, and communities of color,” according to The Columbia Journalism Review.
But, according to CJR, McClatchy has now opted back out of using RFA after the current “corps” completes its one-to-two-year cycle. It’s not known specifically why it’s untethering itself and its influential newspapers from the activist group, but the journalism review reported unnamed “sources” claiming it had to do with an op-ed written by the co-founder of the program, complaining about hedge fund ownership of newspapers. Several emails to McClatchy for clarification went unanswered.
Since 2018, Big Tech, specifically the Facebook founder and others he’s brought along with him, has been paying for newsrooms to hire green reporters in a plan to seed America’s small-town papers with “volunteer” “corps members” doing “service” work to write “underreported” stories. You know, like the “volunteers” in Bill Clinton’s national service program, and Teach for America, and the food corps food police program in Portland, Ore. schools.
The McClatchy chain of newspapers, for example, had on its roster 31 RFA “corps members” at 21 publications, who were working beats that read like a Leftist activist’s dream portfolio, including, “housing, local government, climate change, COVID-19, gun violence, and communities of color,” according to The Columbia Journalism Review.
But, according to CJR, McClatchy has now opted back out of using RFA after the current “corps” completes its one-to-two-year cycle. It’s not known specifically why it’s untethering itself and its influential newspapers from the activist group, but the journalism review reported unnamed “sources” claiming it had to do with an op-ed written by the co-founder of the program, complaining about hedge fund ownership of newspapers. Several emails to McClatchy for clarification went unanswered.
Is Google Search Hiding Robert Malone’s Content on 'Mass Formation Psychosis'?
The concept of mass formation psychosis as an explanation for our lingering nonsensical covid hysteria was brought to the masses by Dr. Robert Malone on Joe Rogan’s podcast in late December. Malone contextualizes work done by psychologist and statistician Dr. Mattias Desmet on the conditions necessary for mass formation to set in, and explains why many of those conditions are being met right now.
Per Google Trends, Immediately after the podcast, interest in and searches for the term skyrocketed. And it just so happens that Malone himself had previously published an article on his Substack, expanding on the very subject he just became responsible for driving so much interest in.
And separately, as we know, the purpose of a search engine is to satisfy a person’s search by matching him with the most relevant information possible. So if someone were searching for “mass formation psychosis,” certainly Malone’s article would appear at the top, right? He is basically synonymous with the term right now. https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/k...yone-is-talking-about-with-dr-malone-n1547520
It appears Bing and Yahoo may think so. But Google, perhaps not so much.
The concept of mass formation psychosis as an explanation for our lingering nonsensical covid hysteria was brought to the masses by Dr. Robert Malone on Joe Rogan’s podcast in late December. Malone contextualizes work done by psychologist and statistician Dr. Mattias Desmet on the conditions necessary for mass formation to set in, and explains why many of those conditions are being met right now.
Per Google Trends, Immediately after the podcast, interest in and searches for the term skyrocketed. And it just so happens that Malone himself had previously published an article on his Substack, expanding on the very subject he just became responsible for driving so much interest in.
And separately, as we know, the purpose of a search engine is to satisfy a person’s search by matching him with the most relevant information possible. So if someone were searching for “mass formation psychosis,” certainly Malone’s article would appear at the top, right? He is basically synonymous with the term right now. https://pjmedia.com/uncategorized/k...yone-is-talking-about-with-dr-malone-n1547520
It appears Bing and Yahoo may think so. But Google, perhaps not so much.
Only One Argument Need Be Made Against the Biden-OSHA Mandates
Justice Kagan, the third activist stooge, argued that the OSHA mandates are “the policy most geared” to end the pandemic: to “strongly incentivize vaccination.” The weekly COVID test requirement alone presents an onerous and costly financial burden to either the unvaccinated employee or their employer, with tests costing anywhere from $100 to $200. The OSHA mandates are designed to compel vaccination, rather than incentivize vaccination.
[clip]
In fact, it has been widely reported that most of the COVID cases caused by the omicron variant are in people who are fully vaccinated and boosted. If the vaccinated and boosted are presently those most susceptible to contracting and transmitting COVID, then why in the hell would OSHA mandate that the unvaccinated be required exclusively to test weekly for COVID and wear masks indoors? Masks that health experts are now admitting are ineffective.
In the oral arguments, Justice Kagan outrageously claimed that “the best way” to prevent the spread of COVID is “for people to get vaccinated.” She argued “the second best way” is to “wear masks.”
Neither vaccines nor masks prevent the spread of COVID. And if the vaccinated can get COVID — and they can — why should OSHA only subject the unvaccinated to weekly testing and masking mandates?
Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are frauds and hacks, simply regurgitating proven lies and spreading dangerous misinformation to support the OSHA mandates. Not unlike the partisan J6 Committee, which has already falsely determined that Trump is guilty of “inciting an insurrection,” these leftist justices have already falsely determined that the OSHA mandates should be implemented.
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are as unfit for the Supreme Court as Pelosi and the J6 committee members are for Congress.
Justice Kagan, the third activist stooge, argued that the OSHA mandates are “the policy most geared” to end the pandemic: to “strongly incentivize vaccination.” The weekly COVID test requirement alone presents an onerous and costly financial burden to either the unvaccinated employee or their employer, with tests costing anywhere from $100 to $200. The OSHA mandates are designed to compel vaccination, rather than incentivize vaccination.
[clip]
In fact, it has been widely reported that most of the COVID cases caused by the omicron variant are in people who are fully vaccinated and boosted. If the vaccinated and boosted are presently those most susceptible to contracting and transmitting COVID, then why in the hell would OSHA mandate that the unvaccinated be required exclusively to test weekly for COVID and wear masks indoors? Masks that health experts are now admitting are ineffective.
In the oral arguments, Justice Kagan outrageously claimed that “the best way” to prevent the spread of COVID is “for people to get vaccinated.” She argued “the second best way” is to “wear masks.”
Neither vaccines nor masks prevent the spread of COVID. And if the vaccinated can get COVID — and they can — why should OSHA only subject the unvaccinated to weekly testing and masking mandates?
Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are frauds and hacks, simply regurgitating proven lies and spreading dangerous misinformation to support the OSHA mandates. Not unlike the partisan J6 Committee, which has already falsely determined that Trump is guilty of “inciting an insurrection,” these leftist justices have already falsely determined that the OSHA mandates should be implemented.
Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are as unfit for the Supreme Court as Pelosi and the J6 committee members are for Congress.